prehends our Redeemer in all his offices. In the next place, J. P. does not seem duly to have borne in mind, that the questions are specifically said to have been proposed by an intelligent and truly religious lady of the established Church, solicited to join the followers of Mr. Wesley. From this description it may be presumed, that her difficulties did not relate to the evangelical doctrines of our Church; they related to the peculiarities superadded in the Weslerian Societies, the doctrines of forgiveness manifested by impulses, and of sinless perfection. To them the questions pointed; against them the answers were mainly directed. Upon doctrines, respecting which doubts did not appear to exist, it was unnecessary to enlarge. A brief, but decisive, reference, such as that already noticed, would be sufficient. The description of the needful "love of God and our Redeemer," that it must "fill the heart, &c." might alarm a tender-minded Christian, who should interpret it rigidly and literally; but let it be understood, as is equitable, with those scriptural allowances, with which kindred expressions in the New Testament are universally received. If the "love of God and our Redeemer, through faith," be not "fervent," in opposition to lukewarmness; if it be not the "grand predominant principle," in opposition to all other principles; if it does not fill "our hearts and direct our actions," to the exclusion of the dominion of sin, (see question vi. and the answer); if it does not prove itself by" fruits which may fairly be termed "habitual holiness;" let not a state of salvation be presumed. I do not say that if the recent votary of religion discerns himself at present to be so weak, so liable to be overcome by sin long indulged, as to feel self-convicted of falling below this standard, he must despair of his state. But let him strive, as for his life, for grace to attain unto this standard; and never think himself safe while he remains below it, nor, after having attained it, when he falls below it again. AMICUS. from right principles. Politicians, and even moralists often aim to produce beneficial actions through the medium of wrong motives, but "the Lord trieth the heart." It may be said, however, that when the actions of our neighbour are good, we ought not to impute to him a bad motive, and that to do this is to be guilty of the sin of judging others, which the scriptures condemn. I reply that I am not now judging any man, but am requesting every one to judge himself. It is not persons, but principles that I am about to examine. A man acts, for example, from pride and a sense of honour: he himself professes to be influenced by those motives: we are agreed on this point. The question is, whether such principles are Christian. I have observed, that in order to constitute Christian virtue the motives must be good and not the action only: I now add, that motives, in order to be good, must be religious. Let us proceed to enumerate some of those religious motives which the scriptures set before us. They are such as these; Reverential fear and love of God*, gratitude and love to Christ, a sense of our dependance on the holy spirity, the hope of heavens, the fear of hell, the desire of holiness, and the love of man, particularly of our Christian brethren, for the Lord's sake**. It is true, that many other feelings and principles are allowed, and even enjoined in scripture; but let us carefully consider what place they ought to occupy. Husbands are commanded to love their wives; and children to obey their parents; but is it not also written, "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me?" Again, compassion for the poor is urged in the New Testament as a Christian duty; but then it is to be an expression of our love to Christ: the inferior motive is to be sanctified by its association with * 1 Pet. ii. 17. Luke xii. 5. and x. 17. + 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. 1 Pet. ii. 21-24. 1 John iii. 16. John iii. 5. and vi. 63. Rom. viii. 914. and 26. 1 Cor. xii. 2. Mat. vi. 19-21. 2 Cor. iv. 14-18. ** 1 Joha iii. 11, 14, and 15. a still higher principle" Whoso giveth a cup of cold water to a disciple in the name of a disciple, shall not lose his reward." "Forasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of these my brethren ye did it unto me." That charity which proceeds merely from natural compassion, and is utterly unconnected with religion, is not erected into a virtue by the scriptures: the compassion must spring out of a sense of Christ's compassion towards us, and though exercised towards the afflicted in general, it must have a special reference to the afflicted part of the flock of Christ-" Brethren, if God has so loved us we ought also to love one another." Let us next speak of some of those marks, which shew the absence of the principles that have been already described as Christian. The absence of the fear of God cannot be proved more distinctly, than by the prevalence of the fear of man. A supreme regard to reputation, and an extreme dread of