464 On the prevalent Neglect of practical Preaching. nance which we meet with in the religious world to that kind of preach ing, which, though by their own condession proceeding upon right principles, yet explains and enforces the preceptive parts of the gospel, defines their limits, points out their tendency, and presses home their observance. So long as religion is confined to doctrines and articles of faith, many people are the best christians in the world. They can understand all mysteries and all knowledge.", No doctrine comes amiss to them: nothing is too hard for their intellectual digestion. To believe is easy; to be orthodox is cheap. But if they be told, upon the authority of an apostle, that, as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also;" it is morality, it is legality, it is any thing but the gospel; and St. James is convicted of Arminianism! " But there is an objection made to practical preaching, by which many people pretend to justify their aversion to it. It is intimated in effect, if not in words, that practical preaching is for real christians superfluous 2nd unnecessary. We are told make the tree good, and the fruit will be good; for a good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit:" from all which it is contended that, when men are made thoroughly acquainted with the doctrines of the gospel, and these doctrines are received into their hearts by the influence of the holy spirit, obedience and good works will follow of course and by necessity. Accordingly the inference is virtually drawn, though not always openly expressed, that all that preaching, which explains and presses home the precepts of the gospel, is of little use to those who possess the principle of love to God; because this principle renders all instruction on these points unnecessary. The passage of scripture which has been advanced is, indeed, of high authority; for it delivers the judgment of an infallible teacher. But per haps it may appear, that in order to making the tree good, so far as this lies with the preacher, who is only an instrument in the hand of God, practical instruction is as requisite as doctrinal; and that both should operate to the same end, each in its proper place in the scale of importance: one as the foundation, and the other [AUGUST, as the super-structure of religion in the soul. Without this view of the subject, how are we to account for the practical sermons of our Lord, and the practical instructions of his apostles, which, I may certainly venture to say, constitute one half of the writings of the New Testament? Why does the enforcement of christian duties and evangelical virtues compose so great a part of their discourses, if they thought these instructions superfluous, and that when they had once supplied their converts with a principle of action, they might send them to seek elsewhere for a rule and a remembrancer? It may be said that, in the first ages of the church, the converts stood in need of information upon these subjects; but that, for us, who have the gospel be fore us, such information is not necesin many instances. The Corinthians sary. This, I answer, was not true and other churches had received the gospel, and no doubt understood the nature and obligation of its moral precepts, as well as of its prominent doctrines, before St. Paul addressed to them his epistles. St. Peter found it necessary to minds (of christians) by way of re"stir up the pure membrance." St. Paul also exhorts Titus to "put" his flock "in mind" of their duties, which expression evidently supposes their previous knowledge of these duties; but equally. supposes their lamentable slowness and forgetfulness in the observance of them, without minute discussion and repeated enforcement. willing to meet every objection), that But it may be said again, (for I am the precepts of the gospel, however important, are yet plain and obvious, that no one can be at a loss to comprehend them: whereas in its doctrines there are some things "hard to be understood;" that they are, for the ous; and that, therefore, people are most part, uncommon and mysteriin much greater danger of missing the true nature and meaning of these than of the precepts of christianity, which need only to be read in order to be perceived. From all this it might be inferred, that the discussion of doctrines is of vastly greater importance than the explanation of precepts. It must, indeed, be allowed, that it should be a point of great moment with ministers, to put their hearers in possession of clear and determinate notions concerning the prin cipal doctrines of the gospel, a failure in which is a cause of sad perplexity to christians, and of triumph to unbelievers. But I am not insisting upon one kind of preaching to the exclus sion of the other. Let each preserve its proper rank, and attract the attention due to it, and all will be right. I must contend, however, in answer to the foregoing objection, that the precepts of the gospel are not so ob vious as to stand in little need of dis cussion. These precepts are, for the most part, general, which was indeed hardly to be avoided without swelling the volume of the New Testament to an immoderate bulk. God has given the text, and left it to his ministers to study the explanation. It should, therefore, be the business of the ministers of God to take these precepts as it were to pieces, to extract their contents, and to point out the particulars which they contain. The scriptures warn