Page images
PDF
EPUB

6.6

to cancel them.-I have a similar observation to make respecting the severe accusations in Mr. Yates's letter to me, published at the end of his book. He says himself respecting that letter, "Some of the expressions in it are certainly harsh. “I used them, that he might see the full extent of my accusa❝tions against him, and because I always think it proper to speak of another in severer language to himself than to any "one else." (P. 273.) Mr. Yates, then, intended this letter for myself, and for no one else? So, upon the principle which he states (an exceedingly good one) it ought to have been. But so it was not. Mr. Yates, while using these confessedly harsh expressions," because he thought it proper to speak of another ❝in severer terms to himself than to any one else," was, at the very moment, writing for the public, and avows his intention of saying to the world all that he was saying to myself:"P. S. I shall probably prefix this letter to my Reply, that, "if any disagreeable consequences do ensue from this controversy, the public may see that I am not chargeable with "them."

66

1

Could I plead guilty to all the charges of my opponent, I should pronounce myself unworthy of his esteem, or of the esteem of any one else: and, what is of infinitely greater consequence than the forfeiture of the regard of men, I should feel myself exposed to the frown of an offended Master. I know it is his command, that "the servant of the Lord must "not strive, but be gentle unto all men-patient, in meekness " instructing those that oppose themselves." To this command -(a command to which he who was "meek and lowly in "heart" himself set the example of perfect conformity)—it is my desire, by his grace, to adhere, in inward feeling, and in outward act and expression. If the violation of it be necessary to writing with spirit, let me rank with the dullest of the

dull. I am no advocate for that facile complaisance, and simpering insipidity, which knows not how to be firm; which assumes a style between assent and denial, that can scarcely be known for the one or for the other; which minces truth, reduces and accommodates important differences, smiles when it ought to frown, and makes its courteous obeisance when it should stand erect in all the dignity of unbending decision.— But there is perfect harmony between decision and gentleness. If there were not, it were impossible that both should be commanded. We are in general, I fear, too little sensible of the sin that is committed by speaking or writing, whether against one another, or against the common enemies of our faith, under the influence of such tempers of mind, and in such a style and manner, as are inconsistent with the precepts and example of our "meek and lowly" Master. We are not sufficiently jealous of the deceitfulness of our hearts. We write with passion, and flatter ourselves that we are writing with becoming zeal. We indulge ourselves freely in violent invective, pointed sarcasm, and contemptuous ridicule, and, according to one of the most common modes of self-deception, that of giving gentle names to ungentle things, we call this writing with spirit.-Nay, such is our inconsistency, such our insensibility to our own failings, such our readiness to act the part of extractors of motes from the eyes of others, without being conscious of the beams that are in our own ;-that, in the very act of pronouncing our censure on another's fault, we are sometimes guilty, and that in a more flagrant degree, of the very fault which we are censuring. In reproving bitterness and virulence, we show the gall of our own hearts :—we reprobate self-sufficiency and pride, in the very spirit of proud self-sufficiency:-we are dogmatical in exposing dogmatism: -we laugh to scorn the claims of infallibility, and we ourselves

are never in the wrong:-we swell with secret self-conceit, while we are admonishing others "not to think of themselves more highly than they ought to think :". -we conceive our adversary sets himself too high;-we bring him down ;-but we are so pleased with ourselves for the feat, that we mount the hrone from which we have dislodged him, and look aroundex cathedra-for admiration and homage.

That ignorance should be exposed, that sophistry should be detected, that artful reasonings should be refuted, malicious misrepresentations placed in their true light, and lofty and imposing pretensions sunk to their proper level,—all this is very right and very necessary. But should not the truth of the gospel be maintained in the spirit of the gospel? Should we not implore the grace of Christ, that we may show less of ourselves, and more of our Master? Shall we willingly incur his frown, to please the corrupt likings of our fellow-creatures? Shall we sacrifice his gracious smile for the laugh of the world; and "court a grin, when we should "woo a soul?" While we establish the truth of his doctrine, shall we give a false and mischievous exhibition of its nature, and of its influence on the heart? Shall we encourage our fellow-Christians in thinking lightly of tempers which they ought to dread and to deprecate,-in considering questions relative to the fundamental articles of divine truth, rather as party-distinctions, than as affecting the glory of Christ and the salvation of sinners ?-And, with regard to the adversaries of the truth themselves, shall we allow ourselves to forget that they too have souls, immortal souls at stake,--and, instead of keeping steadily in view, their spiritual and eternal profit, their conviction and conversion to God,-instead of seeking to satisfy their judgments by a clear and argumentative manifestation of the truth, and to win them to the acknowledg

ment of it by affectionate persuasion, shall we bring upon ourselves the deep criminality of rather doing what is in our power to harden them in opposition, by rousing into jealous exercise all the feelings of eager hostility; making them parties with ourselves in a personal quarrel; and encouraging, what of all things we ought to discountenance, a combat for victory instead of a controversy for truth?

It is my earnest prayer that the Holy Spirit may enable me to "keep my heart with all diligence," while engaged in defending the truth of the important doctrines revealed by his inspiration; and preserve me from every expression that would either indicate an improper temper in my own breast, or excite such a temper in the breast of any one of my readers.

I should reckon it a waste of time, to repel, by any lengthened defence, the charges before alluded to, which Mr. Yates has, either directly or indirectly, brought against my manner of conducting the controversy. The light in which these charges will be viewed by the reader will, I am quite aware, correspond with the predisposition of his mind, and the side which he has taken (if he has taken any) on the question un der discussion.I must be allowed, however, a few brief remarks.

In his introduction, Mr. Yates thus expresses himself. (Pages 3, 4.)" Mr. Wardlaw affirms solemnly, that his only "object is TRUTH; and doubtless the defence of the Calvinis❝tic doctrines, which he believes to be true, was his only ob"ject. But there is a wide difference between defending a par❝ticular system, previously assumed as true, and pursuing truth independently of system;-a difference which will material"ly affect the manner in which a man states his own argu"ments, and views the arguments of others. Mr. Wardlaw's

"whole style and language in this controversy show, that "he has never put his mind into that state of calm and im"partial deliberation, which is necessary to collect and ar"range the proofs on either side, and to judge in favour of " which the evidence preponderates."

In this, and some other parts of his Reply, Mr. Yates seems to proceed on the modest supposition, that at the time of preparing my Discourses, the subject was quite new to me ;— that I had only then entered on the investigation of the truth of those doctrines, which, for ten years before, I had been preaching to others as the doctrines of the word of God. If this be disavowed by him ;-if he be ready to admit, that the discourses may be an exhibition, not of the process of investigation by which the writer first arrived at his conviction of the truth which he defends, but of the grounds on which a long established conviction rested;--then is he very inconsistent with himself. For in a subsequent page (37) we find him saying, at the close of a passage similar in its nature to the former," But although this kind of indifference is ab❝solutely necessary in the investigation of religious truth, "yet, when the truth is once discovered, when the contro"versy is terminated, then let fervent enthusiasm apply the 66 theory to practice; then let generous unabated zeal employ the weapons of divine truth to subdue the powers "of sin and darkness; then let the eloquent tongue express all the tender and kind emotions of the bleeding "heart; then adopt the penetrating all-powerful rhetoric of "Paul, I have told you before, and now tell you even weep

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

When Mr. Yates here speaks of "the controversy being ter"minated," he certainly cannot mean to condemn all preaching of the fervent and animating kind which he so eloquently

« PreviousContinue »