reproach; a habit of speaking and acting with a mere view to the approbation of the persons around us: these are some of the indications of the want of the fear of God. When, indeed, we merely "please men for their good to edification, then the motive becomes good and sanctifies the action. The want of love to God is proved by a supreme love to any other object. If, for example, love to any fellow-creature entirely engrosses us, then the will or command of that fellow-creature will be obeyed instead of the will of God; and even, though the beloved object should command the same thing which God commands, still since the act will not be done because God commands it, that religious quality will be wanting which is necessary to render it acceptable to our heavenly Father, viz. a regard to his will. Want of love to God is proved in the same manner as want of love to our fellow-creatures. To think little of him; to be willing to do nothing, to venture nothing, to sacrifice nothing for his sake; to mention his name or to hear it mentioned by others without the least emotion; to feel no painful sensibility when we see his authority trampled upon and his cause hindered; to love the society of those who shew no reverence for him, and to dislike the company of men by whom his name is had in the highest reverence; are unquestionable proofs of want of love to God. The want of love to Christ is shewn in much the same manner: forgetfulness of him, indifference to that Gospel in which he is held forth as crucified for our sakes, an indisposition to think of what he has done and suffered for us, high thoughts of ourselves and low ideas of the value and efficacy of his death, atonement, resurrection, and ascension, are evidence to this point. Dependance on the Holy Spirit will be proved by our frequency and fervency in prayer, and by our sense of the importance of this duty: it will also be proved by our fear of grieving the Holy Spirit, and by a tenderness of conscience which will prevent our venturing into companies and places where we cannot hope that the Holy Spirit will attend us. The want of this dependance on divine aid is manifested by a carelessness and boldness of conduct, by self-confidence, by le vity respecting serious things, and by the absence of a devout spirit. The want of the true hope of heaven is proved by our placing our chief hopes on the things of this world. Earth and heaven are the rival objects which solicit our attentive regard; and if the world possesses our best affections then we are of the world. The use of hyperbolical language in describing mere worldly happiness, affords a ground of suspicion that the world has our highest estimation. The very mode of our congratulations, on the occasion of some temporal prosperity, may be such as to imply that we over-value earthly good. The love of worldly happiness is perfectly allowable in its due degree, but in proportion as spiritual objects are greater than temporal, so ought to be the desires excited by the one or the other. Moderation in respect to all our expectations here below, and a disposition to sacrifice any present advantages which interfere with our heavenly hope, are some of the surest proofs of our possessing this hope; and are, perhaps, also some of the best means of promoting our temporal enjoyment. The fear of hell is proved by our deeming it a serious thing; and the absence of this fear by our indifference, our levity, and our profaneness in speaking of it. All light and jocular mention of the devil, and all insensibility to the same kind of levity in others, are strong proofs of this defect. It is also a property of this fear to overpower the contrary fear. As a soldier's apprehension of the enemy is overcome by the dread of his commander; so that fear of man, to which timid persons are subject, may be subdued by a stronger fear from another quarter. actuated by the same spirit, and serving the same Lord. This is that love which is more particularly intended when the evidence of our Christianity is the question. If we are Christians, we shall love those who are our brethren in Christ Jesus: we shall sympathize with them, whether they are high or low, and though we cannot utterly confound the different ranks of life, we shall chuse rather to associate with a Christian that is below us both in rank and ability, than with an irreligious person that is above us. We should, however, beware of mistaking attachment to a sect, for that love of the brethren which is made in scripture a test of Christianity. We must love others, not merely because we contend together for the same opinions, but because we trace in them the image of our common Saviour. I have thus ventured to offer a few hints for self-examination for the use of your readers. They are of a very plain and simple nature, and may, perhaps, on that account, be deemed worthy of a place in your very useful miscellany. B. R. The desire of holiness is proved by our aversion to sin, and the degree of it by the degree of this aversion. The aversion, however, must