government some years ago so little consult the prejudices of the people, as nearly to produce an insurrection, by issuing an edict for them to reliuquish the ancient national dress? Why was the security of the state, and the lives of the subjects put to hazard for a cloak and a jerkin? For the obstinate people made as firm a stand against this trifling requisition, as they could have made for the preservation of their civil or religious liberty, if they had been so happy as to possess either-a stand as firm as they are now nobly making in defence of their country and their independence.

Without invidiously enumerating any of the narrowing names which split Christianity in pieces, and which so unhappily drive the subjects of the Prince of Peace into interminable war, and range them into so many hostile bands, not against the common enemy, but against each other; we cannot forbear regretting that less temper is preserved among these near neighbours in local situation and in Christian truth, than if the attack of either were levelled at Jews, Turks, or Infidels.

excite a prejudice against it, nor to make any concessions in the hope of obtaining popularity. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men,' can no more mean that we should exercise that false candour which conciliates at the expense of sincerity, than that we should defend the truth with so intolerant a spirit, as to injure the cause by discrediting the advocate.

As the apostle beautifully obtests his brethren, not by the power and dignity, but 'by the meekness and gentleness of Christ,' so every Christian should adorn his doctrine by the same endearing qualities, evincing by the brightness of the polish, the solidity of the substance. But he will carefully avoid adopting the external appearance of these amiable tempers as substitutes for picty, when they are only its ornaments. Condescending manners may be one of the numberless modifications of selfishness, and reputation is thus often obtained, where it is not fairly earned. Carefully to examine whether he pleased others, for their good to edification, or in order to gain praise and popularity, is the bounden duty of a Christian.

Is this that catholic spirit which embraces with the love of charity, though not of approba. We should not be angry with the blind for tion, the whole offspring of our common Father not seeing, nor with the proud for not acknow. -which in the arms of its large affection, with-ledging their blindness. We ourselves perhaps out vindicating their faults or adopting their were once as blind; happy if we are not still as opinions, takes every creature in of every kind,' proud. If not in this instance, in others perand which like its gracious Author, would not haps they might have made more of our advan that any thing should perish?' tages than we have done; we, under their circumstances might have been more perversely wrong than they are, had we not been treated by the enlightened with more patient tenderness than we are disposed to exercise towards them. Tyre and Sidon, we are assured by truth itself, would have repented, had they enjoyed the pri vileges which Chorazin and Bethsaida throw away. Surely we may do that for the love of God, and for the love of our opponent's soul, which well-bred men do through a regard to politeness. Why should a Christian be more ready to offend against the rule of charity than a gen. tleman against the rule of decorum? Candour in judging is like disinterestedness in acting; both are statutes of the royal law.

The preference of remote to approximating opinion is, however, by no means confined to the religious world. The Author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, though so passionate an admirer of the prophet of Arabia as to raise a suspicion of his own Islamism; though so rapturous an eulogist of the apostate Julian as to raise a suspicion of his own polytheism, yet with an inconsistency not uncommon to unbelief, he treats the stout orthodoxy of the vehement Athanasius, with more respect than he shows to the scanty creed' of a contemporary philosopher and theologian, whose cold and comfortless doctrines were much less removed from

his own.

Might not the twelve monsters which even the incredible strength and labour of Hercules found so hard to subdue, be interpreted as an ingenious allegory, by which were meant twelve popular prejudices? But though the hero went forth armed preternaturally, the goddess of Wisdom herself furnishing him with his helmet, and the god of eloquence with his arrows, yet it is not certain that he conquered the religious prejudices, not of the world, but even of Argos and Mycena; at least they were not among his earlier conquests; they were not serpents which an infant hand could strangle. They were more probably the fruitful hydra, which lost nothing by losing a head, a new head always starting up to supply the incessant decapitation. But though he slew the animal at last, might not its envenomed gore in which his arrows were dip. ped be the perennial fountain in which persecuting bigotry, harsh intolerance, and polemical acrimony, have continued to dip their pens!

