to be depended upon and always in feelings too acute and exhausting to be equable and consistent. What then is likely to be the fate of the superstructure? It will be at the mercy of whatever can affect views which are so liable to violent and capricious changes, and feelings which are exposed to sudden gusts from every point of the compass.

Nothing need be said to shew, that a character, in which the renovation to newness of life is, in an unusual degree, both partial and unsteady, must be even at the best comparative. ly slow in its growth in grace. Well may christians, formed in this school, often complain grievously of the insuperable difficulties they meet with in their holy warfare. Instead of putting on the whole armour of God they rush into the field furnished with few weapons of any kind, either to defend themselves or annoy the enemy. What wonder then if they should be wounded on every side, and obtain few or no victories? On the other hand, can we be surprised if this school should send forth not a few who, hurried on by a sanguine temper and strong natural passions, say that they are christians, but are not; mistaking ardent feelings and an unsanctified zeal for a change of heart, and indecently exulting in spiritual privileges to which they have no claim?

B. T.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

In my first paper on the importance of practical preaching, which you were pleased to admit into your miscellany for August last, I took occasion to encounter some of those prejudices, existing among professors of the gospel, against that kind of preaching which may be termed strictly practical. In doing this I was led to introduce the principal, and indeed conclusive argument in favour of this species of instruction, the example and injunctions of our Lord and his apostles. Very many passages of scripture might be adduced which prove incontestably the truth of my proposition. In addition to what I have before advanced upon this point, I shall produce one or two places of holy writ, which are, as it seems to me, express

and decisive, and afterwards proceed to consider the subject in another point of view.

The first of these passages is in 1 Tim. chap. vi. ver. 17, 18, 19. "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us all things richly to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, &c." In this place, then, we have an express injunction from St. Paul to Timothy to inculcate, upon proper principles, one particular feature of practical religion, the exercise of liberality. And, by parity of reasoning, it is surely allowable to conclude, that the same charge was to be extended to every other duty of the gospel. Timothy, we find, was not simply to set before his converts the love of God to man, and afterwards to leave it with their gratitude to make the due returns of obedience. St. Paul, we may be persuaded, was not ignorant that, wherever the grace of God was received into the heart by faith, it would be accompanied, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, by a suitable conformity to the will of God: but the end was to be connected with the means adapted to its accomplishment; and these means were practical instruction and exhortation. We see then that practical preaching is perfectly consistent with a belief in those sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit which always accompany true con

version.

The second passage I shall quote is from Titus, chap. ii. ver. 1, 2. "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: that the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience." I could wish particular attention to be paid to the three last circumstances mentioned, "sound in faith, in charity, in patience;" because, in this place, the distinction between doctrinal and practical preaching is expressly marked. To be "sound in faith" relates to doctrine: to be sound "in charity, in patience," evidently refers to practice. We see then, in this passage, what Titus was to preach; and, since these are directions given to one of the most ancient ministers of the gospel, they easily

apply to all his successors, and cannot, without a manifest failure in their duty, be neglected by them. Nor will the force of this conclusion be evaded by a plea sometimes made, that a whole sermon cannot be preached upon practical topics, and that it is sufficient, if these be introduced at the end of a discourse, for the sake of shewing the effect of those doctrines which constitute the substance of it." To do this is to divest practical instruction of its due importance, and to reduce it to a few vague and general exhortations, foisted in at the close of a sermon to save the credit of the preacher. In St. Paul's charges I see no difference made between the degree of study, which ought to be applied to each of these departments of instruction. They seem both to be considered as equally requisite, and each of course ought, occasionally, and, in its turn, to compose the substance of a minister's discourses. Let the principle and the effect never be separated: but, in cases where a minister is appointed over a settled congregation, and where that congregation is in the constant habit of hearing from his lips the peculiarities of christian doctrine, it ought surely to be his business sometimes to devote the substance of a discourse to the explanation and enforcement of those duties, which every good man is bound to study and observe. And this, Sir, is all which I contend for.

Waving, however, any farther proof from scripture concerning a minister's obligation to practical preaching in its strictest sense, it may be useful to consider the subject in another point of view: not entirely as it relates to private christians, but as it affects the general morality of the world. In this light a practical preacher of the gospel is of essential service to the cause of common virtue, and, by maintaining the moral duties of christianity in their true extent and purity, tends to check the inroads of vice and licentiousness, and to preserve in a good measure that external decency of manners, and respect for religion, which, however some may affect to despise them, are the foundation of those remains of order and comfort which are still felt, notwithstanding the vices and follies of mankind..

