THE CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR. No. 6.] JUNE 1, 1824. Keligious Communications. On the spirit which should characterize the Discussion of the "Doctrines of Grace." If there is any class of religious opinions, in the support of which a true humility and tenderness of spirit should be manifested, it is that system which includes what are sometimes called the doctrines of grace. It is indeed melancholy, I will not say surprising, since, through the influence of human perversity, it is so common, but it is melancholy to see with what heat and ill temper men have disputed about the meaning of that message of mercy sent to us from heaven. Most of us have occasion to be ashamed that we do not set ourselves in a kinder spirit to help each other's understanding, and correct each other's misapprehensions of that volume of truth on which we alike build all our choicest hopes. But on some accounts it is particularly displeasing to see violence and animosity in those who maintain the opinions referred to above. According to this system of doctrine, men are entirely depraved,have no true holiness, until they are renewed in the temper of their minds. Now, who that remembers that he is himself a man, and has to remember also that a large portion of his own life, perhaps far the largest portion of it, was passed before any such renewal, can set himself to the defence of the doctrine, and not find dying away within him all pride of opinion, all hotness of contention? And when he seems to VOL. VI.-No. 6. 37 [VOL. VI. himself to have established his point beyond all possibility of fair dispute, and shown the weakness of all the arguments and objections of his opponents, how can he find it in his heart to speak of victory, to exult in the conclusiveness of his argument, to please himself with his success in proving that men are more wicked than another supposes? I cannot help fearing that such a man forgets be is in the same condemnation with his fellow men. All the suppositions which crowd upon me as illustrations of this weak and wicked state of mind, are so shocking that I cannot employ them. The means by which the heart of man comes to be renewed is another subject of enquiry. And, according to the system of doctrine of which am speaking, all other means are inadequate without a peculiar influence exerted by God himself. This doctrine of the special influence of the Spirit can furnish as little as the preceding to gratify human pride; and when we have proved it most plainly from the scriptures, how can we lose the thought of our own miserable helplessness, or suppress a melancholy feeling of the ruined condition of our race, so far as to manifest any severity toward an opponent, or any complacency in the strength of our own argument? Again: It is maintained by the same class of theologians, that this assistance of the Spirit, so necessary to the renewing of our minds, and of course, to our salvation, may be giv. en, or may be withheld by its author, without any just cause of complaint on the part of any of us; and that nothing we do before it is given can lay God under any obligation to bestow it, on the ground either of justice or of promise. Yet who can rise up from the search into the doctrine of God's sovereignty, his memory stored with those passages that thus shut him up in the hands of an offended sovereign, and his mind still dwelling on the connexion of this truth with all else that is most humbling and distressing in the scripture account of our condition,-can think for a moment of him who gainsays this truth, with any feeling of scorn or superiority, or speak of him but with the kind concern that is so naturally and properly felt for each other by companions in peril, and which should not be least toward those who are least sensible of their danger. It is another article of faith usually held along with the foregoing, that in thus bestowing the influence of his grace, and in all else that he does to prepare some of our race for heaven, and the enjoyment of his favour there, God is acting in accordance with purposes that existed in his own mind from before the creation of the world,--hath chosen some to salvation who are thus "elect of God." Perhaps nothing found in the scriptures has been more violently assailed and more warmly defended than this truth. Its defence is sometimes conducted in a temper entirely gentle and conciliating. At other times it is maintained with less propriety. Of some who maintain it, one can hardly help suspecting that they not ouly believe themselves of the number of those whom God has purposed to save, but also imagine that God had such purposes respecting them on account of something in themselves; if not any good thing before their renewal, yet some less degree of wickedness, or, perhaps, some fitness or capacity for greater virtue or usefulness afterwards. It is to be sure a part of the doctrine of election, by whomsoever held, that the purpose of God not only existed before the formation of those whom it respects, but is irrespective of their character and conduct; that is, the purpose of God to save any one is not to be considered as proceeding upon the foresight of the conduct of the individuals. And this is the consideration which at the same time makes the doctrine difficult to be received by a mind not well conformed to the gospel, and secures it from abuse or perversion by him who is thus conformed. From the want of such an entire conformity, they who hold and take upon themselves the office of defending this great and difficult truth, have shown a spirit ill suited to recommend the doctrine. They have spoken too little as if they felt that the doctrine had an application to themselves; too much as if they belonged to a privileged class, possessing distinctions, which constituted not only their happiness, but their honor and boast. No knowledge of what the scriptures teach on this point, no skill in stating the