It is a delicate point to hit upon, neither to vindicate the truth in so coarse a manner as to

There is also a kind of right which men feel they possess to their own opinion. With this right it is often more difficult to part than even with the opinion itself. If our object be the real good of our opponent; if it be to promote the cause of truth, and not to contest for victory, we shall remember this. We shall consider what a value we put upon our own opinion: why should his, though a false one, be less dear to him, if he believe it true? This consideration will teach us not to expect too much at first. It will teach us the prudence of seeking some general point, in which we cannot fail to agree. This will let him see that we do not differ from him for the sake of differing; which conciliating spirit of ours may bring him to a temper to listen to arguments on topics where our disagreement is wider.

In disputing, for instance, with those who wholly reject the divine authority of the scriptures, we can gain nothing by quoting them, and insisting vehemently on the proof which is to be drawn from them, in support of the point

incident with their former taste. Questions of criticism, of grammar, of history, of metaphy. sics, of mathematics, and of all the sciences meet us, in the very place of that which saint Paul tells us is the end of all,'-that is, 'Charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned, from which' he adds, some having swerved, have turned aside to vain jangling.'*

in debate their unquestionable truth availing, and find it composed of materials but too e nothing with those who do not allow it. But if we take some common ground, on which both the parties can stand, and reason, from the analogies of natural religion, and the way in which God proceeds in the known and acknowledged course of his providence, to the way in which he deals with us, and has declared he will deal with us, as the God revealed in the Bible; our opponent may be struck with the similarity and be put upon a track of consideration, and be brought to a teinper in considering which may terminate in the happiest manner. He may be brought at length to be less averse from listening to us, on those grounds and principles of which probably he might otherwise never have seen the value.

Where a disputant of another description cannot endure what he sneeringly calls the strictness of evangelical religion, he will have no objection to acknowledge the momentous truths of man's responsibility to his Maker, of the omniscience, omnipresence, majesty and purity of God. Strive then to meet him on these grounds, and respectfully inquire if he can sincerely affirm that he is acting up to the truths he acknowledges ?—If he is living in all respects as an accountable being ought to live?If he is really conscious of acting as a being ought to act, who knows that he is continually acting under the eye of a just and holy God? You will find he cannot stand on these grounds. Either he must be contented to receive the truth 'as revealed in the gospel, or be convicted of inconsistency, or self-deceit, or hypocrisy; you will at least drive him off his own ground which he will find untenable, if you cannot bring him over to yours. But while the enemy is effecting his retreat, do not you cut off the means of his return?

Some Christians approve Christianity as it is knowledge, rather than as it is principle. They like it as it yields a grand object of pursuit; as it enlarges their view of things, as opens to them a wider field of inquiry; a fresh source of discovery, an additional topic of critical investigation. They consider it rather as extending the limits of their research, than as a means of ennobling their affections. It furnishes their understanding with a fund of riches on which they are eager to draw, not so much for the improvement of the heart as of the intellect. They consider it as a thesis on which to raise interesting discussion, rather than as premises from which to draw practical conclusions; as an incontrovertible truth, rather than as a rule of life. There is something in the exhibition of sacred subjects given us by these persons, which according to our conception, is not only mistaken but pernicious. We refer to their treatment of religion as a mere science divested of its practical application, and taken rather as a code of philosophical speculations than of active principles. To explain our meaning, we might perhaps venture to except against the choice of topics almost exclusively made by these writers. After they have spent half a life upon the evidences, the mere vestibule, so necessary, we allow, to be passed into the temple of Christi. anity, we accompany them into their edifice,

We are very far from applying the latter term to all scientific discussions in religion, of which we should be the very last to deny the use, or question the necessity. Our main objeetion lies to the preponderance given to such topics by our controversialists in their divinity, and to the spirit too often manifested in their discussions. A preponderance it is, which makes us sometimes fear they cousider these things rather as religion itself, than as helps to understand it, as the substitutes, not the allies of devotion. At the same time, a cold and philosophical spirit, often studiously maintained, seems to confirm the suspicion, that religion with them is not accidentally, but essentially, and solely an exercise of the wits, and a field for the display of intellectual prowess-as if the salvation of souls were a thing by the by.

