present the ministerial labours of George Whitfield, who has formed a community, which he proposes to render superior in sanctity and perfection to all other Christian churches, make a considerable noise in England, and are not altogether destitute of success. If there is any consistency in the man's theological system, and he is not to be looked upon as an enthusiast, who follows no rule but the blind impulse of an irregular fancy, his doctrine seems to amount to these two propositions: That true religion consists alone in holy affections, and in a certain inward feeling, which it is impossible to explain; and that Christians ought not to seek truth by the dictates of reason, or by the aids of learning, but by laying their minds open to the direction and influence of divine illumination."

That Mosheim, whose creed had been organized according to the dry and frigid systematizing of the Dutch school, should take alarm at the appearance of any thing that breathed a more fervent spirit than his own, is not a matter of much astonishment; but when we see him as an historian, holding forth an opinion so apparently disingenuous, we know not which of the two excites our surprise most, his rashness, or his inaccuracy. In the same section he acknowledges himself incapable of giving a just and accurate account of the religious sects and controversies which were then prevalent in England. "Even the names," says he, "of the greatest part of them, have not, as yet, reached us, and many of those that are come to our knowledge we know but imperfectly. We are greatly in the dark with respect to the grounds and principles of these controversies, because we are destitute of the sources from whence proper information must be drawn." Why then say any thing about them? If destitute of sources whence proper information must be drawn,

why presume to delineate their character, or reproach their reputation? Why publish a verdict before the cause has undergone a legitimate scrutiny? Is this fair? is it acting in the true spirit of an historian, whose simplicity and impartiality ought, of all other qualities, to appear unto all men? Happily, however, for the church of God, the inscriptions written on the tablet of actual life, will speak more powerfully and convincingly than inscriptions written on tables of stone. In the instance before us every body knows it is so. Never did pure and undefiled religion prevail so much as it has done during the past hundred years. Never was there such intellectual expansion; such diffusive enquiries and diligent searchings into what the spirit of Christ in the word doth signify. The age of gifted theology and sanctified reason, have succeeded a black and sullen night of little knowledge and less sensibility. And if Mosheim were now alive, and could write his history anew, we do, for his own credit, indulge the conviction that the name of WHITFIELD would stand recorded on his pages, as the patron of a system which has made "the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water."

But Mosheim lives not to revoke the stigma; it becomes us not to let it pass without an appeal· against it. I am, &c. T. C. H.

Ilminster, Jan. 12, 1826.

་་འ

ON THE TOO FREQUENT PROFLIGACY OF MINISTERS' SONS.

(Concluded from page 75.)

IT is not an impossible case that the minister of the Gospel may, more than is right, be at home, when absent from public view, a, worldly man, or a man of the world; the terms express distinct characters, but both of them far

from Christian simplicity and spirituality of heart.

It is not unlikely he is poor, and poverty tends to make him covetous, eager after salary and petty perquisites, elated with the enjoyment of any extra advantage; this will not escape notice. My father will be in a good humour to-day, for such a one has sent us a present, may be a remark made at an early age, and its influence will be evil. If he is rich it is too probable that he will be a man of the world, aping the dress, and accommodations, and manners of others in a similar rank. There is no virtue in a black coat, certainly, but I fear there is some vice, when any other colour is more in favour. A chip hat and white pantaloons are not forbidden in Scripture; yet the effect they produce on the less fashionable, the poor, the ignorant, would perhaps justify us if we included them in the advice to avoid the appearance of evil; or in that resolution of holy Paul, not to indulge in any thing which might cause a brother to offend. I know that this principle of privation might be carried too far, but it surely is wise to be aware of it, if it were only for our children's sake, who may hereby be taught to set at defiance the opinions and judgment of the godly, upon this sweeping conclusion, that such fault-finders are among the ignorant and the vulgar. There is, indeed, more harm done to the cause of Christ by any thing which seems to undervalue them, than by contradicting, or even offending, the opinions of persons better taught. These may be reasoned with, the

others cannot.

Possibly a situation in a borough town may give a minister great influence in a contested election. I would entreat him to be very cautious how he ventures to take either side. He may be sure his children will catch the party spirit, and he may, to his latest breath, regret it. This caution may apply

to politics, in all its wide range, and its multifarious bearings. A minister, if a man of sense, must have an opinion on the measures of government; often intertwisted as they are with the most important moral principles. But if he is frequent, or energetic, in stating his opinions, (I do not for a moment suppose he will desecrate the pulpit with them,) even in private companies, or in his own domestic circle, his family will be infected, and the ruin of his sons will perhaps be fixed at an early age. He himself goes only so far, but if he set their young minds in motion he may not be able to stop them where he stops. What he has expressed in words only, they will display in actions. Nothing eats out vital piety faster, or deeper, than giving the mind a strong political bias, a factious disposition.

