Page images
PDF
EPUB

it under an apparent zeal for 'morality, the Christian temper, and Christian practice.' If we neglect the common salvation in our ordinary labours, morality will freeze upon our lips, and neither the preacher nor the hearer will be much inclined to practise it. To lose a relish for the common salvation, is the first step toward giving it up: and the effects of this we are warned against from the example of the angels who kept not their first estate.

2. The love of novelty. Both preachers and hearers are in danger of making light of common truths, and of indulging in a spirit of curious speculation. This will render preaching rather an entertainment, than a benefit to the soul. We are commanded to feed the church of God-not their fancies, or imaginations; nor merely their understandings; but their renewed minds. It indicates a vicious taste, and affords a manifest proof of degeneracy, where the common salvation is slighted, and matters of refinement eagerly pursued. The doctrine of Christ crucified is full of the wisdom of God, and will furaish materials for the strongest powers; and here we may dig deep in our researches. But if this subject has no charms for us, what are we to do in heaven, where it is the darling theme?

3. A partial attachment to one or two particular truths, to the neglect of the great body of truth. It has frequently been the case, that some one particular topic has formed the character of an age or generation of men; and this topic has been hackneyed in almost every place, till the public mind has become weary of it; while other things of equal importance have been overlooked. Beauty consists of lovely proportion; and herein consists the holy beauty of religion. When every part of truth has its due regard, and every part of holiness its share in our affections, then will the beauty of Jehovah our God be upon us, and then will he establish the work of our hands.

Finally The common salvation, though it affords grounds for a universal application for mercy, yet will be of no essential benefit to us, unless it be especially embraced. Notwithstanding the indefiniteness of gospel invitations, it is nevert hless true, that, he that beleiveth and is baptized, shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned.

[ocr errors]

AN INQUIRY INTO THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT IN MATTERS OF RELIGION.

But the

IN former times, liberty of conscience, and the right of private judgment in matters of religion, were denied both by ecclesiastics and politicians. Of late, they have been very generally admitted, and much has been said and written in their defence. nature and extent of these rights, in reference to religious society, have not been so clearly ascertained and claims have been instituted, which appear to be subversive of those very principles so often pleaded in their support.

The right of private judgment in matters of religion appears to be, THE RIGHT WHICH EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS TO THINK, AND

TO AVOW HIS THOUGHTS ON THOSE SUBJECTS, WITHOUT BEING LIABLE TO ANY CIVIL INCONVENIENCE ON THAT ACCOUNT. The subject in this view has been successfully supported by writers of ability, and the principle has been acted upon by the great body of non-conformists and dissenters of later times. There can scarcely be any doubt remaining with respect to the power of the civil magistrate to interfere with the religious sentiments and private judgment of the subject: this is now very generally and very justly exploded. But of late, the subject has taken another turn; and men have pleaded, not only an exemption from civil penalties on account of their religious principles, in which the very essence of persecution consists, but also that they are not subject to the control of a religious society with which they may stand connected, for any tenets which they think proper to avow. The right of private judgment, now frequently assumed, is, a right in every individual who may become a member of a Christian church, to think, and avow his thoughts, be they what they may, without being subject to exclusion, or admonition, or the ill opinion of his brethren on that account. Any thing that is inconsistent with this, is thought VOL. VIII.

34

to be a species of spiritual tyranny, and repugnant to that liberty wherewith Christ had made us free. But this appears to be highly extravagant, and is what no man can claim as a right. The following considerations are submitted to the reader.