be to all sin, otherwise it cannot be presumed to be against sin as such. Ambitious, envious, covetous, polluting thoughts; inordinate desires and misplaced affections; all the various workings of evil in the heart, will be lamented and resisted by the person who has a sincere desire of holiness. The means of promoting holiness will also be attended to, and whatsoever obstructs its growth will be avoided. The general plan of life will be regulated, with a view to the sanctification of the heart. Those books will be read, those preachers will be approved, that society will be sought, that conversation will be encouraged which To the Editor of the Christian Observer. most tend to edification: even natural diffidence and timidity will, in some cases, be subdued; the fear of being thought to affect superlative goodness, and of being charged with vanity on this account will be overpowered; the objections which arise against our making an alteration in our way of life will be done away; and thus a way will be opened for our spiritual improvement. That love of our neighbour which is spoken of in scripture, implies much more than natural benevolence. Religion softens as well as enlarges the heart, restrains the evil passions, and forbids inordinate selfishness. It thus improves every principle of humanity, and secures their constant exercise. St. Paul, after his conversion, seems to have loved those Jews who were persecuting him, more than he had loved them as friends before: he now, however, desired chiefly their spiritual good. But though he loved the Jews he had a still higher regard for his fellow Christians; he knew them to be struggling in the same cause, pursuing the same objects, exercised by the same trials, ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MEN FOR PREJUDICE Consists, says Dr. Johnson, In order to discover whether prejudice is ever a just excuse for error, it is necessary to enquire; whether it may ever be said to be itself innocent. -If innocent, its natural and necessary effects will be so also; but if always criminal, it is clear that the errors, which arise from it, must partake of its nature. Men are led to embrace opinions without due examination-1st. By thoughtlessness, and a want of attention and scrutiny.-2ndly. By following the guidance of inclination and passion rather than that of reason.-3rdly. By undue deference to authority. These then are the sources of prejudice, and they must be separately considered. 1st. If thoughtlessness and a want of attention to evidence, and of industry in searching for it, were allowable pleas, multitudes who "live with out God in the world," and refuse to listen to the Gospel of his Son, would have a very sufficient excuse to offer. Nothing can be more clear, than that all are bound to make a good use of the faculties which God has given them. If men, therefore, form opinions, and adopt principles, on light grounds, when they have ability and opportunity for more satisfactory investigation, they cannot be acquitted of blame, and are justly chargeable with the errors into which they have been led by their negligence. 2ndly. But supposing the mind to turn earnestly to the subject of enquiry, much will depend on the temper with which it approaches it. It is evident, that whoever is desirous of deciding wisely, must reason calmly, and keep out of sight as much as possible, during the process of investigation, both his wishes and feelings. Numbers, however, instead of endeavouring to emancipate themselves from their influence, when examining principles of conduct, take them for their guides, and make little use of reason but to defend and vindicate the conclusions to which these guides lead them. Now, except it be allowable to pervert the faculty of reason, and thereby to be guilty of a greater abuse of the divine bounty, than he was, who hid his talent in a napkin; such a procedure cannot be innocent, nor consequently the errors to which it leads. This is true even when the best affections are indulged to the degradation of reason. When the worst are suffered to assume the reins, and lead the understanding captive, the guilt is of course prodigiously aggravated. But even when the predominant wish is not, as in the case which has been considered, to indulge inclina tion, but to discover the truth, and to avoid every thing likely to bewilder and mislead in the search after it, the affections of the heart will generally interfere more or less in the province of reason, and often in so great a degree as to lead to very important prejudices and errors. Even in the most sincere and devoted servants of Christ, the conquest over the lusts of the flesh is gradual. Sin, it is true, no longer reigns in their mortal bodies; but, though conquered, it perpetually rebels, and disturbs the exercise both of holy affections and of reason. In the first periods of a Christian life, and at those times, in its subsequent stages, when temptations have more than usual power, it generally happens that some prejudices and false opinions are