·

These prize fighters in theology remind us of the philosophers of other schools: we feel as if we were reading Newton against Des Cartes, or the theory of caloric in opposition to phlogis ton. Nous le regardons,' says the eloquent Saurin upon some religious subject, pour la plupart, de la meme maniere, dont on envisage les ide es d'un ancien philosophe sur le gouverne. ment.'-The practical part of religion in short is forgotten, is lost in its theories; and what is worst of all, a temper hostile to the spirit of Christianity is employed to defend or illustrate its positions.

The latter effect might be traced beyond the foregoing causes, to another nearly allied to them-the habit of treating religion as a science capable of demonstration. On a subject evidently admitting but of moral evidence, we lament to see questions dogmatically proved, instead of being temperately argued. Nay we could almost smile at the sight of some intricate and barren novelty in religion, demonstrated to the satisfaction of some one ingenious theorist, who draws upon himself instantly a hundred confutations of every position he maintains. The ulterior stages of the debate are often such as might make angels weep.' And when we remember that even in the most important questions, involving eternal interests, probability is the yery guide of life,'t we could most devoutly wish, that on subjects, to say the least, not generally necessary to salvation,' infallibility were not the claim of the disputant, or personal animosity the condition of his failure.

Such speculatists who are more anxious to make proselytes to an opinion, than converts to a principle, will not be so likely to convince an

* See 1 Tim. i, 5, 6, also verse 4, in which the apostle hints at certain fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly edifying which is by faith. We dare not say how closely this description

applies to some modern controvertists in theology. f Butler's Introduction to The Analogy.'

opponent, as the Christian who is known to acting to ourselves promises which do not belong up to his convictions, and whose genuine piety to us, particularly that which is attached to the will put life and heart into his reasonings. The last beatitude. When our fame is attacked, let opponent probably knows already all the inge- us carefully inquire, if we are suffering for nious arguments which books supply. Inge- righteousness' sake,' or for our own faults; let nuity therefore, if he be a candid man, will not us examine, whether we may not deserve the be so likely to touch him, as that godly sin- censures we have incurred. Even if we are cerity' which he cannot but perceive the heart suffering in the cause of God, may we not have of his antagonist is dictating to his lips. There brought discredit on that holy cause by our imis a simple energy in pure Christian truth which prudence, our obstinacy, our vanity; by our zeal a factitious principle imitates in vain. The without knowledge, and our earnestness without 'knowledge which puffeth up' will make few temper? Let us inquire, whether our revilers practical converts unaccompanied with the have not some foundation for the charge? charity which edifieth.' Whether we have not sought our own glory more than that of God? Whether we are not more disappointed at missing that revenue of praise, which we thought our good works were entitled to bring us in, than at the wound religion may have sustained? Whether, though our views were right on the whole, their purity was not much alloyed by human mixtures? Whether neglecting to count the cost, we did not expect unmixed approbation, uninterrupted success, and a full tide of prosperity and applause, totally forgetting the reproaches received, and the obloquy sustained by the Man of Sorrows.'

To remove prejudices, then, is the bounden duty of a Christian, but he must take care not to remove them by conceding what integrity forbids him to concede. He must not wound his conscience to save his credit. If an ill bred roughness disgusts another, a dishonest complaisance undoes himself. He must remove all obstructions to the reception of truth, but the truth itself he must not adulterate. In clearing away the impediment he must secure the principle.

If his own reputation be attacked, he must defend it by every lawful means; nor will he sacrifice the valuable possession to any demand but that of conscience, to any call but the imperative call of duty. If his good name be put in competition with any other earthly good, he will preserve it, however dear may be the good he relinquishes; but, if the competition lie between his reputation and his conscience, he has no hesitation in making the sacrifice, costly as it is. A feeling man struggles for his fame as for his life, but if he be a Christian, he parts with it, for he knows that it is not the life of his soul.