us to "abstain from all appearance of evil;" but in this admonition are comprehended very many particulars not exceeding ly obvious to common minds, and which many people have little leisure, and still less inclination, to discover. But the preacher's province is, in spite of ignorance and aversion, to point out and press home these particulars. The same thing may be said of most other precepts; and, if this be the case, it will follow that the discussion of the precepts and admonitions is little less requisite than the explanation of doctrines. It is the language of many people: "Let the love of God to sinners, in the gift of his Son Jesus Christ, be constantly held forth before an audience of real christians, and there will be no need of enforcements to obedience and a holy life." True christians, it is said, will go away from such a sermon better disposed to act in conformity with the will of God and with the precepts of the gospel, than from the best practical dissertation. I will suppose, for the present, this assertion to be true; still it does not, in any great degree, affect the point for which I contend, that practical preaching is as requisite as doctrinal. For my question is not so much about the principle, as the rule of a christian's actions; not so much about what he may be disposed, as about what he may be fitted and prepared to do. To be disposed is one thing; to be directed is another. The truth is, that people" perish," not so much from want of a motive as for "lack of knowledge" on this important subject. Their thoughts are seldom directed from the pulpit to the study and contemplation of the morality of the gospel. Consequently they obtain no settled, clear, and determinate notions, concerning its nature, extent, and obligation. Particular du ties are, as it seems to me, not sufficiently discussed and inculcated; and, on this account, people content themselves with a vague and general comprehension of evangelical precepts, and seem to think that their christian obedience is abundantly manifested, if, in most instances, they transgress not the letter of a commandment. It may be said, that the same love, which supplies a real christian with a motive to obedience, will likewise prompt him to study how he may render his obedience most perfect and effectual. But is this in reality the case? Do many of those, whom yet we are unwilling to think unconverted persons, seek to comprehend the nature, extent, and excellency of God's holy law, and thus in their closets supply the deficiencies of the pulpit? Have all leisure to do this? Have all ability? and, what is more, have all inclination? A man, it is my opinion, must be very far advanced in a godly life before he can calmly enter upon a rigorous comparison of his conduct with the requisitions of the gospel; before he can contentedly sit down to expose any little evasion, by which he may have justified himself in the neglect of a divine command; or to detect any minute sophistry by which, perhaps, he may have endeavoured to explain away the meaning of some positive precept, in order to suit an occasional convenience, or gratify a favourite appetite. We talk loudly, indeed, of the deceitfulness of the human heart; but do we make it our fre quent business to lay open this deceitfulness in ourselves? For, to direct us in this unpleasant, but wholesome, scrutiny is one of the main objects of practical preaching. It is in vain then for people to insist, that the possession of right principles of obedi ence supersedes the necessity of practical preaching; because the grand object of this preaching is, not so much to supply us with a motive to obedience, as to furnish us with instruction on points of christian sanctity and self-denial: and, since the best of men are not always very for ward to probe their own hearts, it should be the business of ministers to do it for them. But more than this: I do not altogether subscribe to the truth of the assertion above stated, the substance of which is this, "That a sermon, which contains a mere general representation of the love of God to sin ners, will, in reality, produce all the moral effect that can be wished for, without much intermixture of a prac tical nature." The real effect of such a sermon (and many such there are) is, I scruple not to say, admiration of the preacher rather than advantage for ourselves; and since we are apt some. times to mistake pleasure for improvement, and to suppose that what delights us must do us good, it is no wonder that people attribute the elevation of mind, with which they may return from such discourses, to some secret gracious influence upon their hearts. But the true proof of the utility of such a sermon is not to be sought for in any immediate impressions which it produces, however glowing and fervent they may be; but in its deep and durable effect upon the future conduct. I would not ask people concerning such a discourse:-" Does it make you feet as if you loved God better than before?" but, "Does it make you act as if you did so?" Nor would I put this question to them, as they were returning from the place of worship glowing with admiration; but after the interval of a week or a fortnight, at the end of which time I am afraid praise would be the only testimony which many would have to produce in favour of the sermon. Again, concerning such a discourse I would not enquire of the hearers, whether it had caused them to pour forth some sincere and fervent ejaculations to