Christianity, for which we have so often contended, and giving the following important cautions on this head to his hearers. "A proper distinction," he observes, "must be made on this occasion between the means and the end: The offices of re ligion, it must be considered, are not reli- As fucto implying the regeneration and justification of all who have received the outward and visible sign: -a doctrine not differing, as far as we can perceive, from the opus ope ratum of the superstitious Catholic, and irreconcileable, at least by us, with the just and enlightened sentiments above quoted. We can be in no danger of misrepresenting Mr. D.'s sentiments respecting baptism. Indeed it is only on the sup walking in the way that leadeth to it. Position of their being precisely We may put a cheat upon ourselves in both cases. We may be nominal instead of real members of the church. And we may hope against hope."—" To the wicked the servicos of the church may be considered as no services at all."-" As members of the church, they are members of it in the same sense that the unbelieving Jews were children of Abraham. The mistake,therefore, of such nominal members of the church, is the same as that of the Jews was in former days. Their religious services, like the vain oblations on the jewish altar, may be before the Lord continually, till he is weary of them; but whilst religion is not carried out of the church into their lives and conversation, their prayers are not the prayers of faith, nor are their sacrifices the sacrifices of the Spirit; but so many idle ceremonies offensive to God, and unprofitable to themselves." These considerations are then applied more particularly to the holy sacrament, the immediate subject of the discourse, with the view of drawing a line of distinction between the form and substance of religion; and shewing that while men are exhorted to the regular use of the means of grace, the grace to be expected will depend on the faith and sincerity with which they have used those means (p. 88). The pleasure we felt in reading such language as this, from the pen of an author of Mr. D.'s influence, would have been greater, had it been unmingled with a painful recollection of the doctrine which the same gentleman has elsewhere advanced (we refer to his Vindicia Ecclesiæ Anglicana) concerning the other Christian sacrament, as necessarily conferring grace, and ipso what we have stated, that any controversy exists between himself and us on this subject. If Mr. D. holds baptism to be subjected to the same condition with other means of grace, --depending, i. e. for its success upon the disposition of the recipient, then he thinks of it exactly as we have ever done. If, on the other hand, he holds, what certainly from the impression which his writings have made upon our mind, we have always believed him to hold, the universal and unconditional efficacy of the baptismal rite; in other words, the invariable and necessary union of the outward and visible sign with the inward and spiritual grace; then indeed an important difference subsists between us. But may it not be asked, in this case, of Mr. D., or any other person professing the same opinion, On what ground do you exempt one religious ordinance from a general law operating in the case of all the rest? Have you any Scriptural authority whatever, for attributing to one sacrament that efficacy which is denied as to the other, and which, if its claim to such distinction be well founded, must so greatly exalt its value above that of its associate institution? The answer to this question must surely be in the negative, as a pretension of this kind plainly militates against the essential spirit and genius of the Christian religion. Mr. D. seems aware, that the denial of any such pretension, with respect to religious ordinances in general, marks the boundary line which divides superstition from genuine Christianity: and is the preacher the care of vindicating his consistency to his own mind, they will greedily imbibe the doctrine which suits their inclinations and soothes their anxicties, and will speedily dismiss from their memories and their hearts that which, instead of tranquillizing, would disquiet their feelings. he prepared to say, that baptism is an exception; and that what constitutes superstition in all other cases, in this instance carries no similar imputation; or, that a doctrine, to the mischievous tendency of which, as applied to every other divine institution, he appears alive, is, when promulgated of this sacra ment, not only harmless but beneficial? May prayer, may fasting, may the Lord's supper, be perverted, by a dependance merely on the exterual rite, to all the purposes of superstition, and to the defeating of all the rational and holy effects for the sake of which only, such observances have been appointed, and is baptism wholly free from the dangers of such abuse? It is the deepfelt persuasion, derived from daily observation and matter of fact no less than from the reason of the case, that such abuse is possible, that it is frequent, that it lulls thousands asleep in carnal security and renders them deaf to the voice that cries, "Ye must be born again," "Except a man be converted, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;"it is, in short, a fellowfeeling with our author in the zeal which he here manifests for real Christianity, as distinguished from nominal, and for spiritual religion, as opposed to that merely formal and hypocritical profession, by which the substance is compromised for the shadow;—it is this, that induces us to put these questions, and to urge Mr. D. to a serious re-consideration of a subject, deeply implicating the consistency and the efficacy of his labours. Should his hearers be told at one time, that all baptised persons are truly regenerate, in vain will they be told at another, that "means of grace are means of grace only to those who are graciously disposed." They will, it is to be apprehended, more readily avail themselves of a concession, which affords so cheap a cordial to their fears, than be solicitous to profit by a caution, which would keep their fears alive. Leaving to In his next discourse, on Phil. ii: 12-13., Mr. D. enters upon a subject involving many points of doubtful disputation; introductory to which, some just reflections occur on the importance of " comparing spiritual things with spiritual, that the Scriptures may be made to speak a consistent language, on this settled conviction, that the word of God cannot contradict itself:" and the absurdity and