Page images
PDF
EPUB

little faith; not justified when assailed by unbelief; and condemned when doubting or despairing. Then would St. Paul's words, so sadly perverted, "he that doubteth is damned," be, in this sense, most true.

If we are justified by faith, then are we also "saved by hope," which would make hope a saviour, as well as faith a justifier; whereas "it is God that justifieth;" "neither is there salvation in any other" than in Christ the Lord.

If we maintain the doctrine of justification by faith, do we not set up another saviour or justifier than Jesus Christ; and so far, eject the Saviour from his throne? or rob him of his crown? or make him give his glory to another?

Again, I ask, is faith above all other graces? is it more essential to salvation than love; more necessary than repentance; more indispensable than restitution; more difficult than the love of enemies, invariable truth, unfeigned humility, heartfelt prayer, and the constant practice of the golden rule? Can faith save us?

Feeling it to be essential to comfort, though perhaps not to salvation, to have correct views on this important subject, I have written the above, that the confusion which I find in the minds of many, may, should they read this, be removed; that each of the Christian graces may have its proper place in our esteem, and that God, "the giver of all grace," may have all the praise. The divine and the scholar may use the expression, "justification by faith," without danger, though, I humbly conceive, not without verbal inaccuracy: but the young and unlearned and poor Christian can not, without the possibility of entertaining heterodox notions, the probability of feeling unsettled as to the grounds of their acceptance, and the certainty of having much confusion and misconception in their minds as to the

cause or source, the instrumentality or agency, and the means or mode, of a sinner's justification; which may retard their growth in grace; hinder their progress in holiness; obscure their internal evidences; and lessen, if not destroy, their hope, peace, and joy.

There is another point, still more, if possible, intimately connected with our justification, which I will leave to another opportunity; in the mean while I beg to add, if I am wrong, I wish to be corrected; if right, I wish to be myself, and to find others, established.

J. W. NIBLOCK.

EDUCATION OF CHILDREN.

short and pithy essay, to the very We recommend the following attentive consideration of all our readers who are heads of families, and have the charge-a very sacred one-of the training of young children.

From the Luzerne Gleaner.

From the Desk of Poor Robert the Scribe.

If your children you'd command, Parents, keep a steady handOur parson used to say, "Just as the twig is bent the tree's inclined." And therefore every little fellow of us-rag, tag, and bobtail-used to be obliged to say our catechism every Saturday afternoon. And methinks I can trace the influence of the serious lessons, in the conduct and opinions of every man who was brought up under the venerable pastor.

The government, as well as the education of children, is a matter of the most momentous concern.

Mrs. Hasty is as good dispositioned a woman as you will find in an hundred, but she "dont keep a steady hand" with her children. "Tommy," said she, "let that clock case alone." Tommy turned around, whistled for half a minute,

and went to work at the clock again. "Tommy," said she, angrily, "if you dont let that clock alone I certainly will whip you. I never did see such a boy (said the mother), he dont mind a word I say." She continued her knitting, while Tom continued at the clock case till over it tumbled, and dashed the clock and case to pieces. The mother up with the tongs and knocked poor Tom sprawling among the ruins. Tom roared like Bedlam, and the kind woman took him in her lapwas sorry she had hurt him, but then he should learn to mind his mother, and giving him a piece of cake to stop his crying, picked up the ruins of the clock. What was the consequence? Why, Tom, who, with a steady hand" to govern him, would have become a man of worth, turned out a hasty, ill natured villain.

My neighbour Softly, good woman, dont whip her poor dear children, however bad they may conduct, for they cry so loud and so long, she is afraid they will go into fits. Yet she keeps a rod hanging up over the mantel piece, threatening them every hour in the day.

Old captain Testy swore his children should be well governed. So he laid by a good hickory, and for every offence thrashed his children till they were beaten into hardihood and shamelessness. When they appeared on the theatre of life, they were only fit for robbery and the whipping post.

How different was the government of my old friend Aimwell and his wife-If one corrected a child, the other never interfered. When the first ray of knowledge began to dawn in their infant minds, they commenced a steady course of proceeding.

They never directed what was improper to be done, or misunderstood; but so long as the child resisted through temper, they continued to persist until that temper yielded. A second whipping was rarely necessary. A steady hand -a mild but firm manner of issuing their commands, were always sure to produce obedience. It was an invariable rule with them, when they were in a passion, never to punish their children; never to promise to them the minutest thing without performing; and yet their children loved them most tenderly

wantoned and played their little gambols about them with the utmost freedom. If it was convenient they came to the table-if not, without a murmur they waited. They grew up patterns of filial obedience and affection, and added to society the most correct, useful and respectable members.