First The supposed right of the individual is contrary to the principles on which Christian churches were originally founded. Not only were those who disbelieved the gospel refused admission to a Christian church, but those who perverted the gospel, or maintained pernicious errors concerning it, were subject to admonition and exclusion. The apostle Paul directed that a heretic, after the first and second admonition, should be rejected. And, in his Epistle to the churches of Galatia, he expressed a wish, that those who troubled them, by subverting the gospel of Christ, and introducing another gospel were cut off. The church at Pergamos is reproved for having those among them who held the doctrine of Balaam, and of the Nicolaitans. If the churches of Galatia complied with the apostle's desire, their false teachers might have exclaimed against them, as invading the right of private judgment, and with as much justice as some in later times have done against the censures of their brethren. And had the church of Pergamos been formed on the principles above mentioned, they might have replied to the solemn message of our Lord in some such manner as the following: 'Why are we blamed for having those among us who hold the doctrine of Nicolas? It is sufficient for us as individuals to think for ourselves, and leave others to do the same. We cannot refuse these men, without invading the right of private judgment !'

If it be objected, that inspiration rendered the judgment of the apostles infallible, and that therefore their conduct in this case is not a rule for us; it may be replied, that if the apostles were infallible, the churches were not so, and the blame is laid on them for having neglected to exclude the characters in question. Besides, this objection would tend to prove that primitive Christians, on account of the infallibility of the apostles, did not possess the right of private judgment; and that the right sprung up in the church in consequence of our being all equally fallible! But this is contrary to the declaration of an apostle : Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy. Hence, it appears,

that admonishing, or excluding from the primitive church, those who held pernicious errors, was not reckoned to be subversive of the right of private judgment; and the churches being exhorted to srch discipline by the apostles, was exercising no dominion over their faith.

ment.

Secondly: Not only is this supposed right of private judgment inconsistent with apostolic practice, but it is also contrary to reason, and the fitness of things. All society is founded in mutual agreeIt is no less a dictate of common sense, than of the word of God, that two cannot walk together except they be agreed. No society can subsist, unless there be some specific principles in which they are united. In political societies, these principles will be of a political nature; in civil ones, of a civil kind and in those of religion, of a religious nature. According to the degree of importance in which those principles are held by the parties associating, such will be their concern to maintain and act upon them; and the terms of admittance, or continuance in such society, must be regulated accordingly. If there be no definite principles in which it is necessary that a society should be agreed; but every mem ber of it be at liberty to imbibe and propagate whatever notions be pleases, then all societies, civil, political, and religious, have hitherto been mistaken; for all of them have had in view the attainment of some specific object : and this is more especially the case with societies that are purely religious. A community must entirely renounce the name of a Christian church, before it can act upon the principle here contended for; and those who entirely reject Christianity ought, nevertheless, to be admitted or retained in fellowship, if they choose it: seeing they have only exercised the right of private judgment!

Further: If a Christian society have no right to withdraw from an individual, whose principles they consider as false and injurious; neither has an individual any right to withdraw from a society in a similar case: and then there is an end to all religious liberty at once.

Whether it be right for us to think the worse of any person on account of his erroneous principles, must depend on a previous question; namely, Whether he be either better or worse for the

principles which he imbibes? If he be not, then it must be allowed that we ought not to think so of him: but if he be, undoubtedly we ought to think of one another according to truth. To say that no person is better or worse in a moral view, whatever be his principles, is to say that principles themselves have no influence on the heart and life; and that amounts to the same thing as their being of no importance. But if so, all those scriptures which represent truth as a mean of sanctification, ought to be discarded; and all the labours of good men to discover truth, and of the apostles to disseminate it; yea, and those of the Son of God himself, who came into the world to bear witness to the truth, were totally in vain.

THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST,

THE meaning of the terms, Son of God, and Only-begotten Son of God, must needs be of importance, inasmuch as the belief of the idea signified by them was made a leading article in the primitive professions of faith. Whatever disputes have arisen of late among Christians, there seems to have been none on this subject in the times of the apostles. Both Jews and Christians appear to have agreed in this the only question that divided them was, whether Christ was the Son of God, or not? If there had been any ambiguity in the term, it would have been very unfit to express the first article of the Christian faith.

* John vi. 69. iii. 18. xx. 31. Acts. xviii. 37. 1 John iv. 19.

« EelmineJätka »