Or it may be, for the lines of his face hint it, that he is of a jocular disposition. He has an acute sense of the ridiculous, and perhaps strong powers of mimicry. He tells a story well, and humours it to the life. Now I believe cheerfulness is the child of piety, but jocularity will venture further than piety warrants; and where simple-hearted cheerfulness will turn pale to find him. This the children will enjoy, and imitate, not being at all aware of its tendency. If this disposition tends to joking with sacred subjects, with the words, sentiments, or personages of Scripture, the children's reverence for those holy pages will dwindle very fast. A recollection of some laughable parody will recur, at seasons, which ought to be serious, but which, under such recollections, must be profaned.

Will it be deemed too strict if it be added, that if a minister is a musical man much singing may take place in his house without a

single sensation like worship? Will it be any wonder if children, thus accustomed, engage in this

part of the public service with a like absence of proper feeling. This will then become amusement; the praises of God will be only play, in rather a serious shape. No correctness in the tune can make up for this error in the feelings. This is the worst of all discords. No melody of the voice can render such harshness of feeling acceptable to him who says to every worshipper, "Give me thy heart." Perhaps he loves an instrument, a fiddle-fie-no, a bass viol; as if the greater size made it more holy. He loves his daughter to play the piano-forte, and sing; if his sons manage the flute, or the clarionet, "little Betsy can give out the lines, and we shall have quite a concert. Will it be wonderful if these gratifica. tions find their unauthorised way to the house of God, and turn it into a Jewish, if not a heathenish, temple? Will it not be natural that his children should overcome his scruples by their importunity? Will it be strange if they seek this gratification, seeing they can have it in so much greater perfection at an oratorio? And will not this sacred introduction to the play-house so far accustom them to the place as to take off their horror at entering it at some other time; when attractions of quite another nature invite them thither? Are all these consequences so improbable that a pious father need not regard them?

The man loves a pipe; his doctor told him years ago that it would do him good. His sons soon imitate him. "See how droll the boy looks with that broken

* We are prepared to expect that some of the remarks of our valued correspondent will scarcely harmonize with the ideas of some of our readers; nor are we pledged to go all the lengths to which they would lead us in this, and perhaps some other parts of this paper, which, though too long, contains so much that is excellent and adapted to be useful.-ED.

NEW SERIES, No. 15.

pipe in his mouth. Why I protest he has got some tobacco too; throw it away, Jack, you will make yourself sick." To be noticed is something, to the boy. This sort of censure sounds half like praise; and as there is no absolute prohibition, Jack soon becomes seasoned, and sinks into an arrant smoker. Now as smoking introduces drinking, and as both can be enjoyed most at one's ease in a public-house, it is obvious to what issue this sort of education directly tends. Being the son of a minister will be but a feeble guard against any of these temptations. Those who scout them as trifles should remember, he that despiseth small things shall fall by little and little.

Whatever may be the actual effect of the circumstances already stated, their tendency is obvious. Yet another circumstance perhaps still more debases the mind, as it applies itself more explicitly to the intellect, and works its subtle poison unobserved, and unsuspected. I mean the habit, which sometimes obtains, of talking over sermons merely as literary compositions, or exhibitions of oratory. Whether it be to praise, or to find fault, the deleterious influence is equally certain and malignant. As it takes the mind away from the proper idea, and refers that to the head, which ought to have its main influence on the heart. A habit is hereby generated of resisting the impression which should be produced, without which no good effect can be expected, while with critical ears the sacred subject is listened to, judged, and its influence evaded. There can be nothing scarcely, even infidel ridicule, more calculated to shield the heart from every impression of divine truth; from every sentiment which, humanly speaking, might penetrate the conscience, and produce saving effect.

R

Our hearers are very apt to get into this custom, without suspecting the evil it produces. They conceive themselves very earnestly listening to the discourse, and so they are; but it is in a manner which entirely prevents its salutary influence. It is one of the modes by which Satan picks away the good seed as soon as it is sown. All it can do is to send the parties home gossiping about the sermon; discussing its merits, admiring possibly, or blaming more likely, but losing its beneficial influence, without doubt, completely.

Is it his own sermons thus treated, it is of evil effect. Can we suppose a minister to speak beforehand of the subject he means to preach upon; and show, by any symptom, that he fancies he has got something clever, new, important, or spiritual, to deliver? Will not his children go to listen under impressions very different from those of pious prayer for a blessing? They may chuckle with approba tion, but they will not be humbled oralarmed, or have one wish roused, beyond that of hoping the congregation are as much alive as themselves to the ingenuity of that illustration, or the smartness of that retort.

