their own destruction; we encourage others to listen to their deceitful and alluring words to their eternal ruin, and we throw the whole weight of our influence more or less directly into the scale of opposition to the truth. For, those who think that Arminians and Antinomians and other advocates of erroneous doctrines are about right in their views and feelings respecting practical religion, and deem it their duty to countenance and encourage them, and feel bound to entertain and express a favorable opinion of their piety, and think they are doing God service by endeavoring to promote the most intimate union of all such in the same religious community, must necessarily have their own feelings and practice very much affected by such views. Though they may still, for a time, imagine that they themselves believe and love the doctrines of the gospel, they cannot long practice upon their kind and liberal views towards the advocates of error without losing their attachment to the truth. And they will soon find that if they continue to believe the truth at all, they will believe it as though they believed it not. They will not so believe it as to give it any practical influence over them, and therefore it will be the same to them as if they did not believe it. And if the advocates of error have discernment enough to perceive the necessary consequences of this course, and art enough to encourage it by meeting these advances with an apparent acquiescence in these liberal views, and the show of a cordial reciprocation of them, these liberal professors of the evangelical doctrines will feel a growing attachment to such advocates of error, and a corresponding diminution of their attachment to those friends of the truth who do not fall in with their amalgamating schemes. And the consequence will soon be, that they will feel more fellowship for such advocates of error than they will for such friends of truth, and speak more kindly and respectfully of them, and do more to extend their influence, and promote their cause.And as union, and charity, and liberality, are charming words, and the advocates of error have learnt by experience the great advantage to their cause of a very free use of them; and as very many of the professed friends of truth seem to be running into this snare, the most disastrous consequences are to be apprehended. 4. If the duties of the gospel are only the practical result of the doctrines of the gospel, then those who differ from us in the system of doctrines which they embrace, differ from us in the whole of their religion. Our practical religion is the result of the doctrines which we believe, and their practical religion is the result of the doctrines which they believe. If we believe the system of doctrines taught in the bible, and they believe an opposite system of doctrines, our practical religion is the religion of the bible, but their practical religion is something of a different and opposite character. Their love to God is of a different nature from ours, and for a different reason. What we call true love to God, they deny and reject; and what they call true love to God, we deny and reject. And as the true worship of God consists in the expression of right affections towards God in the language of prayer and praise, their worship of God is essentially different from ours. What we call true worship, they reject as false worship; and what they call true worship, we reject as false worship. Their repentance for sin is of a differ- it is so; and they have made many ent nature from ours. What we call attempts, in former times, as well true repentance, they consider false repentance; and what they call true repentance, we consider false repentance. Their faith in Christ is of a different nature from ours. What we call true faith, they consider as false faith; and what they call true faith, we consider as false faith. Their self denial is of a different nature from ours. What we call the only true self denial, they reject as unnecessary and wrong; and what they call true self denial, we consider as having nothing of the nature of self denial in it. The same difference exists with respect to every part of practical religion. The duty of submission to God, and the duty of prayer, are duties acknowledged to be such by all; but the views which are entertained of their naure are as different as are the news of those doctrines of which these duties are the practical result. What is called true submission by the one, is not so called by the other; and what is considered right prayer by the one, is not considered right prayer by the other. There is the same difference also on the subject of christian experience. What is considered a genuine christían experience by the one, is considered a false experience by the ether, and as having nothing of the nature of true religion in it. And what is considered evidence of a change of heart by the one, is considered as no evidence at all by the other. Our experimental and practical religion differ as widely and as essentially as our doctrinal views; and it cannot be otherwise, if we are consistent with ourselves. And those who are particular in their inquiries, and discriminating in their views, on these subjects, have long understood that as in latter times, to rouse the attention of professed christians to these subjects, and lead them to discriminate between true religion and its counterfeits, that they may not be fatally deceived. Edwards and Brainerd, and Bellamy, in their day, deeply felt its importance, and dwelt much upon it in their preaching, conversation, and writings.And if any suppose that these differences are less now than formerly, it is because they