them to repent. Many of these converts were probably persons who might properly have been called backsliders, and on that occasion were received to become the disciples of the Messiah. We know that when by any special occurrence of providence, a general attention is excited in Christian societies, many church members, who had fallen into a state of coldness and backsliding, have been aroused from their slumbers as well as others who had never professed religion. And why is not the recovery of such backsliders as important as the repentance of those who never joined a church? And where is our warrant for saying, that the operations of the spirit in the two cases are so different, that in the one, they are to be called common, in the other, special or supernatural? I am unacquainted with any scriptural warrant for this distinction; and it is my belief, that no such warrant can be found in the Bible.

If we look into the messages which John was required to write to the seven churches of Asia, we may find that repentance was as solemnly required of church members, who had fallen from "their first love," or had adopted evil courses, as it ever was of men who had never professed religion, nor had any to profess. In both cases, safety and salvation depended on obedience to the call to repent. The messages are represented as from Christ, and as dictated by the spirit. Hence the words so often repeated. 'He that hath an ear let him hear what the spirit saith unto the churches." In the message to professors who were "neither cold nor hot," Jesus said "Behold I stand at

the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in, and will sup with him, and he with me." Rev. iii. 20. By the word, the providence and the spirit of God, Christ may be said to be knocking at every sinner's heart who lives under the light of the gospel; and this representation may teach us, that, on God's part, all things are ready, as to man's capacity and obligation to obey. Would the merciful Saviour have represented himself as standing, and knocking for entrance, had he supposed the persons addressed were destitute of such aids of the spirit as were necessary to hearing his voice and opening the door? I think not; it is much easier for me to admit that heretofore I was under a mistake in regard to man's capacity to obey, than it is to believe that God and his Son have acted a deceptive part in their dealings with mankind.

CHAP. VII.

The Tendency of the prevalent Belief.

The prevalent belief, that God requires more of mankind than he gives them a capacity to perform, must, it seems to me, have had in many respects a pernicious tendency. Some of which I shall suggest in the following queries.

1. Must not such a belief have had an unfavorable influence on the minds of men, in respect to the justice and benignity of God? What would be the

probable effect on the minds of a family of children, should they daily live in the belief, that their father knowingly and constantly requires of them more* than it is possible for them to do, with the utmost care, diligence and exertion? Is it possible for them to regard his precepts as reasonable? and must not his character appear to them not only unkind but unjust? And if their views of his requirements are correct, what must be the character of the father?

2. If these children act under the impression, that their father knowingly requires more than they can do, and more than he expects that they will accomplish, will they not very naturally be less careful to do according to their ability, than they would under a belief that nothing unreasonable is required? As the precepts appear to them unjust, will they not reason in the following manner? Do what we can we shall accomplish but a part of what is required, and of course be exposed to punishment. Besides, it is very uncertain how much our father expects of us. Would not such a feeling produce irreverence both for the precepts and the father a despair of gaining his approbation, and consequent remissness?

3. What views must these children have of the nature of such violations of their father's precepts as they believe have resulted from incapacity to obey? They may feel deep concern on account of their exposedness to punishment; but is it possible for them to feel humble contrition for such offences? What in truth is the nature of such violations of law as result from incapacity to obey? And who

is the more blamable, the father or his children? This I suspect is a species of transgression not known under the government of God.

Now let Christians, who have lived under the impression that God's requirements transcend their capacity to obey, transfer the foregoing queries to themselves, and then say whether their own experience does not justify the representation which has been given of the tendency of such a belief. Have you been as careful in all things to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God, as you probably would have been, had you believed your capacities commensurate with your duty? What have been your views of such sins as you imputed to a want of a capacity to do all that was required? And what must have been God's views of your confessions of such violations of his law? Can he have been pleased with confessions of sin which implied that the real blame was on his own part, in requiring more than he gave you a capacity to do?

4. Must not the prevalent impression have a sad influence on education? While parents believe that God requires more of them and of their children than either of them is able to do, unless he should grant a supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit; must not this belief have a disheartening tendency, causing the parents to feel as if little if any encouragement was given to train up children in the way they should go? Is there not reason to think that, with such views, parents are really less careful to do all in their power than they would be if they really believed that no impossibilities are required, either of themselves or their children?

Besides, what must be the effects of this belief on the minds of children and young people? If from infancy children are taught that God requires more of them than they are able to perform, they must of course grow up with the impression, that God is an austere and hard master. Their inability they will regard as their calamity and their excuse, not their sin. Especially so, if they are made to believe that their inability is a curse brought on them by Adam's sin, or God's displeasure.

I can hardly think of any thing more injurious to children than to train them up with minds imbued with impressions so dishonorable to God. Nor can I doubt that such a training has been injurious to millions in our own country. It is very true that parents do not, in plain language, tell their children, that God is a cruel or hard master; but is not that idea clearly implied in what has been abundantly said to children, or in their hearing, of man's utter inability to obey the gospel, or to keep the commandments of the Lord?

5. Is there not reason to believe, that much of the inconsistency in professors of religion and much of the depravity of those who make no profession, чave resulted from the belief, that God really requires that of all mankind which to them is impossible? Had all the adults of our country grown up with minds deeply imbued with the belief, that God is a Father so just and kind that he never requires of any rational being more duty than he gives a capacity to perform, and that there can be no excuse for any real violation of his law; how very different might have been the characters of our