For the same reason that we must not be over anxious to vindicate our fame, we must be careful to preserve it from any unjust imputation. The great apostle of the Gentiles has set us an admirable example in both re

If we can on an impartial review, acquit ourselves as to the general purity of our motives, the general integrity of our conduct, the unfeigned sincerity of our endeavours, then we may indeed, though with deep humility, take to ourselves the comfort of this divine beatitude. When we really find, that men only speak evil of us for his sake in whose cause we have laboured, however that labour may have been mingled with imperfection, we may indeed 'rejoice and be exceeding glad.' Submission may be elevated into gratitude, and forgiveness into love.

CHAP. XV.

general conversation.

spects, and we should never consider him in one On the propriety of introducing Religion in point of view, without recollecting his conduct in the other. So profound is his humility that he declares himself less than the least of all MAY we be allowed to introduce here an saints.' Not content with this comparative opinion warmly maintained in the world, and depreciation, he proclaims his actual corrup- which indeed strikes at the root of all rules for tions. In me, that is, in my flesh, there is no the management of religious debate recomgood thing. Yet this deep self-abasement did mended in the preceding chapter? It is, that not prevent him from asserting his own calum. the subject of religion ought on no occasion to niated worth, from declaring that he was not be introduced in mixed company that the dibehind the very 'chiefest of the apostles;'-versity of sentiment upon it is so great, and so again-'As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting,' &c. He then enumerates, with a manly dignity, tempered with a noble modesty, a multitude of instances of his unparalleled sufferings and his unrivalled zeal.

nearly connected with the tenderest feelings of our minds, as to be liable to lead to heat and contention. Finally, that it is too grave and solemn a topic to be mixed in the miscellaneous circle of social discourse, much less in the festive effusions of convivial cheerfulness. Now, in answer to these allegations, we must at least insist, that should religion, on other grounds, be found entitled to social discussion, the last observation, if true, would prove convivial cheer. fulness incompatible with the spirit and practice of religion, rather than religion inadmissible into cheerful parties. And it is certainly a While we rejoice in the promises annexed to retort difficult of evasion, that where to introthe beatitudes, we should be cautious of apply-duce Religion herself is to endanger her honour,

Where only his own personal feelings were in question, how self-abasing, how self-annihilating! But where the unjust imputation involved the honour of Christ and the credit of religion 'what carefulness is wrought in him, yea what clearing of himself; yea what vehement desire; yea what zeal!'

there she rather suffers in reputation by the presence of her friend. The man endeared by conviction to his religion will never bear to be long, much less to be statedly separated from the object of his affections: and he whose zeal once determined him to know nothing' amongst his associates, but Jesus Christ and him crucified,' never could have dreamt of a latitude of interpretation, which would admit a Christian into scenes where every thing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, might be recognized with credit. These principles appear so plain and incontrovertible, that the question seems rather to call for a different statement, viz.-Why religion should not be deemed admissible into every social meeting and friendly circle in which a Christian himself would choose to be found? That it is too weighty and important a subject for discussion, is an argument, which, standing alone, assumes the gross absurdity that either men never talk of that which most nearly interests them, or that when they do, they talk improperly. They will not, it is true, introduce a private concern, however important, in which no one is interested but themselves. But in the subject of religion, who is not interested? Or where will topics be found more universal in their application to all times, persons, places and circumstances, as well as more important, than those which relate to the eternal welfare of mankind?

|

from the Bible, the vulgarest because the easiest of all jests.-And far from perverting religious topics to such a purpose himself, a feeling Christian would not often be found, where such would be the probable consequence of offering a pious sentiment in company.

That allusions involving religious questions are often productive of dispute and altercation, is a fact, which though greatly exaggerated, must yet in a degree be admitted. This circumstance may in some measure account for the singular reception which a religious remark is often observed to meet with in the world. It is curious to notice the surprise and alarm which, on such occasions, will frequently pervade the party present. The remark is received as a stranger guest, of which no one knows the quality or intentions. And, like a species of intellectual foundling, it is cast upon the company without a friend to foster its infancy, or to own any acquaintance with the parent. A fear of consequences prevails. It is obvious that the feeling is- We know not into what it may grow it is therefore safer to stifle it in the birth.' This, if not the avowed, is the implied sentiment.