have attended less to the subject, and are not acquainted with the actual state of things among the different denominations of professed christians.It may be true, indeed, that there is less apparent difference now than formerly, because there is less attention paid to the subject. And it may be true that one system of doctrines and duties is received by greater numbers now than formerly, and is more generally prevailing; and that another system of doctrines and duties is received by smaller numbers, and is less extensively prevalent. But the difference between the two systems remains the same. I do believe that what I consider the system of doctrines and duties taught in the bible, is less valued and less insisted on now than it was some years ago; and that what I consider an opposite system of doctrines and duties, and one fundamentally and fatally wrong, is fast gaining ground, and threatens to overspread our land & sweep away every opposing barrier. And when I see the appathy of the churches on this subject, and the prevailing disposition to consider all religions about equally good, and all experiences as about equally genuine, and to hurry all who obtain a hope into the church as soon as possible, I cannot but con sider it as one of the strongest indications of the ultimate triumph of error and false religion which this gloomy period exhibits. 5. If the duties of the gospel are only the practical results of the doctrines of the gospel, then it is essential to the prosperity of the cause of religion that the doctrines of the gospel should be carefully studied by the people, and be faithfully inculcated from the pulpit and the press. There is, indeed, much that is called experimental and practical religion, which has no connection with the doctrines of the gospel, and flourishes most where those doctrines are most concealed; but it is the practical result of other doctrines than the doctrines of the gospel, and owes its existence and progress to the open exhibition or the secret belief of those other doctrines.All that experimental and practical religion, however, which is not the result of the doctrines of the gospel, is not the religion of the gospel. It is a religion of another kind than that which the bible teaches. It is a dangerous and fatal delusion. It deceives the soul with a fair appearance and leads those who trust in it to destruction and perdition. If true practical religion is to be kept alive and made to flourish, those doctrines of the gospel of which it is the result must be kept before the mind, by a continued and faithful exhibition of them from the pulpit, and by a lucid statement and able defence of them from the press. Let it not be imagined that any people are so well acquainted with them that there is no need of this. Those ministers who take pains to ascertain how much their people know of the doctrines of the gospel, will find great room for improvement, ever in the best informed churches and congregations. And if they were ever so well acquainted with the doctrines of the gospel, and coule not increase that knowledge, the continued exhibition of those doctrines would still be necessary both to promote the advancement of christians in practical religion, that they might be more and more "sanctified through the truth," and to promote the conviction and conversion of sinners, that they might be "begotten by the word of truth, and purify their souls in obeying the truth." If the duties of the gospel are the practical result of its doctrines, and are enforced by those doctrines, then when practical duties are stated and urged, they must be enforced by the doctrines of the gospel, by those great truths which furnish the most powerful motives to the discharge of every christian duty. The duties of religion are not discharged with sufficient constancy and faithfulness, even where the most powerful motives are presented; much less, where they are urged and enforced by motives of less weight. As well might a watch be expected to be regular in its movements when deprived of the main spring, as a christian to be regular in the discharge of the duties of the gospel when they are not inforced by its doctrines.There is also, in human nature, a strong tendency to lose sight of the great doctrines of the gospel: and when any have been brought forward to a certain degree of knowledge in them, if no means are used to keep up that knowl edge, it will enevitably decline. It is so in other kinds of knowledge, in which the heart has no concern; and much more in this, Te in which the heart has so much to gospel inculcates, but something re do. Christian affections are excited by presenting the proper obthejects of those affections; and if those objects are not presented, it is in vain to call upon Christians to put forth right affections. We may complain of them, and blame them, for being cold, and stupid, and unfeeling; but this will not make them have right feelings, unless the proper objects of feelfings are presented. The doctrines of the gospel present the proper objects of feeling; and an exhibition of them is indispensable to keep Christians from backsliding. And if the doctrines of the gospel are not continually presented and urged upon the attention of those who are not Christians, their decided opposition of heart to the truth, and their native love to error, will soon lead them to disbelieve those doctrines, and embrace the contrary errors. These things have often been verified by experience. Churches that have once been well acquainted with the doctrines of the gospel, have, in a very short time after those doctrines have been suppressed, sunk down into a state of indifference towards them, and then into opposition to them, and the rejection of them; and whole congregations that were once willing to hear the great doctrines of the gospel faithfully preached, and verily believed them to be true, have gone over to the side of error, and are now the decided opposers of those doctrines. And their practical religion, as we have seen, is necessarily of the same nature with the doctrines they embrace. If they have ever 30 much of what they call practical religion, it being the result of a false system of doctrines, is not the true practical religion which the : totally different in its nature. 