There needs no great range of ob servation to convince any man, who is acquainted with his Bible, that the general morality of the world is deficient in its rules, and erroneous in its principle. The principle of most men's morality rises no higher than interest, convenience, restraint, constitution, or, to say the most, a persuasion of the excellency and expedi ency of virtue. But are any of these principles to be compared with the purity of that which makes love to God the foundation of obedience, and which proposes the gratitude arising from the love of God to us as an incentive to stimulate us to the prac tice of our duty? Yet, if this be the sole principle of obedience which the Bible teaches, those systems of morality, which leave out this fundamental motive, must evidently be erroneous in their principle. But the rules of fashionable morality are no less lax and deficient, than the principle, which suggests them, is erroneous, They often put "darkness for light, and light for darkness," and are commonly so confined in their operation as to reach no farther than the outward action; and so, by falling short of the heart, to miss the source and substance of all good or evil. Besides all this, these rules admit of such numerous exceptions, and are dependent on so many circumstances and situations which dispense with their observance, that it would puzzle any plain man to settle their standard, or to calculate the instances of allowable deviation. Let us compare with this the stern and unbending morality of the gospel, and we shall find, that before the application of this criterion the rules of worldly morality must sink into disgrace.

This, I apprehend, is a true, though very general picture of the morality of the world. Now, without an occasional detection of its fundamental errors, and frequent and vigorous remonstrances against its imperfect operation, the passions and interests of men have a tendency to weaken, more and more, its obligation, and, in the end, to banish out of the world those remains of principle and virtue which, in spite of the inroads of vice, still keep society in some little order. Whatever therefore is calculated to counteract this tendency, to confirm men in the practice of their duty, lax

and imperfect as it may be, and, by exposing vice in its most hateful colours, to shame it, if possible, out of its excesses, must be considered as promoting an end most favourable to happiness, and indeed most necessary to the well being of society. The torrent of vice runs in numerous directions, and with an impetuous career. Certainly all its outlets and channels cannot be stopt; and, perhaps, not one of them completely and effectually. But its progress may, in many instances, be checked and weakened. The " overflowings of ungodliness" may be in some degree suppressed; and their natural tendency, which is to inundate and overwhelm the world, though not perhaps to be finally overcome, may still be protracted in its operation. To drop the metaphor, it rests I believe with the ministers of God's word, and with them chiefly, by exposing, reproving, and shaming the follies of mankind, to prevent them at least from increasing to a degree which would be dangerous to the very existence of society. To this important end nothing can be so conducive as the explanation and enforcement of evangelical precepts, or, in other words, The practical preaching of the gospel. Taken in this light, the sermons of Mr. Gisborne cannot be too much commended. One of their chief objects is, to trace to their sources the subterfuges of error, to pursue vice to those retreats and lurking-holes which it easily meets with in the passions and interests of men, to strip it of its deceitful ornaments, to expose its filthiness, and, by a close and scrutinous comparison of the morality of the gospel with the fashionable tenets of the world, to mark their separation by a line so broad and visible, that no one, I think, who is not wilfully blind, can overlook the striking force of the contrast, or evade the strength of the conclusion.

In this sense then, Sir, I consider practical preaching as a very important thing. I consider it, not only as tending to instruct the people of God, and to build them up "a holy temple in the Lord;" but as productive of much good in shaming and suppressing the incursions of licentiousness, and as confirming even the people of the world in the practice of useful decorum, and religious obseryances. If any one choose to dispute

this point, and cannot perceive the existence of that influence which I have been endeavouring to maintain, I would refer him to the chapter in Mr. Ful ler's Gospel its own Witness, entitled, "Effects of Christianity on the State of Society;" where that gentleman very ably demonstrates, that the religion of Christ has "given to the mo rals of society at large a tone, which deism, so far as it operates, goes to counteract."

To spin out one particular thread of discourse to too great a length is dangerous. I shall now, therefore, take my leave of this topic. As the labours of the Christian Observer seemed in some measure devoted to the promotion of that object which has been the subject of my discussion, I thought, Sir, I could no where present the hints I had to offer more properly, than to your useful Miscel lany.