But is not this delicacy, this mauvaise honte, so peculiar perhaps to our countrymen on religious subjects, the very cause which operates so unfavourably upon that effect which it labours to obviate? Is not the very infrequency of moral or religious observations, a sufficient account to be given both of the perplexity and the irritation said to be consequent upon their introduction? And were not religion (we mean such religious topics as may legitimately arise in mixed society,) banished so much as it is from conversation, might not its occasional recurrence become by degrees as natural, perhaps as interesting, certainly as instructive, and after all as safe, as a close committee on the weather,' or any other of the authorized topics which are about as productive of amusement as of instruction? People act as if religion were to be regarded at a distance; as if even a respectful ignorance were to be preferred to a more familiar

Nor will it be avowed with great colour of reason, that topics so important suffer in point of gravity, or in the respect of mankind, by frequent discussion. We never observed men grow indifferent to their health, their affairs, their friends, their country, in proportion as these were made the subjects of their familiar discourse. On the contrary, oblivion has been noticed as the offspring of silence. The man who never mentions his friend, is, we think, in general most likely to forget him. And far from deeming the name of ONE, greater than any earthly friend 'taken in vain,' when mentioned discreetly in conversation, we generally find him most remembered and respected in secret, by those whose memories are occasionally re-approach. This reserve, however, does not give freshed by a reference to his word and authority in public. Familiarity,' indeed, we have been told, 'produces contempt;' a truism, on which we are convinced many persons, honestly, though blindly, rest their habitual, and even systematic reserve on religious subjects. But familiarity' in our mind has reference rather to the manner, than to the act, of introducing religion. To us it is synonymous with a certain trite and trivial repetition of serious remarks, evidently to no profit,' which we sometimes hear from persons familiarized, rather by education than feeling, to the language of piety.

More particularly we refer it to a still more criminal habit which, to their disgrace, some professors of religion share with the profane, of raising a laugh by the introduction of a religious observation or even a Scriptural quotation. To court a grin when we should woo a soul,' is surely an abuse of religion, as well in the parlour as the pulpit. Nor has the senate itself been always exempt from this impropriety. Dr. Johnson has long since pronounced a jest drawn

an air of respect, so much as of mystery, to religion. An able writer* has observed,' that was esteemed the most sacred part of Pagan devotion which was the most impure, and the only thing that was commendable in it is, that it was kept a great mystery.' He approves of nothing in this religion but the modesty of withdrawing itself from the eyes of the world. But Christianity requires not to be shrouded in any such mysterious recesses. She does not, like the Eastern monarchs, owe her dignity to her concealment. She is, on the contrary, most honoured where most known, and most revered where most clearly visible.

It will be obvious that hints rather than argument belong to our present undertaking. In this view, we may perhaps be excused if we offer a few general observations, upon the different occasions on which a well regulated mind would be solicitous to introduce religion into social discourse. The person possessed of such |

*Bishop Sherlock.

a mind, would be mainly anxious, in a society | proof. Here is indeed a point in religious conof Christians, that something should appear in- duct to which we feel it a boldness to make any dicative of their profession. He would accord- reference at all. Bold indeed, is that casuist, ingly feel a strong desire to effect it, when he who would lay down general rules on a subject plainly perceived his company engaged on no where the consciences of men seem to differ so other topic either innocently entertaining, or ra- widely from each other and feeble too often tionally instructive. The desire, however, would will be its justest rules, where the feelings of by no means cloud his brow, give an air of im- timidity or delicacy rush in with a force which patience to his countenance, or render him inat- sweeps down many a land-mark erected for its tentive to the general tone and temper of the own guidance, even by conscience itself. circle. On the contrary, he would endeavour to feel additional interest in his neighbour's suggestions, in proportion as he hoped in turn to attract notice to his own. He would show long forbearance to the utmost extent of conscientious toleration. In the prosecution of his favourite design, he would never attempt a forced or unreasonable allusion to serious subjects; a caution requiring the nicest judgment and discrimination, most particularly where he felt the sentiments or the zeal of his company to be not congenial with his own. His would be the spirit of the prudent mariner, who does not even approach his native shore without carefully watching the winds, and sounding the channels; knowing well that a temporary delay, even on an unfriendly element, is preferable to a hasty landing his company, on shore indeed, but upon the point of a rock.