Listen to old Robert: Never strike a child while you are in anger. Never interfere with your husband or wife in the correction of a child in its presence. The parents must be united, or there is an end of government. Never make light promises to children of rewards or punishments; but scrupulously fulfil what you promise. Begin early with your children-if the temper be high, break it while young-it may cost you and them a pang, but will save you both fifty afterwards-and then be steady in your government. Use the rod sparingly. It is better and easier to command from their love and respect than by fear. Keep these rules, and my word for it, your children will be a happiness to you while young, and an honour to you when they grow up.

LETTERS TO REV. NATHANIEL

Review.

w.

tions;" and then goes on to show TAYLOR, D.D. By Leonard Woods, and we think he does show, to

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

"Your reasoning in the place referred to is intended to obviate an objection against the character of God, arising from the fact, that he has given man a nature which he knew would lead him to sin. The position which you take in your reasoning I understand to be this; that sup. posing God to have adopted a moral system, he could not have prevented all sin, nor the present degree of it; or, as you sometimes represent it, that God could not have done better on the whole, or better, if he gave existence at all, for any individual of the human race. The conclusion is, that no one can impeach the wisdom or goodness of God, considering, that notwithstanding the evil which exists, he will secure the greatest good possible for him to se

cure.

The positions exploded.

"You say, the difficulties on this subject result in your view from 'two very common, but groundless assumptions, assumptions which, so long as they are admitted and reasoned upon, must,' you think, leave the subject involved in insuperable difficulties.' The first of these assumptions is, that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good, and as such, so far as it exists, is preferable to holiness in its stead.' The second is, 'that God could in a moral system have prevented all sin, or at least the present degree of it.'

"Now from all you have advanced on the subject, I conclude that you mean to hold the opposite positions; namely, that sin is not the necessary means of the greatest good, and as such, so far as it exists, is not on the whole preferable to holiness in its stead; and that, in a moral system, God could not have prevented all sin, nor the present degree of it."-pp. 21, 22.

Dr. Woods says, "I am aware that you do not, in so many words, directly affirm these opposite posi

the satisfaction of every candid and attentive reader-that the manner in which Dr. T. has treated the subject in his sermon and notes, must produce the belief that he actually meant to affirm and argue, in favour of the positions which stand opposed to what he denominates "groundless assumptions." Accordingly Dr. Woods afterwards says

"In my remarks, then, I shall consider myself as warranted to proceed on the supposition, that you hold these two opinions, namely; first; that sin is not the necessary means of the greatest good, and as such, so far as it exists, is not, on the whole, preferable to holiness in its stead, -second; that in a moral system, God could not have prevented all sin, nor the present degree of it—And if you should, after all, say, that you do not mean either to defend or affirm these positions; though I might be gratified to know this, I should still wish to subject the positions themselves to a careful examination. On this last supposition, (which I have made so as to be sure not to do you any injus tice,) my object would be, not to charge these opinions upon you, or upon others; but to inquire, whether they are true. And then, though neither you nor your associates had ever embraced them, yet as some others may be exposed to them, the discussion may not be wholly lost.

"But for the present you will permit me to canvass the two opinions referred to, as though it was your intention to maintain them by means of the summary arguments contained in the passages quoted from your pamphlet. And in prosecuting my undertaking, I shall labour to observe that excellent rule of the Rhetoricians, so to express ourselves, that we not only may be understood, but cannot be misunderstood. I shall at least hope not to cast any additional obscurities over a subject, which is in itself sufficiently obscure and difficult."

Notwithstanding this uncommonly fair and candid statement, it has so turned out, since the publication of Dr. W.'s letters, that a bitter complaint has been made by Dr.

Taylor, or his "associates," that Dr. W. represents him as having affirmed what he never did affirm-inasmuch as Dr. T. had only proposed queries, without giving any decision, or opinion, on the manner in which they ought to be answered. We shall take the liberty to make a few remarks on this complaint; because it is one in which the whole reading community has an interest. We maintain then, that no man who publishes a book, has a right to complain that his meaning has been misapprehended, if he has written in such a manner that, out of ten intelligent and unprejudiced readers, nine will in fact misapprehend him: and this we verily believe is true, in reference to the notes attached to Dr. T.'s "Concio ad Clerum"-supposing it was really his intention not to be understood as arguing in favour of the propositions, which he opposes to those that he calls "groundless assumptions." To specify other assumptions, and then ask some pages questions, all going to show the futility of what he opposes, and the plausibility of what he states in opposition, without one intimation that the answers which it would seem he intended should be given, would still be in favour of something of which he is not to be considered as the advocate, and after all complain that he is considered as their advocate-this, we confess, is to us a novel method of writing; and one for which we wish the Dr. and his associates, if they continue to write, may have a patent, which nobody shall be permitted to to invade.

of

Dr. T.'s notes are introduced in the following words

"Note. The difficulties on this difficult subject as it is extensively regarded, result in the view of the writer from two very common but groundless assumptions -assumptions which so long as they are admitted and reasoned upon, must leave the subject involved in insuperable difficulties."-p. 110.