impiety of the contrary practice is very properly exposed. The danger here pointed out is, however, more easily seen than avoided, especially where the middle terms, which are to connect and harmonize two propositions apparently at variance, are involved in so much obscurity as those which are necessary to the complete elucidation of the doctrines brought into view on this occasion. It would perhaps be the most useful, as well as peaceable method of handling the particular text under consideration, were preachers to content themselves with simply affirming the truth, and enforcing the practical import of the several matters which it contains; passing by without notice all such points of comparatively unimportant speculation, as unhappily have created differences of opi nion among wise and good men. Mr. D. has not confined himself to this path; and by deviating from it, he has laid himself open to some animadversions, which had better have been avoided, as his discourse would not then have assumed a controversial aspect, and its practical and edifying tendency would thus have been greatly promoted.Throughout the sermon, it is evident, that the author has his eye upon the calvinistic system, the real principles of which, as exhibited in the writings of all the wisest and best men on that side of the question, he plainly misunderstands and confounds. Mr. D. should have known and acknowledged, that no sober Calvinist (wild and extrava gant individuals are to be found among all parties) intends to set the several pa ts of his text at variance with each other, any more than himself; or so to explain one part, as to enervate in the least degree, the efficacy of the other However they may differ in their mode of solving the difficulties which human ignorance perceives in such subjects, the Calvinist no more hesitates to enforce the exhortation, to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling," than he fails to urge the motive on which it is founded, that" it is God who worketh in us, both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Sincerely desirous that, by pointing out with impartiality their respective mistakes and misapprehensions, the pious of both parties may be brought to mutual concessions, and a better understanding with each other, we shall proceed, in our character of mode rators, to make freely such remarks as occur to us on a careful perusal of the sermon now under review. After some prefatory matter, of which we have expressed our approbation, Mr. D. proceeds, “These general observations have in no respect been more fully exemplified, than in their application to the manner in which the subjects pointed out in the text have The at different times been handled. grace of God, and the free-agency of man, when considered in their relation to the divine œconomy of redemption, have certain limitations, which can be determined only, so far as they are to be determined at all, by a comparison of those several parts of Scripture, which have immediate reference to this great concern; and it is by fairly balancing, as it were, those several parts of sacred Scriptures against each other, that a consistent conclusion on these subjects can be drawn." (p. 108.) To the general sense of these remarks we have no objection to make, but we more than doubt whether the particular sentiment be correct, that, "the grace of God, and the free-agency of man, when consi dered in their relation to the aco nomy of redemption, have certain limitations." This way of speaking seems to describe them as opposite and interfering principles, liable to clash in their exercise, and on this account needing to have limits respectively assigned them; beyond which were either principle to operate, encroachment on the just prerogatives of the other would ensue. This representation we cannot but think untrue, and leading to error; and we strongly suspect, that much of the confusion of thought which we have observed to prevail, both in Arminian and Calvinistic authors upon these subjects, has originated from this source. A reluctance is sometimes perceivable in writers of the one class, to assert fully and unequivocally the free agency of man; and at least an equal degree of timidity and caution may be remarked, in those of the other denomination, to speak out in bold and absolute terms, such as the Scriptures employ, that "Salvation is of grace," that "it is God who worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Each treads on the favourite ground of his opponents, not as if he stood upon a rock, but as if he walked upon a quicksand; and qualifications are anxiously sought on both sides, to guard the concessions which truth compels them to make. The tendency of this is to perplex the simple-minded in quirer rather than to inform him; and proportionably to weaken the salutary effect which might result from either doctrine, more scripturally and unreservedly stated. The conscience of the wilful offender is not alarmed, as it ought to be, with a sense of his certain and awful responsibility for his crimes; and the faith, humility, and gratitude of the true believer are checked in their exercise, and rendered languid and hesitating, in the samé degree in which the principle, whence only these graces derive their nourishment, is obscured and weakened by a timid, irresolute exhibition. The just and scriptural view, as we conceive, of the two grand principles in religion here in question is, that, like the centripetal and centrifugal forces, which govern the revolutions of the planetary system, they are, in the truly regenerate, harmonious and consentaneous throughout all their operations, acting together in the most friendly association, without discordancy and opposition; and consequently having," in their relation to the œconomy of redemption," no "limitations" whatever. By the grace of God, we are what we are," from the first dawn of good desire, to the consummation of the work of grace in the fruition of glory. And from first to last we are free agents, acting voluntarily, and not compulsively; choosing, by the effect of God's holy illumination, the path of peace, and then, by the aid of his continual grace, walking in it to the end of life. In a sense therefore, it may be said, that it is God, who, in the œconomy of man's salvation, does every thing; and in a sense it may be affirmed with equal truth, that it is man who does every thing. Man repents, believes, loves, obeys; man watches, prays, reads, meditates, fights, the good fight of faith, and lays hold on eternal life. But it is by the