arguments drawn from revelation or other sources, no ingenuity in clearing the doctrine from objections, can so much benefit the cause of truth, in our day certainly, as it will be injured by a proud and contemptuous manner of treating opponents. Those who receive the doctrines which have been made the subject of remark, commonly entertain the most serious apprehensions respecting the future condition of those, who do not come to repentance. On this subject the New Testament has given a fulness and certainty to our knowledge, not furnished by the Old; and the revelation it makes is so awful that I have long imagined it was not made more clearly in the Old Testament, because God had not then made so distinct and impressive an exhibition of his mercy and goodness as is contained in the New, and as now helps our poor and narrow minds more readily to be point in mathematics, or even in politics? How can he sum up the conclusive proofs furuished by his well formed argument, with the same glow of satisfaction and throb of success with which he would finish a triumphant defence of injured innocence? I will not say I have seen or heard it done just thus. But I have often seen and heard these doctrines maintained with very little of that seriousness and tenderness of mind which the discussion of them ought to produce in every man who is capable of sympathizing with the miserable. It is no matter of gratulation that man is so sinful,-entirely sinful before renewal. It is no occasion of pride that his sins make him so helpless as to have no hope of recovery but in sovereign grace. It is no mat lieve that the utmost severities with which he will visit the impenitent, are consistent with his justice. For who has not when turning over the passages of scripture, which teach the never ending sufferings of the impenitent, felt his persuasion of God's justice and goodness, notwithstanding this severity, strengthened and confirmed by the thoughts of his mercy in Christ. But however clear may be the justice of thus disposing of the wicked, the importance and awfulness of the truth is overwhelming. And nothing can be more painful,-more shocking, than to see men contending about it with any degree of lightness, or displeasure at each other. Yet both sides of this most awful subject have been handled by combatants full of wit and satire, of bitterness and pride. Now, though all religious discus-ter of joy that so tremendous an evil sion ought to be serious, and both parties, especially on such points as characterize the system sometimes called Evangelical, ought to maintain entire candour and gentleness, yet there seems to be something particularly unsuitable and out of place, when the advocates of these serious truths give way to human passious. For, what is the object of their exertions? To establish the fact that all men and themselves in the number, are covered with sin and shame, without any portion of holiness till God sends his gracious influence into their hearts-That this influence cannot be claimed by them in consequence of any thing done by them on the ground of either justice or promise, that if this influence is not bestowed on them, there is nothing but a fearful expectation of such punishments as fill every heart with dismay, and that all this is just. Oh, who can contend for this inheritance of sin and shame, this state of danger and helplessness, and this prospect of woe interminable, and do it with the same animation and spirit, the same bravery and flouting of his opponents, with which he would carry on a dispute about a awaits the unrighteous. These are all distressing truths. There is no man but must wish the sin, the helplessness, the danger, less. Every man in his senses must wish he and all his fellow-men were better, stronger, safer. Those who believe he is more so than our views allow us to believe, may think they have a more cheerful argument, and possibly think themselves at times allowed to maintain it in a lighter strain. If they do, their example is not suited to our imitation. We can find no joy in victory over them in the argument, to cheer the melancholy produced by the result of it,--by the conclusion that we are ruined, unable to recover ourselves, and liable to be overtaken by evils as just as they are severe. The serious and alarming character of these truths should not indeed prevent our holding and maintaining them with firmness and constancy. In proportion to their seriousness should be our care rightly to understand them ourselves, and recommend them to the acceptance of others. We should thus recommend them by the most distinct and explicit statement of their proofs. It may be necessary to repeat these proofs and to state over and over the doctrines themselves. But in doing this we should be very careful not to strain the proofs, nor overstate the doctrines. In so doing we should seem to betray an eagerness to prove ourselves guilty and miserable and helpless, and a satisfaction in contemplating and describing the guilt and wretchedness of our condition. Than this, nothing could be more unfortunate, more likely to prevent our being benefitted by the truth, and to render it repulsive to others. This injury to ourselves and others is always produced to some extent, whenever we mix with the discussion or defence of these truths any portion of the temper of the mere disputant. The doctrines above referred to make a part of that system of religious belief, which is generally received in this country, and has, I think, been generally received in every age of the Christian Church where the Gospel has had its most complete and happy influence. They may be called the distinguishing features of that system, for some or most of them are excluded from the more common schemes of error that have been introduced into the Church. Yet they are far from making up the whole, or indeed the principal part of the system to which they belong. Of course they should not be the only