in. Arithmetic is an essential part of practical divinity-for Cæsar is to have the things that are Cæsar's. There is much deception, equivocation, and at last downright cheating, for the especial purpose of preventing a rich nabob of an uncle from knowing that his nephew's estate is the property of his creditors; because the said nephew has a lively sense of favour to come from the said uncle, and the said uncle is a man who will not confer his favours upon one who will not help himself. Now this is not christian morality; and there is much of the like character. We understand Mrs. Hoffland has written a series of tales upon other christian virtues: we certainly have not read them, nor do we intend: but we may safely say, if they resemble "Moderation," they may make some ladies cry, but they will contribute little towards the growth of those virtues which the Christian deems the genuine product of his faith. MISCELLANEOUS. ON THE CONVERSION OF ST. PAUL. MR. EDITOR, Two successive papers on the above subject have appeared in the last numbers of your Miscellany, and have attracted my attention by the importance of the question which they discuss. In proposing to account for certain moral phenomena which appear in the life of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, the writer of the article in question appears to be aware of some difficulties attending his view of the subject; for he sets himself to prove his hypothesis, with all the ingenuity and all the importance of one who has made a discovery. Discoveries, however, in matters of religion, are neither to be looked for nor desired; especially in a plain practical question, which comes home to the conscience and experience of every Christian. Had the question been merely as to the correct interpretation of some obscure and doubtful passages of the sacred word,- had it, however important in its nature, concerned only the Apostle himself, or related to the times in which he lived, I should have felt little inclination, incompetent as I feel myself to the task, to trouble you with any observations. The subject, however, is of no such secondary importance or limited application; it involves the consideration of our own accountableness for light vouchsafed and grace offeredthe measure of our own guilt as abusers (and who shall plead not guilty of abusing) such privileges-the nature of that renovation of heart which is needful in our own case-the steps by which we have been led (if we have been led) into the heavenward path; together with the progress we have individually made-and the admeasurement (if it can be measured) of that mercy which we ourselves received, as many of us as, with St. Paul, have been made "partakers of the heavenly calling."(Heb. iii. 1.) These, I say, are subjects necessarily in volved in the consideration of the case of St. Paul; because, in attempting, as your Correspondent would suggest, to estimate "his need of mercy" in so nice a scale, we are setting up a standard by which to weigh our own offences against our many virtues; and selflove, perchance, may turn the scale in our favour. Such being the nature, extent, and importance of the subject under consideration, how watchful ought we to be against the adoption of any erroneous principle in the investigation of it. My first objection to the view taken by your Correspondent, of St. Paul's character and conversion, is this, that it is not consistent with the first and obvious sense of the scripture record. Let it be put to any plain Christian of common understanding, who knows anything of his Bible, what is his impression from reading the scripture narrative of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, connected with what Paul the Apostle says of himself, and I will undertake to say that he will find in it only an astonishing instance of the super-abounding of God's grace towards one who was once "disobedient and deceived," " a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious," and in whom is "shewn forth the long-suffering of God for a pattern to them who should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." And, before we proceed, is it allowable in this place to suggest a passing query, (though it may seem to be begging the question,) what would St. Paul himself, if he were on earth, think of the ingenious reasoning of his apologist? My next objection is of a graver and more specific character. I would not charge any individual with holding sentiments which he, perhaps, would be among the first to disavow; but when we read over the article in question, and find such passages as these,-" the supposition of St. Paul's early sincerity, renders it consistent and natural that he should be selected," &c. p. 539;-" with what propriety can we hold forth this case of St. Paul to the profane, &c. &c. that they may expect a mercy as unqualified, a favour as freely *** bestowed, as that which was conferred on the zealous, the strict, the sincere, though misguided and mistaken Saul." p. 540.