heaven. This effect is good, but it may be transitory. I would ask, whether it had made them more vigilant over the risings of anger, over habits of peevishness, pride, envy, or obstinacy. For it is the regulation and government of the tem pers which, as it seems to me, forms the principal line of distinction between the morality of a christian and that of the world around him. It must be observed, that I am not now speaking of motives. But the people of the world can be moral. Many of them can be sensible of the obligations to honesty, truth, chastity, and sobriety. But the suppression of evil tempers is with them a matter of very small concern. It is a work of supererogation. This conquest, the most difficult perhaps of all, is reserved for the christian soldier. His motto is, "To him, that overcometh;" and, by the help of his God, he goes forthconquering and to conquer. To return, however, to the point: it is my firm persuasion that, if the value of such sermons as exclude practical instruction were to be estimated, not by feeling, but by fact; not by what people thought concerning them, but by what they did in consequence of them, these discourses would, in the end, be found miserably wanting. I have thus, Sir, in this paper, endeavoured to obviate some popular objections to practical preaching. If you shall think fit to receive it, I may possibly, at a future time, submit to you some farther considerations upon this topic. The subject is an important-is a neglected one; and I should think myself happy, if, by this trifle, I could stir up some abler pen than my own to do justice to its importance. A FRIEND TO PRACTICAL To the Editor of the Christian Observer. In pursuance of my original plan, I proceed to make some additional observations upon the last subject of my former communication. I wish your readers, Mr. Editor, to remember that, at present, I have no intention to discuss the general advantages and disadvantages of extemporaneous prayers; but only to state that the use of them, and the neglect of certain parts of the services of our church, have a tendency to undermine secretly and imperceptibly the foundations of the church. The first fact I shall bring forward is the custom of curtailing, either by abbreviations or .omissions, the morning and evening services of the church: I do not mean the occasional prayers, about which some latitude, is allowed to the judg. ment of the officiating minister; but I speak of those parts of the services which are stated and unalterable. When this is done, and when (as it sometimes happens) the person who does this makes use of an extemporary prayer before his sermon, or preaches for forty, fifty, or sixty minutes, what effect must be produced on the minds of the people? May they not conclude that their pastor regards our church prayers as of little consequence? Should they conclude that he puts greater value on his serinon and extemporary prayer than on our church prayers, would not their conclusion be drawn from premises sufficiently good? Would it not be much more decorous, much more agreeable to humility, much more beneficial to the church, and much more useful to the souls of the people, were he to shorten his sermon ten or fifteen minutes, and not to deprive the prayers, either by robbery or stealth, of property lawfully granted to them by our reformers, and confirmed to them by the authority of succeeding generations? And let me ask, what possible advantage can be expected from an extemporary prayer before the sermon? I have examined the matter, but still find my researches fruitless; for it appears to me, that our church service contains, in strong and nervous language, every petition proper for a mixed congregation. What necessity then can there be for extemporary additions? No man having drunk old wine, straightway desireth new; for he saith the old is better. If it be proper to create a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, an ability to digest spiritual food, the stimulants prescribed ought not to be made weaker and weaker, but ought to possess, at least, as much strength as those that were first administered. Generally speaking, how ever, what is unproductive of good does harm: and, in the present state of things, such extemporary prayers, delivered with much greater empha. sis and animation than were bestowed on our church prayers, give strength and more extensive fluence to the effects which I have already shewn (p. 274) to be produced by extemporary sermons, and by the whole manner of conducting the service. From this subject I proceed to notice, that, in very many churches, the public prayers are never read except on Sundays, and some few other occasions; and that where they are read daily, they are frequently dis patched with indecent haste. It must be very irksome to a clergyman, who is much employed, to be obliged to read the prayers frequently to only three or four persons; and I admit that it would be well were the pray ers less frequently appointed to be read in some churches. But what reason can there be for totally abolishing the old pious custom of publicly worshipping God more frequently than on Sundays? If the time of the day generally appointed for prayers be inconvenient, let it be altered. If you say that people will not attend, I advise you to see if your public and private admonitions will not produce a salutary effect. I would in the next place observe, that some pious clergymen seldom or never make use of the