Happily for our present purpose, the days we live in, afford circumstances both of foreign and domestic occurrence, of every possible variety of colour and connection, so as to leave scarcely any mind unfurnished with a store of progressive remarks by which the most instructive truths may be approached through the most obvious topics. And a prudent mind will study to make its approaches to such an ultimate object, progressive; it will know also where to stop, rather indeed out of regard to others than to itself. And in the manly avowal of its sentiments, avoiding as well what is canting in utterance as technical in language, it will make them at once appear not the ebullition of an ill educated imagination, but the result of a long exercised understanding.

Nothing will be more likely to attract attention or secure respect to your remarks, than the good taste in which they are delivered. On common topics, we reckon him the most elegant speaker whose pronunciation and accent are so free from all peculiarities, that it cannot be determined to what place he owes his birth. A polished critic of Rome accuses one of the finest of her historians of provinciality. This is a fault obvious to less enlightened critics, since the Attic herb-woman could detect the provincial dialect of a great philosopher. Why must religion have her Patavinity? Why must the Christian adopt the quaintness of a party, or a scholar the idiom of the illiterate? Why should a valuable truth be combined with a vulgar or fanatical expression? If either would offend when separate, how inevitably must they disgust when the one is mistakingly intended to set off the other. Surely this is not enchasing our apples of gold in pictures of silver.'

Certainly much allowance, perhaps respect, is due in cases of very doubtful decision, to those feelings which, after the utmost self regulation of mind, are found to be irresistible. And certainly the habits and modes of address attached to refined society, are such as to place personal observations on a very different footing to that on which they stand by nature. A frown, even a cold and disapproving look, may be a reception which the profane expression or loose action of a neighbour of rank and opulence, may have never before encountered from his flatterers or convivial companions. A vehement censure in his case might inflame his resentment without amending his fault.-Whether the attempt be to correct a vice or rectify an error, one object should ever be steadily kept in view-to conciliate rather than to contend, to inform but not to insult, to evince that we assume, not the character of a dictator, but the office of a Christian friend; that we have the best interests of the offender, and the honour of religion at heart, and that to reprove is so far from a gratification, that it is a trial to ourselves, the effort of conscience, not the effect of choice.

The feelings, therefore, of the person to be admonished should be most scrupulously consulted. The admonition, if necessarily strong, explicit and personal, should yet be friendly, temperate, and well bred. An offence, even though publicly committed, is generally best reproved in private, perhaps in writing. Age, superiority of station, previous acquaintance, above all, that sacred profession to which the honour of religion is happily made a personal concern, are circumstances which especially call for, and sanction the attempt recommended. And he must surely be unworthy his Christian vocation, who would not conscientiously use any influence or authority which he might chance to possess, in discountenancing or rectifying the delinquency he condemns.

We are, indeed, as elsewhere, after the closest reflection and longest discussion often forced into the general conclusion, that a good heart is the best casuist.'-And doubtless where true Christian benevolence towards man meets in the same mind with an honest zeal for the glory of God, a way will be found, let us rather say will be opened, for the right exercise of this, as of every virtuous disposition.

Let us ever remember what we have so ofter. insisted on, that self-denial is the ground work, the indispensable requisite for every Christian virtue; that without the habitual exercise of this principle, we shall never be followers of him 'who pleased not himself.' And when we are We must not close this part of our subject called by conscience to the largest use of it in without alluding to another, and still more deli- practice, we must arm ourselves with the highcate introduction of religion, in the way of re-est considerations for the trial; we must consi