To our apprehension, it is here
VOL. VIII. Ch. Adv.

distinctly implied, at the very outset, that if the condemned assumptions were removed, the difficulties would be removed with them. Surely if the assumptions produce the difficulties, as is unequivocally asserted, take away the assumptions and you take away the difficulties.

But Dr T. gives us more than an implication. He says expressly, after having, at great length, queried the "groundless assumptions" into absurdity

"As an apology for this note, the writer would say that the objection alluded to in the discourse, so commonly rises in the mind in connexion with the subject, that it was thought proper to notice it; and while he knows of no refutation except the one given, he was desirous of attempting still further to free the subject from distressing and groundless perplexity. This is done in his own view, simply by dismissing from the mind the two assumptions which have been examined. The mode in which the mind will in this way, be led to view the character and government of God may, it is believed, be shown to be free from embarrassment by an example."

He then goes on to state an example, which, if it have any relation at all to the subject in hand, must, we think, strike every reader as intended to exhibit or illustrate a new theory or assumption, not attended with difficultynay, he explicitly states, in introducing the example, as we have just seen, that "The mode in which the mind will, in this way, be led to view the character and government of God may, it is believed, be shown to be free from embarrassment." In a word, it seems to us, that nothing can be more undeniable than that it is the apparent design, and the whole design, of Dr. Taylor, in these notes, to explode an old and objectionable theory, and to introduce in its place a new one, that is free from objections. Yet when Dr. Woods shows that this new theory, which he supposes has the opinion of Dr. T. in its favour, is attended with far greater difficulties than the assumptions which he 4 D

opposes, a cry is raised that Dr. T. does not hold this new theory, any more than those assumptions which he discards. We must say, that this is the most extraordinary defence of a writer that we have ever seen. If Dr. T. and his associates would only observe what Dr. Woods justly calls "that excellent rule of the Rhetoricians, so to express ourselves that we may not only be understood, but cannot be misunderstood," it would save both themselves and others no little trouble. If, says Lord Kaimes, in his Elements of Criticism-"If perspicuity in writing be not a positive beauty, the want of it is certainly the greatest defect." And this is the defect, in a remarkable degree, of the writers in Dr. T.'s school of Theology. We are reluctant to charge them with an intentional ambiguity of expression, or obscurity of manner in their reasoning, adopted with a design to provide for a reply to any apprehended confutation of their errors. But we do insist, whether this be their design or not, that they have no right to complain of being misunderstood and misrepresented, till they give us their ideas with more directness and perspicuity. Dr. W., who knows them well, seems to have suspected that something of the kind which has happened might occur; and therefore determined to oppose the opinions which he believed to be erroneous, whether Dr. T. should admit, or deny, that they had been advanced and advocated by himself. In this we think he was right; for these opinions have unquestionably been adopted by many, and we think there is no reason to doubt that they were learned-whether justly or unjustly-from the publications of Dr. T. and his associates.

The following quotation from Dr. Woods's second letter, is more extended than accords well with our scanty space; but it contains a just and lucid explanation of the

different senses of the words that are used in speaking of power, which we think may be of general use, and we therefore give it entire.

"I shall begin with what I consider your second position. And as a proposition is generally true or false according as words or phrases are taken in one sense or another; I shall remark on the different senses of the words which relate to power,

or the want of it; and shall then inquire in which of these senses the words appear to be used in your reasoning.

"A distinction has commonly been made between the literal sense, and the in question. This distinction is founded metaphorical or moral sense of the words in the nature of things, and no man can deny it without involving himself in inconsistency. When I use the words in has power to do a thing, or, he can do it; the literal or proper sense, and say, God I mean that he is able or competent to do it, if he chooses; that there is in him no want of ability to prevent his doing it, if on the whole he prefers and wills to do it; and I mean too, that if any thing whate ver, which is the proper object of power, is not done, it is because God does not choose to do it, or sees it best not to do it,-and not because he is destitute of the requisite power.

"Thus we say, God has power to raise the dead, and to do it now. The word power is here used in the literal, proper sense. Accordingly, if the dead are not raised, and are not raised now, it is not

because God is unable to raise them, or is day; but solely because he does not see less able now, than he will be at the last this to be best, and so does not choose it. If, when using words in the same literal sense, we should say, God cannot raise the dead; our meaning would be, that if he should, on the whole, see it to be best, and so should really choose and will to raise the dead; it would still fail of being done, and would fail because he had not sufficient power. It would be implied, that if he only had power enougli, the thing would be done. We do not commonly speak of God as wanting power in this sense, as we believe him omnipotent. But we speak familiarly of the want of this power in man. If in any case, he fails of accomplishing a particular thing which be really chooses and wills to accomplish; we say, he is not able,-he has not sufficient power.

"This I shall call the first sense of the words denoting the want of power. It is the literal, proper sense.

"Let us now attend to the metaphorical or moral sense of the words denoting

« PreviousContinue »