-"Thus much may we rather learn from St. Paul's case, that mercy is not bestowed arbitrarily, nor without regard to the capacity for mercy shewn by the recipient of it;" p. 541;-when we meet, I say, with such passages as these, (and a similar tone pervades the whole,) whatever explanation they may admit of, we cannot wholly acquit the writer of having forgotten where it is written: "works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make us meet to receive grace, or, as the school authors say, deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin." Article 13. (See also Homily on Good Works, Part I.) "O." labours much to prove that St. Paul was not chargeable with a wilful and malignant opposition to known truth; and thence infers that "the alteration required in his principles of action" was not so needful or so entire, nor again the degree of mercy shewn so large, as in the case of a profane and scandalous sinner. The former VOL. VIII. NO. X. 4 H proposition may be granted, I imagine, without difficulty; and in this sense is to be understood the passage*" but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief," I Tim. i. 13,- that is, he did not commit that "sin which is unto death;"--but, as to the inference. How shall we calculate the comparative need, in different cases, of an entire renovation of the "principles of action?" when it is expressly said, "if ANY man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new." Sin, be it remembered, to be duly estimated, must be weighed in the balances of the sanctuary; -must be considered as consisting, not in acts, but in essence; considered, not with reference to its injurious effects in ourselves or our fellow-creatures; but as a blind and stubborn opposition of the mind and will to the will and word of God: and therefore sins which are thought little or nothing of by man-nay, things which are highly esteemed among men-are an abomination in the sight of God. -- It may seem to many, for instance, a hard saying,-but I know not on what principle of revealed religion it can be justly controverted,—that the decent and orderly violation of the sabbath, which so many habitually practise, and call no sin at all,-but which robs God of his authority as a lawgiver, and our souls of the benefit of his ordinances ;--that this, I say, betrays a mind as blinded and a heart as opposed to the truth and will of God, as those grosser violations of the moral law which call forth the reprobation of mankind. Do not such persons, whatever social virtues they may possess, need an "entire alteration in the vital principles of action?" As to St. Paul's ignorance-which your Correspondent would urge as almost an entire palliation of the sins of his unconverted state, and which some (in consideration of the zeal which accompanied it) have almost magnified into a virtue-why is Saul of Tarsus, who "profited in the Jews' religion above his equals," to have the benefit of this plea in a measure peculiar to his case, and above any other of the body of the Pharisees to which he belonged? Does not St. Peter make a similar excuse for the great body of the people?--" And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers:"—but, instead of palliating their guilt, he adds, "repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins be blotted out." What has been said respecting drunkenness, may be said of ignorance, where there exists the means of better knowledge-" Multiply the crime into all the evils which result from it, and you have the sum total of its criminality." The attentive reader of the Bible will derive further light on this subject, viz. the moral guilt of ignorance, by looking into the Levitical law. (See Lev. chap. iv.) Comparing spiritual things with spiritual, by a careful examination of the parallel passages, according to Bishop Horsley's recommendation, (Nine Sermons,) and bringing the light of "Because," in this passage, is not emphatic, ori. It may be properly translated "for." Compare with this, the form of expression in the 16th verse. "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that (tva, to the end that) in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all long-suffering for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe." Arr On the Conversion of St. Paul. - 603 the Christian dispensation to bear on the shadows of the Jewish, we shall find little ground for resting St. Paul's vindication, or our own, on such a plea as this. The innocent victim must bleed, the typical transfer of guilt must be effected, the application of that blood to the offerer must take place, before the guilt of sin could be washed away or the sinner reconciled, as well in the case of him who, sinned through ignorance, as in that of the presumptuous offender. The lesson which these rites convey to us is obvious. -- There is a passage in the paper of "O." which may here deserve particular notice :-" Putting together the two undoubted facts,—his probity of intention, and his ignorance of the holy character of those he opposed,-what will result as the actual nature of his misconduct ? Plainly this; that he was led,-by violent, but not wilful prejudice, by an excess, an extravagance, of religious zeal, with a real desire of God's glory, to transgress the sacred principles of humanity towards those whom he believed to be pernicious members of society." If this reasoning be sound and scriptural, then the conduct