constant influence of a divine agency upon his understanding, his will, and affections, that he performs the whole; that he enters upon this course, and is upheld in it to the last. Just as in the operations of husbandry, without the influence of the sun, the labour of the cultivator would be fruitless; so, were this agency withdrawn, did this divine influence cease to act any longer on the soul, ineffectual would be every effort of man to work out his own salvation. Indeed, to speak correctly, the will would be as much wanting to him as the power; the vital principle itCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 49. self would be extinct, and with the cause, all the effects, of course, must cease: For, as in the material world, were the orb of day to be blotted out of the heavens, so in the spiritual, did the sun of righteousness wholly withdraw his shining, what must ensue but universal stagnation, torpor, and death? Yet no man ever supposed any contrariety to subsist between the effects of sunshine, and the industry of the husbandman; we talk of no "limitations" in this case; we perceive no difficulty. And why should a parallel case, then, equally plain in its own nature, at least, as to all practical purposes, be darkened and perplexed by language, little intelligible in itself, and calculated only to create difficulty, where none, by plain and simple Christians, would otherwise be suspected? These remarks will prepare our way to consider what Mr. D. says, p. 110, on the subject of the irresistibility of divine grace, where we must take the liberty of again correcting his manner of speaking, and rectifying his obvious misconception of the doctrine of his opponents. "On the irresistibility of divine grace, we need not hesitate to say, unless we mean to sacrifice common sense at the altar of enthusiasm, that without a proper degree of freedom in man, there can be no such thing as religion in the world. For by religion we understand an obligation to the discharge of certain duties, and to the consequent non-commission of certain vices overrules human freedom, as to leave to and irregularities. But if divine grace so man no power of choice between right and wrong; religion must cease to exist. For in such case, the nature of vice and virtue being taken away, the morality of human actions is destroyed; and man, considered as a mere necessary agent, ceases of course to be an accountable being." (p. 110, 111.) In noticing the contents of this paragraph, we must demur, in the first place, to the expression, out a proper degree of freedom in man, &c." This way of speaking, is indeed consistent with the phraseolo gy which we have already ventured tocensure; but does it not confirm the F propriety of that censure? Is it not obscure, and leading to much unnecessary perplexity and uncertainty of ideas upon a subject,which, for practical purposes, is plain and intelligible enough in itself? For how anxiously might it be asked, what is that proper degree of freedom in man, without which there can be no religion? Mr. D. has told us, that human freedom and the grace of God must have certain limitations, but, after having unsettled our thoughts by this suggestion, has he set them at rest again by telling us what these limitations are? Has he distinctly traced out the boundaries which describe the provinces, and limit the operations of these two principles? No such thing! and yet how necessary, on his view of the matter, was the performance of this task, if he would meet the wishes, and assuage the solicitude of a pious mind, fearing, on the one hand, to rob his Saviour of any part of the glory due unto his name, and equally apprehensive, on the other, of injuring in any degree the foundations of morality, by adopting sentiments that represent man as a machine, and take away his responsibility. It is a little singular, that Mr. D. appears in this quotation in the light of a more cautious asserter of human freedom than many Calvinists. We believe there is no well-informed and judicious person of that persuasion, who would any more speak of a proper degree of freedom in man, than of a proper degree of the grace of God, as necessary to the existence of religion in the world. While, of the grace of God, his language is, "Thou, Lord, workest all our works in us;" he would also without scruple affirm, that this freedom in man, to constitute him a subject of religion, must be whole and entire, as truly as in an angel of heaven; since he conceives it incompatible with the perfections of God to violate the moral constitution, which he has given to his rational creatures. (See Edwards on the Will, Scott on Election, &c.) para In the next place, we feel it necessary to observe on the graph above quoted, that, were Mr. Daubeny as well acquainted as he ought to be with the system which he opposes, he would never have spoken of it, as it is evident he intends to do in this passage, as representing "divine grace so overruling human freedom, as to leave a man no power of choice between right and wrong." In such a state of absolute indifference and inletermination of the will towards right and wrong, as seems here to be described, " religion must," indeed, as Mr. D. affirms, " cease to exist," since religion supposes the decided bias of the will to that which is right; but what Calvinist, whether in his sober senses, or amidst the ravings of the most fanatical perversion of intellect, ever attributed such an effect as this to the influence of divine grace upon the soul? We may, however, misunderstand our author, though such is the natural and obvious construction his words appear to us to require He may, we allow, and probably does mean, only that divine grace, according to the Calvinistic representation of the case, works irresistibly to the production of a right. choice, and consequently, that it "overrules human freedom." But Mr. D. must be aware, that the advocates of that scheme deny this consequence. They do indeed affirm that divine grace proceeds efficaciously and certainly to the attainment of its end, by subduing the corrupt wills and affections of sinful men, and thus enabling them to choose the good and to refuse the evil; but they contend, that in producing this result, however infallibly, (irresistibly is an ambiguous word, which the more enlightened disciples of this school do not employ) human freedom is not in any degree, nor in the nature of things can be " over-ruled." Their doctrine, as we understand them to explain it (whether true or false is another question, with which we |