Page images
PDF
EPUB

such a scriptural exhibition of the truth, as is best calculated, in connexion with the influence of the Spirit, to obtain the compliance of his hearers.

Is it true, that external conduct is not included under the immediate demands of conscience? And will he have a juster sense of his guilt, whose mind is turned to a part only of the duties which he fails to perform, than he upon whom every violation and omission is distinctly pressed?

same

It may be very proper, for a preacher, on particular occasions, for the sake of exciting emotion, to confine himself to a single topic. The practice of the apostles was not inconsistent with this. They vary their mode of address, to adapt it to persons and circumstances. It may be proper to confine the attention of an awakened sinner, for days, perhaps, to one simple view of his case. But if this does not produce the desired effect, you will in vain hope to deepen his emotions, by repeating the thoughts in nearly the same forms of expression, after the influence of novelty has ceased. If you would still reach his heart, you must change the nature, or the manner, of your address; without yielding, however, any one point, in the demands of the law or the gospel. The Christian preacher has no reason to complain, that he has not an ample field for the exercise of his powers, in dealing with sinners; that he has nothing to say to them, but simply "Repent and believe." He may spend a life, in explaining and enforcing even these duties; and that, without treading always in the same beaten track. He may dwell upon every sin which his hearers are required to forsake; upon every duty which they are bound to perform; upon every truth which they are commanded to believe.

made to exhorting sinners to the immediate performance of practical duties; That it is exposing them to the danger of indulging a false hope; of resting upon external morality, as evidence of Christian character. To guard against this, it may be said, that they ought first to be satisfied that their hearts are right, by looking in upon the affections, without reference to practice. If we take the scriptures for our guide, however, we shall find that the danger lies the other way; in coming to a decision respecting our character, from the affections alone, before there is sufficient opportunity for the trial by practice. We ought to judge of our piety, not by feelings alone, nor by external conduct alone, but by both together. On this point, I have taken the liberty to quote largely from President Edwards's Treatise on the Affections. I place great reliance on his authority, as he not only has written this laboured and profound work, on the evidences of Christian character, but had great experience in powerful and extensive revivals of religion. The Treatise on the Affections was published ten or twelve years after the great revival in his own congregation Northampton; and in the interval, the writer had the advantage of great experience of the results of that remarkable work of grace; and also, of a more general revival in 1740, extending over most parts of New-England. That which he so much insists upon, as being especially scriptural evidence of Christian character, and of vastly greater importance than every thing else, is Christian practice, consisting in external obedience, together with those holy purposes which he terms imperative acts of the mind, in distinction from the views and feelings which are principally experienced in contemplation. Having enumerated various traits of Christ

at

One other objection may be ian character, as they appear in the

66

life, he adds, "Such a manifestation as has been described, of a Christian spirit in practice, is vastly beyond the fairest and brightest story of particular steps, and passages of experience, that was ever told."* "Christian practice, in the sense that has been explained, is the chief of all the evidences of a saving sincerity in religion, to the consciences of the professors of it; much to be preferred to the method of the first convictions, enlightenings, and comforts in conversion; or any immanent discoveries or exercises of grace whatsoever, that begin and end in contemplation." “True grace is not an inactive thing. There is nothing in heaven or earth, of a more active nature. It is the very nature or notion of grace, that it is a principle of holy action or practice. Regeneration has a direct relation to practice. We are created unto good works."‡ Again, holy practice is ten times more insisted on, as a note of true piety, throughout the scripture, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, than any thing else. And in the New Testament, where Christ and his apostles do expressly, and of declared purpose, lay down the signs of true godliness, this is almost wholly insisted on."§ "Christ no where says, ye shall know the tree by its leaves or flowers, or ye shall know men by their talk, or ye shall know them by the good story they tell of their experiences;-but by their fruits shall ye know them." So men's practice is the only evidence, that Christ represents the future judgment as regulated by, in that most particular description of the day, Matthew xxv. The Judge will not go about to examine men, as to the method of their experiences, or set every man to tell his story of the manner of his conver

[blocks in formation]

sion; but his works will be brought forth as evidence of what he is."* Once more, "I think it to be abundantly manifest, that Christian practice is the most proper evidence of the gracious sincerity of professors, to themselves and others; and the chief of all the works of grace, the sign of signs, the evidence of evidences, that which seals and crowns all other signs. I had rather have the testimony of my conscience, that I have such a saying of my supreme Judge on my side, as that John xiv. 21. He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; than the judgment and fullest approbation of all the wise, sound, and experienced divines, that have lived this thousand years, on the most exact and critical examination of my experiences, as to the manner of my conversion."t

If the views of Edwards on this subject are correct, is it not evident that the danger of deception is far greater, when self-examination is confined to the state of the affections, at the commencement of a religious course, than when the practical duties of life are taken into the account, in connection with the feelings of the heart? And have we not reason to believe, that many fail of finding peace in religion, by seeking it in the affections only, while they live in the neglect of outward acts of obedience. Can we be justified in leading any to suppose that a well grounded evidence of their own Christian character, can be obtained, while they are living in the omission of those practical duties, from which scriptural evidence is principally to be derived?