Perhaps it is afterwards that he wishes to sound them as to their opinion of some specific passage. If this is customary, it will produce the habit of going to hear critically, knowing that an opinion will be expected. The vanity of this, as lowering the good man's own character, we may let alone; as the immediate object is to show, that possibly from some such source may flow the habit of hearing for the head, rather than the heart; for the gratification of the intellect, not the excitation of either faith or love towards the Lord Jesus Christ. If converse upon his own sermons has an indelicacy about it, which may prevent such a custom, it may be thought quite fair to cri

ticise at full liberty the sermons of others, either read or spoken. Opportunities for such indulgence will arise, especially in any public situation. The composition of a sermon is most commonly partial, illogical, or deficient somehow. The language perhaps is turgid, or low, or involved; and the delivery, if homely, and far from oratorical, or even if simple, may excite a smile in those prepared for it, and on the watch for occasions. And if the preacher aimed at energetic emphasis and appropriate action, it is most likely the opportunity for sarcasm was yet more abundant. Should this sort of entertainment proceed to mimicry, and taking him off, then is the mind deteriorated to its basest degree. Not only will that sermon become utterly useless, which might nevertheless have been an excellent, serious, and pious effusion of a holy mind; but the spirit so indulged will induce a customary mode of hearing utterly subversive of all spiritual and beneficial effect. No drunkard can become sermonproof at a more rapid rate, or to a deeper degree. This is an intoxication of the intellect. Such will become wise in their own conceit; and Solomon says, there is more hope of a fool than of him. The simple-hearted hearer, not up to these niceties, shall feed upon the same discourse, finding the bread of life there; shall drink, and be refreshed by the waters of salvation, while his faith grows exceedingly, and his love to all the saints. The sublimest truths may be evaporated by a joke; the most forcible train of reasoning snapt by a quibble; and the milk of the word curdled by a small portion of attic salt. Can infernal spirits be better pleased with the most scurillous abuse of the Gospel, than with such riotous eaters of that flesh which, to the humble soul, is meat indeed? Is it probable that minds accustomed

to such entertainment can partake to advantage of the gospel's choicest provision? The feast of fat things is rendered luscious and sickening by such a process; the wine has all the lees stirred up by such mirthful agitation; no wonder if the mind is rather intoxicated than cheered, rather bloated than strengthened by all it thus receives.

Nothing hinders the genuine effect of divine truth more than treat ing it doctrinally, rather than experimentally; making it a matter of disputation and contest, rather than of feeling of deep humiliation, or of holy joy. Preachers who do so, puff up their people rather than feed them. They praise the bread of life, and prove it excel lent, rather than make a meal of the rich provision of Sovereign Mercy. Hearers who hear in this spirit will lose their love to the Saviour, while love to evangelical doctrine may seem to increase. They may grow proud of privilege, whereas, the true effect of privilege is to make the mind humble, as David, when he sat wondering and thankful before the Lord, saying, Who am I?—a state of mind much more honourable to him, and useful, than any feeling (arising from the privilege) of resentment against Sheba, the son of Bichri, as a pretender to the throne, or of exultation over dead Saul and his repressed party. Yet these hostile feelings may be expected to grow in a minister's family if he is a man of disputation, if he loves to bandy about an argument, either with or without opposition.

That a sermon, or the zeal it seems to breathe, or the pious sensations even which it appears to spring from, should seem to be got up for the occasion, is the ready way to destroy all its effect on those who happen to witness the process of excitation, whether it be of secret study, or of open con

verse. Playing a part is so abhorrent to the grand character of a Christian minister that the slightest appearance of it ought sedulously to be avoided. Whenever it appears, either by oratorical energy, or even if simple hearted feeling comes over a preacher too powerfully, its tendency is rather to excite a smile than produce conviction, or even holy sympathy.

A minister's children must, at any rate, be aware that preaching is their father's business; his exertions in it seem to them matters of course, and a matter of course never impresses. He He is studying because he is to preach, and now he preaches because it is his place so to do; and it is our place to go and hear him because it is Sunday, (the Lord's-day is a term almost forgotten.) If a minister can treat preaching as his duty merely, the work he has to perform on account of the bargain with his people, his aims will be low and unworthy; to please them will be his highest object. Those whose intimacy may give them opportunity to discern this, will have lower emotions too, and will conceive that, if they are interested and pleased, all the effect is produced which is expected. They do their duty in hearing. It is well when a minister thinks more of his Master than of his people, both in studying and in preaching; more of the people's souls' salvation than of their applause. Then he may hope his own mind is in a good frame, and that a blessing may attend his ministrations.

As, however, this is all internal, cannot be seen by those around him, is often least visible, when most deeply working in his labouring mind, unless he be actually preaching; those intimately near him cannot be expected to catch that holy fervour which they do not perceive. And as all the emotion which meets their eye is of necessity external, it can be expected only to affect them ex