prayers appointed by the church for the visitation of the sick; but substitute in their place their own extemporary productions. It may be that our reformers never intended to confine the clergy to the form of our church. The cases of different sick persons may vary in a thousand ways and degrees: and it may frequently-it may generally be allowable for a clergyman to add something extemporaneous, in order more particularly to suit the case of a sick person. But when the service of our church is so copious and excellent; when it contains much that will suit any case whatever; some portion of it ought always to be used by every clergyman who is called upon to visit those who are afflicted by sickness. He ought to ask for the book of common prayer, and should, in every way, manifest a marked respect for its contents. In seasons of affliction the mind is easily and deeply impressed. These oppor tunities will be improved by every faithful, sound, pastor of our church. His first object will be that of producing a deep conviction of sin, and sincere hearty repentance, both in the sick man, and also in his friends and relatives. He will then direct their views unto Jesus Christ, will exhort them to place their hopes of salvation only on the merits of the merciful Redeemer of the world; and will urge them to strive earnestly to obtain a heavenly inheritance. But attendance to a primary most impor tant object cannot justify the neglect of an inferior secondary duty. In the present case, though inferior, it is highly important; though secondary, it demands attention from regard to honour, to duty, and consistency of character. When a sick man possesses an humble teachable disposition, when the minds of bystanders are solemnized by seeing a friend emaciated with disease; then ought a clergyman to endeavour to impress them all with the most favour able ideas of our church prayers. Both the sick man and his friends will view, with some veneration, a book from which they derived much in struction and consolation in seasons of great distress; and which pointed out to them words and petitions to God admirably suited to their afflicted condition. Let us suppose that two clergymen, of equal piety and abilities, are placed in circumstances altogether similar. One of them, when he prays for a blessing on his public instructions, uses a collect of the church. His sermon is written with care and judge ment. He strives that it may be solid and instructive, but striking and popular. His attendance on the sick, his public labours and private conversations, convince his parishioners of his great esteem for the services of our church and his whole conduct has a tendency to keep his congregation distinct from other religious parties. The other clergyman reads the prayers, and occasionally commends them; but he makes use of extemporary prayers when he visits the sick, and also before and after his sermon: his public discourses also are not written down; and his whole method is such as to tend to remove all distinctions between the Church of England and other denominations of christians. Let any man judge impartially, whether of these men will best support the church: which of their congregations will be in most danger of being drawn from her communion. Let us go farther, and consider the real good which these men do in the vineyard of Jesus Christ; and, if I mistake not very greatly indeed, the former clergyman will do the most substantial perma nent good, though appearances may sometimes favour the latter. CHURCHMAN. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THE circumstances of the world being considered, I profess myself no enemy to controversy. I would rather it did not exist; and so would I rather, that no such thing as moral evil existed. But since of this there is no question, I feel comparatively gratified when attempts are made, even of a polemic description, to reduce the evil within narrower limitswhen false and pernicious opinions are resisted, exposed in their true light, and confuted. If the controversy be of a more quiet and amicable kind, and has, in a certain degree, truth for its object on both sides, its attractions undoubtedly are not diminished. It will, however, candidly be acknowledged, that controversy has a natural tendency to sour the temper, and exasperate the language, even of those who defend the better cause. Controversialists, if they have not an interest, generally find one, in the success of their contention; a circumstance which tends to mislead the judgment, and make the combatants more anxious for victory than truth. There is nothing more injurious to the cause of truth, in any litigated proposition, than a variable use of the principal terms upon which the controversy depends. These reflections, particularly the last, have frequently obtruded themselves upon me, in running down the stream, by which your pages are pretty copiously irrigated, of the present controversy concerning Calvinism; upon which I beg leave to offer a few remarks. Calvinism, as far as I can learn, has been generally understood to denote a certain degree of conformity, be it more or less, but not a perfect identity, with the sentiments of the reformer from whose name the term is derived; and certain persons, clergymen especially, who esteemed their opinions to be in perfect conformity with the doctrine and articles of the Church of England, have been called Calvinists. No particular objection seemed to lie against the |