"It is greatly to the hurt of religion," says President Edwards, "for persons to make light of, and insist little on those things which the scripture insists most upon, as

*Vol. iv. 393. + p. 394..

of most importance in the evidence of our interest in Christ ;-depending on our ability to make nice distinctions in these matters, and a faculty of accurate discerning in them, from philosophy or experience. It is in vain to seek for any better or any further signs than those that the scriptures have most expressly mentioned, and most frequently insisted on, as signs of godliness. They who pretend to a greater accuracy in giving signs, are but subtil to darken their own minds and the minds of others; their refinings and nice discernings are, in God's sight, but refined foolishness and a sagacious delusion."* "Unless we suppose, that when Christ and his apostles, on design, set themselves about this business of giving signs, by which professing Christians in all ages might determine their state, they did not know how to choose signs, so well as we could have chosen for them."t "It is strange how hardly men are brought to be contented with the rules and directions which Christ has given them, but they must needs go by other rules of their own inventing, that seem to them wiser and better. I know of no directions or counsels which Christ ever delivered more plainly than the rules he has given us, to guide us in our judging of others' sincerity, viz. that we should judge of the tree chiefly by the fruit. But yet this will not do; but other ways are found out, which are imagined to be more distinguishing and certain. And woful have been the mischievous consequences of this arrogant setting up men's wisdom above the wisdom of Christ."

But if a life of godliness is the grand evidence of grace in the heart, are we to tell the sinner he must first ascertain that he is a Christian, before we can give him

*Vol.iv. 414. tp.338. pp. 113, 114.

any directions concerning practical duties? that he must first learn that his heart is changed; that he must show us his faith without his works; and then we will put him in the way of deciding by the scriptural rule, what has been previously decided without this rule? Is there no danger in thus hurrying him to settle this most momentous point, before he has even an opportunity of applying the test of character given in the Bible? Is he to be called upon, not only to repent immediately, but immediately to entertain a hope that he is converted? As on the one hand, the salvation of the soul is hazarded by a moment's delay of repentance; may it not, on the other hand, be hazarded by want of delay, in coming to the conclusion, that heaven is already secured? If we may not directa man to the performance of practical duties till we are convinced that he is a Christian; we must either judge of his state by other rules than those of scripture; or we must wait till he has found his way to a godly life, without our directions. Are we not getting too much into the way of looking, for evidences of grace, principally to the commencement and the close of a religious life; to the first comforts of the supposed convert, and the last broken expressions of his dying bed?

66

In the application of the promises and the threatenings of the Bible, a wide difference is to be made between saints and sinners. 'Say ye to the righteous, it shall be well with him. Woe to the wicked, for it shall be ill with him." But in prescribing duties to be performed, it is not always necessary that the preacher should know, whether those whom he addresses are pious or not. Immediate repentance, obedience, and faith, are to be enjoined upon both saints and sinners. NATHAN.

To the Editor of the Christian Spectator.

A REVIEW of "Two Discourses on the Nature of Sin," which appeared in the Churchman's Magazine for November; and the communication of a correspondent in the number just issued, for January, who has remarked upon those Discourses; have, each, attracted my notice, and, perhaps, the notice of many of your readers. I have felt that the duty devolved upon me, peculiarly, as the author of those discourses, to examine the remarks of others made upon them; and to avail myself of every means which these might furnish for illustrating the real truth on the subjects of which they treat for to no sect or teacher on earth am I so much bound as to my Master in Heaven, and the truth is that which, as his servant, it becomes me to seek for myself, and to inculcate upon others. Perhaps your readers will not take it amiss, if I present to them a few thoughts which have occurred to my own mind on reading the abovenamed articles.