discoverable, which may be distinctly traced to this source; and though like the remains of corruption from which they spring, they may be compatible with a state of grace, yet no one can suppose them to be devoid of guilt. But the Christian is liable to be misled in his reasonings, not only by unhallowed affections, but by those which are more spiritual. The eyes of a good man are often blinded by his love of public worship, and of Christian society. His love of these almost necessarily attaches itself strongly to the mode of worship to which he has been used, and to those Christian friends who have gone hand-inhand with him in his religious course; and this attachment is frequently so great and so partial, that, with a sincere wish to be fair and candid, he can scarcely see any faults in either the one or the other, or any very attractive merits in other modes of divine worship, or in Christians of other denominations. It would be easy to shew by familiar instances, that parental and conjugal love, the love of a people for their minister, and other amiable affections, even when brought "into subjection to the obedience of Christ," are very commonly pregnant sources of prejudice. Scripture affords many instances in point. What prejudiced Moses against the office God assigned him, of going to his countrymen as a deliverer? Chiefly, as it should seem, his humility. What induced Peter to call in question the propriety of the divine command, to kill and eat of the animals let down to him in the great sheet in his vision? His love of that system of purity, which his God, whom he loved, had established. What led the disciples of Christ so long to question and disbelieve his declarations, that he should suffer death and rise again? Their warm love for their divine master was a leading cause of their unbelief. The young and the sanguine, especially while Christian affections are yet new to them, are apt to give the reins to their feelings. They are but imperfectly aware how necessary it is, that they should be restrained when reason is called upon to investigate and decide; and the restraint is so irksome to them, that, imperfect as their theory may be on this point, their practice is far more imperfect nay it is not uncommon to meet with persons of this description, who appear almost to assume a merit from not being able to do their duty in this respect. They are so impressed with the loveliness and value of holy affections, that they are disposed to be pleased with every thing which tends to prove their reality and warmth in their own bosoms; and nothing appears to do this in a more striking manner than an inability to restrain such affections. If, however, they continue true to their God, his spirit by degrees corrects these irregularities; order and harmony triumph more and more over discordance and confusion in the inner man; and the unsteady and meteorlike splendours of uncontrouled affections are exchanged gradually for an uniform and genial sunshine of soul, which, though less brilliant, is far more potent in its operation; and, instead of dazzling, guides and cheers its possessor. It surely would be too much to say, that prejudices of the class which has been last under consideration, are blameless. If they were, it would not be a duty (as it clearly is) to strive against them. Though the least criminal perhaps of any, they must be ranked among those "secret faults," from which we ought to pray daily to be cleansed. 3rdly. Those prejudices, which may CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 19. be ascribed to undue deference to authority, are next to be considered. A great part of human knowledge rests on authority as its proper basis. History, in all its branches, whether of past or of present times, can have scarcely any other foundation. In matters of science also, and in almost all subjects which require much research, the great mass of mankind can neither obtain knowledge, nor form opinions, but (chiefly, if not entirely,) on the ground of authority. If, therefore, in settling points of duty, an improper reliance is not placed on this source of knowledge, nor on the opi-, nions derived from it; and if recourse is had to such other means of information as are accessible to the enquirer, all is well. No more than a proper and legitimate use is made of authority, and a man is not responsible for the errors into which it may lead him: indeed, opinions so formed and held ought not to be denominated prejudices. The examination on which they are founded forms a basis sufficiently broad for their support. But reverse the case, and the conclusion, as to the responsibility of the individual, must be reversed also. An opinion which rests on a blind, or undue, deference to authority is evidently destitute of a just foundation; and, if erroneous, the error is chargeable on those who entertain it. Their criminality will vary according to circumstances, and vary very greatly; but still, under all circumstances, they must be pronounced guilty of not having made a proper use of their |