and character of Saul the Pharisee, abstracted from the persecuting spirit into which his zeal ultimately betrayed him, ("FOR THIS WAS THE SUM and SUBSTANCE OF HIS FAULT,") deserves, not censure, but praise,"to deny which, displays a temper not far removed from the very soul of persecution." And thence it will follow, that to "reject the counsel of God against ourselves, in order to keep our own traditions;"-(and Saul was more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of the fathers;")—to be "ignorant of God's righteousness, and to go about to establish our own righteousness:"-these, and such like workings of the "carnal mind," are merely the venial errors of an honest and good heart, and need no degree of mercy worth mentioning to pardon,-no "alteration in the vital principles of action" to correct. But why, it may be asked, endeavour to strip the Apostle of those pleas, which extenuate, in some degree, the enormity of his crime?→→→ pleas, which every kind and candid mind ought surely to allow to a fallen brother. Are you anxious to draw his character (it must be needless) in darker colours than it is given by his own pen? and, unconscious or forgetful of your own sins and infirmities, do you think to magnify your imaginary righteousness by the comparison? Far from it; the very opposite to this conclusion is our aim, and the ground of our objection to the article under consideration. We wish, with the Apostle himself, to give to God, and not to man, the glory of any thing spiritually good, any saving change wrought in his heart, or in our own. We wish to shew, not how far the "native goodness of the heart" may supersede the necessity of God's enlightening Spirit and renewing grace, but that "we cannot do any good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will." (Art. 10.) And this is especially necessary, because, as already hinted, whatever be our estimate of St. Paul's state and character previous to his conversion, and of the grace of God manifested in that conversion, such will be the standard of our judgment respecting ourselves. If prejudice, and ignorance, and opposition to the truth, with the writings of Moses and the Prophets in his hands, were, in Saul the Pharisee, errors of so venial a nature; then the responsibility which lies on us, as possessors of the lively oracles of God, cannot be very great; "provided we be diligent to frame our life according to the law or sect we profess." (See Art. 18.) If the work of the Holy Spirit upon his heart were so little needed, and the mercy be received (abstracted from the miraculous appearance which convinced his understanding) of so small account; then how little need have we (who expect no miracle) of that enlightening Spirit to "open our understandings, that we may understand the Scriptures;" then, how little need (except as scandalous transgressors of all moral precepts) of pardoning mercy or of sanctifying grace. Many of your readers no doubt are pastors of Christ's flock, stewards of his mysteries: how important, therefore, that the weakest among them should not be seduced, by false reasoning, into any plausible error; for, such as is their view of a subject like this, such will be the character of their ministry. To conclude, I would only remark, that it is not in a spirit of overstrained humility that St. Paul designates himself as "the chief of sinners;" he speaks the genuine feelings of one who had attained a just view of his own case: of one who had been "alive without the law once," but whose eyes were now opened to see its spirituality and extent. In this point of view, and in connexion with the general subject, I may mention a little tract, which, though not perhaps the happiest effort of the pious* writer's pen, may serve to illustrate and confirm the view here taken: it is entitled "A supposed Dialogue in Heaven between Paul the Apostle and the Thief on the Cross," in which each claims the bad pre-eminence in guilt, to the glory of that grace which had turned their hearts, and washed away their sins: and we perhaps, if we know anything of our own hearts, may feel disposed to dispute the palm with either. It was the exclamation of one of our pious reformers, on witnessing a criminal led to execution, "There goes John Bradford, but for the grace of God." And Dr. Johnson (whom no one will suspect of enthusiasm) is recorded to have said, "Every man knows his own sins, and what grace he has resisted; but to those of others, and the circumstances under which they were committed, he is a stranger. He is therefore to look on himself as the greatest sinner that he knows of.”↑ I am Sir, your most obedient Servant, LAICUS. MR. EDITOR,-If you have not prepared any other observations on Mr. Hale's Letter on Clerical Funds, perhaps you will give the following * Ambrose Serle. †They who would arrive at a just view of the character of our great Moralist, especially as it appeared to him in the solemn retrospect of a death-bed, may read with pleasure and profit an essay on the subject, in "Wilks's Christian Essays." Observations on Clerical Funds. A Letter addressed to the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Chester, by the Rev. W. H. Hale, M. A. pp. 24. Mawman. |