A word only respecting the correspondent. Not alluding to the artificial terrors with which he playfully surrounds me as the official and uncontradictable dictator to my brethren, it is sufficient to examine the judgment which, he declares, has passed from my lips, and by which he diverts attention from a charge made against the Bishop of New-York: Your depravity is not your crime, but your misfortune.' He who derives, from discourses which were intended to resolve human depravity simply into the sinful acting of men, an inference so directly contrary to their purport, must, it would seem, have been either very inattentive to the discourses, or else much blinded by his own unthinking familiarity with the strange position. "Certainly, in the judgment of the learned professor, it VOL. I.-No. I.

3

[man's depravity] is not morally or metaphysically, in the abstract or by consequence, his crime"!Where has the learned professor" passed this judgment? In what he says of the nature of sin? But that he resolves into acts of free agency. In what he says of total depravity? But that he resolves into a continued train of such acting. In what he says of the ground of certainty that each descendant of Adam will sustain this character of total depravity? But that, so far as he represents it not to be the crime of the individual, he distinguishes from his depravity itself to which it gives rise. Where then has the professor given such judgment?

I pass to the reviewer. He begins with remarks on the arguments used in the Discourses. To contend about the strength of an argument would be folly; but to relieve it from misapprehension is an act of justice to him who uses it and to the truth. In commenting on the two first proofs, the reviewer evidently proceeds upon an erroneous view of their nature. Had I reasoned from these proofs, viz. the operations of conscience, and the universal sentiments of men, in the manner in which he supposes me to have done; that is, that conscience is a sufficient and infallible guide to truth, and that the sentiments of men are the model after which God forms his own sentiments; I should, indeed, have been an extremely weak reasoner, and deserved far severer animadversions than those gentle ones bestowed upon me. For, why should I ask a revelation from God, if, on all matters of truth and duty, I already had a sufficient and infallible one within me? or, why should I receive a revelation when presented to me, if I could receive one from no being but such as had already looked to man for the formation of his sentiments?

The obscurity which he finds in

the discourses, (and for which he accuses me of taxing my readers with a labour and perplexity overbalancing the profit,) may be the reason why he has misapprehended the nature of these arguments. The two I have virtually resolved into one; and the manner in which I suppose they yield us a probable evidence respecting the moral government of God, I have stated explicitly under the first of the two. In the Elements of Euclid, in the Principia of Newton, and indeed in every species of reasoning it is sufficient for the completeness of the proof, to state explicitly each step of the process once. Would it affect the real force of the reasoning to state it over twice, or to repeat it thrice? A very condensed view of the argument was given by me once, and I thought it sufficient for those who were willing to weigh and carefully consider. No others, from the very nature of the subject, could I invite to enter with me upon the investigation.

The proposition was essentially this that for which God blames and punishes men in his moral government over the world is, invariably, conduct in distinction from that which is not conduct. For sources of proof, I adverted to two facts: one, that conscience does always, invariably, and necessarily, under whatever external means of education and influence men are placed, confine her decisions to conduct in distinction from that which is not conduct, the other, that men in their intercourse with one another and in the execution of laws, do always and invariably, pass the sentence of ill desert on others for conduct in distinction from that which is not conduct. My sole object was to separate the voluntary action of moral agents from all involuntary states, or properties, or relations of such agents, and in this broad separation of conduct from other things, I thought myself, and still think myself justified, in stating the facts to

be uniform, unchanging, and unalterable, implanted in the very constitution of man. Nor had I a word to say here, (nor should I think it relevant had it been said) respecting the changes which it is possible should occur, or which have actually occurred, in classing the various species of conduct into the moral varieties of the approved and the disapproved, the right and the wrong. Let all the fluctuation which the reviewer has asserted may arise from the adoption of dif ferent religious opinions be conceded to him; yet what shall decisions which are conversant wholly with different species of conduct, make against the assertion, that these decisions always respect conduct? and conduct only?

Now these are the facts on which the two first arguments are founded; and they are applied to support the proposition, on this one principle that in these invariable and necessary convictions of mankind, convictions necessarily springing from their original constitution as moral agents-God has indicated (to a degree which to say the least is highly probable) that in his moral government over the world, He Himself confines the obligations of his subjects to their voluntary conduct. He would not so constitute a race of moral and accountable agents, as that by their very constitution they should be irresistibly led to the conviction of a fundamental error concerning his government. The argument is one of moral probability, it is true; yet to one who is disposed to believe, that God indicates his designs in his works, or that he will act in accordance with the constitution he ori

ginally gives to his subjects; it will appear to be an applicable argument and one that carries with it some weight and conclusiveness.

Whether the presentation of such arguments be "entirely creditable to my power of reasoning," or not, must be left with others to say:

« PreviousContinue »