topics of public instruction, nor wholly engross our minds in seasons of religious meditation. True and important as they doubtless are, they are not more so than many other parts of the same system. The existence of God, his creation and preservation of all things, his boundless power and knowledge, the perfect justice of his government, his spotless purity, the tenderness of his love to the obedient, the greatness of his mercy to offenders, the means he employs for their recovery, his readiness to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him, the preparation made for the future It happiness of the righteous, the fulness and the security of the rest to be enjoyed in those heavenly mansions, with all his "loving kindness and tender mercy," and all the grace and compassion of our Lord, and a great number of other topics are themes on which the preacher will delight to dwell in his public ministrations, and the christian in his pri vate meditations. By neglecting the contemplation of these and similar truths, and giving too large a share of our attention to those which are peculiar to our system, we impair our own religious enjoyment, and retard our progress in piety. A similar preference of these topics by those who conduct our public religious services, and a predominance of them in what is published on the subject of religion must be injurious; and will be particularly hurtful to the cause of truth. makes man forget, it is well if we do not ourselves forget, that a great body of most important and interesting doctrines is held by us in common. And though this common reception of them may not make it necessary to handle them often in the way of discussion, we ought on this very account to dwell on them more in the way of contemplation and practical application. This, I say, we ought to do not only for our own satisfaction and advancement in religion, but also as the most effectual means of commending to others those less pleasing truths first mentioned. It would prove such a means, not only by producing a more favourable opinion of our own candour and goodness, our love and esteem of all the truth, and thus disposing them to look into our system and our defence of it, with more kindness of temper and openness of mind, but our system itself would thus be presented to them in a juster form. For the character of a system depends not merely on the presence or absence of certain parts, but very much also on the position and relative magnitude of those parts. Now the due relation of the parts of the evangelical system, both as to position and magnitude, will not be preserved by us, certainly will not be perceived by those who do not study it carefully, where a few points receive a very disproportionate attention. And when, as in the present case, these points are particularly offensive to inany, and humbling to all, it is not strange that the whole body of our religious views and sentiments taken as a whole, is thought by some to be less encouraging and cheful than it really is: and truth is thus often placed in circumstances of unnecessary difficulty. The Strength of Sin. A SERMON. E. K. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.-Romans VII. 23. Whether, as some suppose, the Apostle is here describing the conflict between conscience and the sinful propensities of the heart; or whether, as others suppose, he is describing the conflict between religious principle, and the sin which remains in the soul that is partially sanctified, it must be allowed, that he is delineating the strength of sin. The object of the present discourse, will be, to exhibit, by an induction of facts, the strength of sin, in the human mind. And we will measure its strength by the strength of principles and feelings which it must overpower, before it brings us into captivity and subjection to its influence. Let us view its strength as exhibited in the conduct of men, in reference to the present life. It overpowers the love of reputation.-Man is a social being. He seeks the friendship and respect of those around, with avidity and dili gence. Attack his reputation, and you arouse all the indignation of his soul. He appeals for redress to the laws of his country, and he rarely appeals in vain. Sometimes too, to the disgrace of our nature, he seizes on the sword of vengance, which public happiness has wisely trusted to public tribunals only, and vainly seeks reparation in the blood of his enemy. Yet this reputation which is so often sought in blood and guarded at the expense of blood, exercises less influence over the mind than is exercised by sin. Cast your eye over the community, and how many will you see sinning, to the ruin of their reputation? How many who ardently desire the respect of others, forfeit that respect rather than deny themslves the indulgences of sin ?— Keen is the pang they suffer while they witness the decay of once blushing honors; death-like is the sensation when they witness those who formerly admired their amiableness or talents, now shrinking from their society, or coldly extending the reluctant hand;-yet they bear it, rather than break from the influence of sin.Facts, then, teach, that the love of sin is stronger than our love of reputation.— The strength of sin overpowers our love of ease.—Some men seem to delight in activity for its own sake; but the mass of mankind are roused to energy only by the spur of want, or the hope of securing provision for future ease. Yet you will find men under the influence of sin, endure fatigue and privations which are almost without a parallel in the efforts of the pious. They sleep not, except they do evil. Many a profligate will make more exertion to meet an assembly as vile as himself, than he would to secure either the salvation of his soul, or the comfortable support of his body.-And to our shame be it spoken, he will break through more obstacles to reach the seat of scorners, than some christians to go to the altar of God. |