I have observed with much concern, when God hath wrought such a mighty operation of grace in the heart of a man, like NEWTON, that this man has not, upon such a saving change being wrought, suited the religious taste of the persons just mentioned. They will, indeed, commend his external change of conduct; but will by no means relish his broken and contrite spirit, or his ascription of the change to free and unmerited favour, and his counting all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, as that Lord who hath thus called him from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. They will not relish the zeal and evangelical strain of his preaching; his endeavour to alarm a stupid, sleeping conscience, to probe a deceitful heart, to expose the wretchedness of the world, and to rend the veil from formality and hypocrisy: nay, they will rather prefer some dry moralist, or mere formalist, who, instead of having experienced any such change of heart, will rather revile it.

Again, I have observed a lamentable disposition of mind in such persons to form false and unfavourable associations. They will pay too much attention to injurious representations, true or false, of a religious class of mankind, whom the world has branded with some general term of reproach. Two or three ignorant or extravagant fanatics shall be admitted to represent the religious world at large; it not being considered how much such offensive characters are actually grieving those whose cause I am pleading. No one, indeed, can have lived long in society, but he must needs have met the counterfeit of every excellence. In the article of property, for instance, who is not on the watch lest he should be imposed on? And, while the love of property is so general, who is not studious to discover the difference between the true and the false? It will be so in religion, wherever there is the attention which its worth so imperiously demands. Love has a piercing eye, which will discover its object

in a crowd. But, if there be this disposition to confound in the lump the precious with the vile, it is symptomatic of something morbid in the heart. We have reason to fear a latent aversion, in the persons offended, from vital and spiritual religion; notwithstanding all the allowance that can be made for the prevailing prejudices of their education and circumstances.

And here also, we cannot but lament the effect of such a disposition in those perverse conclusions which these persons are often observed to draw from a sermon. Of the two handles which attach to every thing, what must we think of that mind which is ever choosing the wrong? Our Lord, for instance, shows how much the farm, the oxen, and the wife, became impediments in the way of those, who refused his invitation but a perverse conclusion would infer that he was, therefore, an enemy to lawful engagements. Candour, however, sees, at a glance, that this was not his design in speaking the parable. His drift was evidently to mark the state and spirit of the recusants; and not to discountenance their lawful occupations. He meant to show that even lawful pursuits may be unlawfully pursued, when they become sole objects, and are thus preferred to his inestimable proposal. It is thus the well disposed hearer will mark the design of his minister; and draw wholesome nourishment from that discourse, which another will turn to poison, by stopping to cavil at the letter.

Another objection arises from the affinity which characters of this class have with a world which lieth in wickedness. In this instance of their worldly attachments, their charity will readily cover a multitude of sins, and form excuses for serious breaches of both tables of the Law, in their worldly friends. They appear in their element while in the society of these friends, especially if wealthy and accomplished. If any person's ear is wounded with a profane expression from one of their rich or fashionable acquaint38*

VOL. I.

ance, they are ready to whisper that, "notwithstanding his unguarded language, he has yet upon the whole one of the best of hearts." Yet an infallible monitor has said, Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? If the old maxim does not always hold good, that "a man is known by the company he keeps," it will infallibly stand good if we add one word to it, namely, that "a man is known by the company he chooses to keep." The physician may be detained in an infectious chamber, and the lawyer be found conversing with his client in a shower of rain but nobody will infer from thence, that the one chooses to breathe foul air, or that the other chooses to be wet to his skin. While the true Christian, therefore, will avoid inurbanity, fanaticism, or becoming the dupe of any religious party, he will also join the Psalmist in declaring, I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts.

Again, these moral and religious characters, whom I am labouring to convince of their errors, have been observed to be more disposed to nurse, than to examine their prejudices against a minister of Mr. N.'s principles. "His teaching," say they, "tends to divide a parish, or a family." But why do they not examine the reason? Why do they not consider, that introducing good has ever been the occasion of disturbing evil? I recollect a great family, whose servants were in a ferment, because one truly conscien

tious man was found among them. "He will spoil the place," was their term, because he would not connive at their iniquity. But let me ask, what was to be blamed in this affair? his integrity, or their corruption? The Master understood the case, and valued his servant in proportion as he marked the division. And thus it is in religion, while moving in a blind and corrupt world. Christ, though the Prince of Peace, expressly declared that his doctrine would

be the occasion of much division in the world; that he came not to send peace, but a sword: that he should be the occasion of family variance, &c. Mat. x, 34, 35; and warns his disciples of what they must expect, while they endeavoured faithfully to conduct his interests. Plain matter of fact declares, that, to maintain truth, has been the occasion of the suffering state of the true Church in all ages, and that often unto the death of its innumerable martyrs. But, should a man who reads his Bible, or has any regard for the interests of truth, need to have this explained?

Another mistake might be exposed, in the stale objection, that such principles as Mr. N.'s tend to injure the interests of morality, from his strictly adhering to the doctrine of our eleventh article, on justification by faith. I would hope that this objection arises, in many, from a very slight acquaintance with the subject. It requires, indeed, but little attention to mark how expressly the Scriptures maintain our justification on the sole merit of our Redeemer, while they as fully maintain the necessity of our sanctification or holiness by his Spirit. It has been repeatedly proved, by sound and incontestible arguments, that these two grand fundamentals of our religion are so far from opposing each other, either in Scripture or in experience, that, when real, they are found inseparable. But, because this is not the place to either state or defend this doctrine at large, it may help such as have hitherto stumbled respecting it, to observe an illustration and proof of this position, in the matter of fact just now presented to their view.

To one willing to learn, I would say, What proof would you require of the practical tendency of principles like Mr. N.'s? We bring you, in his history, a most deplorable instance of human depravity and moral disorder. What experiment should be tried to recover this wretched creature to God and to him

self? Regard, I say, the fact in this man's history. You will find that his recovery was not brought about by such considerations as are urged in what are termed moral or rational discourses; but, on the contrary, by such truths as he laboured throughout his ministry to establish, not only from the Scriptures, but from his own experience of their efficacy. He dwelt on truths which are essential and peculiar to Christianity: such as the guilt and utter depravity of our fallen nature, whereby man is become an alien and apostate from his God; his inability to recover himself without the grace of the Holy Spirit; the necessity of regeneration by the same Spirit; and of faith in the Redeemer, not only as the alone ground of his justification before God, but as the root and motive of all acceptable obedience and good works. "If I wanted a man to fly," said Mr. Ñ., "I must contrive to find him wings; and, thus, if I would successfully enforce moral duties, I must advance evangelical motives." He preached truths like these, constantly and fervently; and he lived a consistent example of them.

Thus, in all things approving himself a true disciple and minister of Christ, those who knew him, know that, without making any odious comparison, it might be literally affirmed of Mr. N., that "by pureness, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, his mouth was opened and his heart enlarged toward men."

I trust it is from a pure motive, that I am endeavouring to convince persons of the class which I am addressing, of their mistake. And I am the more induced to bring a case in point before them, because I think it cannot be paralleled as an instance of the power of religion, among those who labour to keep up prejudices against ministers of Mr. N.'s character; or who, by unfair or partial statements, strive to sub