A FRIEND TO PRACTICAL
PREACHING.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. WHEN I sent my letter to the Christian Observer it was my intention not to engage in controversy with any person whatever. I endeavoured to state my observations with clearness and moderation; and though I never expected that what I advanced would remain unanswered; yet, supposing that the Christian Observer would adhere to its professions of impartial justice, and would admit nothing but temperate discussion on the subjects I considered, I determined to give no reply to any opponent, but quietly to leave the public to judge of the respective merits of our different arguments. I feel myself obliged, however, to support what I have advanced. In doing this, I shall endeavour to occupy as little as possible of your time and paper.

I allow that my first opponent B. T. W. has expressed his opinions with proper moderation. But I cannot consider what he says as any answer to my arguments. He insists much upon the superior usefulness of extemporary sermons. Now, in the Christian Observer for May, I have, in very few words, given my opinion respecting the comparative usefulness of extemporary sermons: but, at the same

time, I declared explicitly my deter mination not to discuss the subject; and none of my arguments are con nected with it. However good, therefore, the ideas and arguments of my opponent may be, they are quite irrelevant when considered as an answer to my paper. If he did not choose to answer my arguments, but wished to rest the whole weight of his opposition on the superior usefulness of extemporary sermons, I apprehend that he ought to have proceeded in a different manner. Allowing, for the sake of argument, the force of what I have advanced, he should have compared together the evil I have mentioned as resulting from extempo. rary sermons, and the good he imagines that they exclusively produce; and should have proved that the good exceeds the evil,' But this he has not attempted to do.

I shall now consider the answer of Nu. Any man may easily follow the example of this controversialist, who is not sparing of reflections and insinuations which cannot place his "evangelical" principles high in my estimation, The human mind is a soil which generally produces an a, bundant harvest of noxious weeds. Every disputant should attend to what is contained in the Christian Observer for July, which condemns, in religious controversy, every sentence and phrase which even approaches to sheer and irony, &c.;" and which commends the following resolution, "I shall not consider myself justified in any attempt to sink his character in the world, by representing him in any other light than that in which every christian minister would wish to see his brother, as zealous for the honour of that master in whose service he is engaged." The first argument which Naua makes use of is this, that, if there be any argument at all in the third paragraph of" my "letter, it comes with equal force a gainst evangelical doctrines as against extemporary preachers." This I absolutely deny. Is there no difference between what is essentially necessary, and what some men (contrary to the opinion of many of their brethren) judge to be expedient and useful? No clergyman is at liberty to preach the gospel, or to preach "only moral sermons," according to his inclination or private opinion. If he chuse to officiate as a minister of our establish

ed religion, he is obliged, by the commands both of God and the church, to preach the truth as it is in Jesus, But no man will contend that every clergyman is obliged to preach ex temporary sermons. If the gospel of Jesus Christ, when distinguished from mere morality, be not necessary to salvation; if the church lay no obli gation upon her ministers concerning this matter; and if "the number of clergymen,' "who preach evange lical sermons," "is comparatively small;" then I should not hesitate to exhort the clergy not to preach the gospel. The grand object I have in view in my letter is, to persuade the clergy not to pursue any measures, not absolutely necessary, which may increase in their congregations that disposition to leave the church, which the due execution of the ministerial office unavoidably produces in certain circumstances.

I shall not take up your time with pointing out all the unproved assertions and strange contradictions which are to be found in the paper of Napz; but only remark on one or two passages. In p. 404 my opponent says, that extemporary preaching "is the painful subject which rankles and festers in" my mind. But what proof does he bring of this? He brings no instance to prove any irritation of my mind: he does not notice one peevish ill-natured expression I have made use of.

But let the reader judge if the fol lowing expressions do not manifest a considerable degree of irritation in my opponent's mind. He tells me that my "sentiments might, indeed, suit the creed of a popish priest, whose principal business is to say mass, and whose motto is, ignorance the mother of devotion; and they may be very congenial to the sanctimonious spirit of modern Pharisees, &c." And in p. 406, he says, that "God has, from age to age, blessed" extemporary preaching "beyond any other mode which convenience, timidity, trimming compliance, laziness, ignorance, or any other motive or infirmity, has more recently invented and adopted." Is that mind dispassionate which can thus speak concerning a manner of preaching adopted by such men as Mr. Walker of Truro, and Mr. Milner of Hull? I shall now give an answer to what my opponent says concerning prayer and preaching the gospel. He observes concerning me,