6. If the duties of the gospel are only the practical result of the doctrines of the gospel, then indifference to any doctrine, or opposition to it, is as decisive evidence of a bad state of heart, as indifference or opposition to the corresponding duty. All consider indifference to any duty enjoined in the gospel, and especially, opposition to that duty, as evidence of a bad state of heart. When God commands, and we are unwilling to obey, no one doubts that we are criminal. But when any doctrine is exhibited, many think indifference to it is excusable, and some that even opposition to it is a virtue. Some, indeed, pretend that they love the doctrine, while they are opposed to its being exhibited. But this seems impossible. For if they love the doctrine, how can they but love to think of it, and to converse upon it, and to hear it from others? But all such opposition to the doctrines of the gospel, and all indifference to them, is just as criminal as opposition or indifference to the corresponding duties. It is even more criminal, because it is more mischievous in its tendency and consequences. Opposition to a particular duty, may be considered as having reference only to an individual case; but opposition to the doctrine of which that duty is the practical result, strikes at the foundation of that whole class of duties, and extends to every case. If it is criminal to poison a stream, from which one may drink and die, it is much more criminal to poison the fountain, from which thousands draw their supplies. When, therefore, we hear any man avow his opposition to any doctrine of the gospel, we may justly consider him as not only avowing his opposition to the corresponding duty in his own particular case, but as avowing his opposition to that class of duties, in every possible case. He would not only free himself from the discharge of a duty to which he feels a reluctance, but he would destroy the obligation of all others to perform it also. And hence, opposition to the doctrines of the gospel, calls more imperiously upon a church for the exercise of discipline towards one who makes it, than a neglect of the corresponding duty in his own particular case possibly could do. It is generally admitted to be the duty of a church to discipline a member who neglects the discharge of any of the great duties of the gospel, and justifies himself in it; but it is not so generally admitted to be their duty to discipline a member who opposes the corresponding doctrines. The man who obstructs the stream must be taken care of, while the man who destroys the fountain must be suffered to go on in his work! SO 7. If the duties of the gospel are "only the practical result of the doc"trines of the gospel, then opposition to the doctrines of the gospel is easy to be accounted for. The doctrines of the gospel are so plain, 'so reasonable, and clearly taught in the scriptures, that it has often been matter of wonder that it should be so difficult to make people see and believe them. This subject discloses the secret of all the difficulties, and all the objections, and all the opposition which those doctrines have to encounter. It all proceeds from the heart.*Men are not willing to perform the duties of the gospel. And when they see that the duties which they are unwilling to perform grow sut of certain doctrines and are enforced by those doctrines, their opposition is strongly excited towards those doctrines. They are full of complaints against those doctrines, as perplexing, difficult to be understood, and quite unnecessary to be known or believed in order to please God. If it were true, as is often reproachfully asserted of the doctrines of the gospel, that they are matters of mere speculation, and of no practical tendency, men would have no motive to oppose them, any more than they have to oppose the philosophical doctrines that the planets are inhabited, or that the earth is hollow. But since the doctrines of the gospel have a practical tendency, and are the foundation of certain duties which men are unwilling to perform, and they see no way to free themselves from the obligation to perform those duties, but by destroying the doctrines of which those duties are the practical results, their enmity is excited against those doctrines, and their efforts are directed to their destruction. If any really believed that the doctrines of the gospel were as void of any practical influence, as those doctrines of philosophy which have been mentioned, they would feel the same indifference towards them, and be as willing that others should believe them. So that every degree of opposition that is manifested towards any of the doctrines of the gospel is acknowledgment that those doctrines are of practical importance, and do enforce duties which are repugnant to the feelings of those who make that opposition. It is plain, in the light of this subject, that all opposition to the doctrines of the gospel proceeds from unwillingness to perform the corresponding duties of the gospel, and that when men become willing to perform any duty, they no long |