DIFFICULTIES OF RELIGIOUS YOUNG PERSONS IN WORLDLY SOCIETY. The two following articles are from the Christian Observer of September. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. You have sometimes animadverted in your pages upon the insincerity which too much prevails in social intercourse-as for instance, in the practice of saying "not at home," when a person is within, but does not choose to be seen. It is argued, that this is not a falsehood, for that it was not intended to deceive, and that it had not that effect, as every person knows it to be only a civil mode of saying that you do not wish to appear. The strong language, however, in which I have heard this practice, and others of the same kind, condemned by those whom I most respect, has made me very uncomfortable—not so much in reference to this particular instance (against which I had long had objections), as in regard to various expressions of civility of every-day Occurrence. I have determined to state the circumstances which give me so much pain; for, indeed, I know not how to act with the plain sincerity I would desire, and yet with Christian courtesy. Were I altogether under my own control, it would not be difficult, as neither my principles nor my inclination would permit me voluntarily to associate with those who live "after the course of this world:" but I am a young person, and my parents, and indeed all my relations, are strongly opposed to those views of Scriptural truth which are currently summed up in one word, "Evangelical;" and I think it my duty to obey them in every thing that is not, so far as I can judge, positively sinful; and I am anxious to add no needless offence to that which religious principles must of necessity produce. They have permitted me to abstain from public amusements, which I really believe to be wrong; but I do not think that it is my duty to refuse to accompany them occasionally to a dinner party, or to spend a day now and then with the worldly minded people among whom I am situated. * Real Christian love, I sometimes think, should supply the place of that artificial politeness which is inconsistent with strict principle. I feel, with regard to my neighbours, that if I could innocently please or in any way benefit them by my society, I would willingly give it; that if they were sick, or in affliction, it would gladden my heart to be of the least use to them. In society, however, as a young person, I have not the opportunity that others might have of leading the conversation * Our correspondent does not specify what public amusements she alludes to. Ballrooms, race-courses, the theatre, operas, concerts, oratorios, the walks and libraries at places of popular resort, military reviews, exhibitions, bazaars, dioramas, zoological gardens, the drives round the Parks, and so forth, are all more or less included in her general description; and those who are "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God," sometimes avail themselves of the ambiguity of the phrase "public amusements," to denounce all spiritually-minded persons as cynics, who think it wrong to enjoy any "innocent gratification." Our correspondent's general description will, however, be sufficiently intelligible to those who wish to understand her. We presume that she alludes more directly to such "public amusements" as several of those first specified in the above enumeration; not meaning to shut out any really proper and rational recreation enjoyed in due time and mode, and measuring each by its general character and effects. A Christian will, however, prefer, even in indifferent matters, to be on the safer side; and will take heed lest even scenes of occasionally innocent resort should be made, through the corruption of the human heart, to minister to pride, vanity, passion, idleness, dissipation, or inordinate indulgence. to improving subjects; and however it may be with the veteran soldier of Jesus Christ, I find, as one who is just beginning the "fight of faith," that my own heart requires such instant and incessant watchfulness, that it seems to occupy my whole attention, that I may by divine grace escape unhurt from the baneful atmosphere of the world. I know that my principles render my society as irksome to others as theirs is to me (for there are scarcely any persons in the neighbourhood who think as I do); and that civility alone to my parents and relatives, together with the feeling of friendly regard which amiable people naturally cherish towards those they have known from their earliest childhood, prompt their attentions to me. I cannot but feel grateful to them for their intended kindness; but still, when Mrs. R— hopes for the pleasure of my company at dinner, and I reply that "I shall be happy to wait upon her," or, in case of a prior engagement, that "I regret it is out of my power;" or Miss C expresses her intention of calling upon me, and I reply that "I shall be glad to see her;" I feel that I am speaking deceitfully-for the society of those who think so very differently from myself on the most important of all subjects, never can be pleasing to me and yet, much and often as I have considered the matter, I know not how to avoid this mode of reply, without being absolutely uncourteous. Once or twice I have (awkwardly enough) replied, in answer to proffered eivilities, "Thank you;" "you are very kind;” and endeavoured to turn the subject: and one lady actually said, "You did not say you should be very happy, so I suppose the truth is you had rather not see me." My parents would think my scruples on the subject the height of absurdity; and I am desired by them to answer notes of invitation in the usual manner. I would not encourage overscrupulousness; and it was once observed to me, that no where do we meet with more popular and general language than in the Bible: for instance, where St. John says to Gaius, "I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health," we cannot suppose that this was nearer the Apostle's heart than the spiritual welfare of himself and his friend, I hope, if I saw it to be my duty (which as yet I do not), I should decline all visiting, and implore wisdom and strength from above meekly yet boldly to avow my reason for so doing; but, young, ignorant, and weak, hardly knowing what is right myself, thongh ready to own my views when asked, I should tremble to make so open a profession, which by my inconsistencies I might afterwards disgrace; and I shrink from the spiritual pride (as it seems to me) of, tacitly at least, condemning all round me as being in the wrong, and presuming to judge of the spiritual state of numbers of my acquaintance, as being "of the world," and therefore such as I cannot associate with. Hoping, sir, that you may be induced to assist me with your advice, * I am, GERTRUDE.* Though Gertrude appeals to us, we should prefer leaving her inquiry, after our usual manner, in the hands of our experienced correspondents. With regard, however, to the general solution, what can we say, but that it is her duty to obey God; and that it is her duty to obey her parents also; but that, should a parent enjoin what is clearly and "positively sinful," it is a duty to obey God rather than man. These general truths are simple; but their scriptural application depends so much upon the minute circumstances of each particular case, that it would be impossible to lay down any speeific rules upon the subject. We should grieve to distress the sensitively tender conscience of any young Christian; yet we would remind such, that there is much, very much, to be long and materially considered, and prayed over, and endured, before such a serious issue should arrive as a deliberate non-compliance with a parent's commands, ON THE FAMILIAR USE OF SCRIPTURAL PHRASES. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. Yourself and your correspondents have often adverted to the sin and evil of a profane, trifling, sarcastic, or facetious use of Scriptural expressions-such, for example, as may be found in Sir Walter Scott's more especially in the case of a very young person. But even the youngest person ought not to utter a falsehood, as assuredly he ought not to be desired to do so. A servant is to obey his master; but he would be justified in declining to say, though ordered, that he was not at home when he was. In such a case he must be willing to suffer for righteousness' sake. The same remark applies to the case of a child, with this difference, that in proportion to his youth and inexperience he should, in coming to a conclusion, be diffident of his own understanding, and feel a conscientious reverence for the opinion of his parents. He is not to sin, or to violate his conscience; but he should be very distrustful of his own ability to judge of all the circumstances of a difficult case. A man would ill deserve the name of a parent who would command his child to say that he was not at home, if, after all his explanations and refinements, the child was still oppressed with the feeling that he would commit a sin in so doing. Up to what age, or under what circumstances, the child might without sin conclude that his parent knew better than himself in the matter, and act accordingly, beseeching his Heavenly Father not to impute to him guilt if in obeying his parent he was misguided, it is not for us to decide. And so of all similar cases. With regard to the complimentary expressions alluded to by our correspondent, no spiritually-minded person could honestly express regret at not being able to attend Newmarket or Doncaster races; for no such person would willingly be there, if every circumstance were favourable. It would therefore be an unjust and cruel act upon the part of a parent to urge a son or daughter to write to that effect, after a conscientious objection had been modestly but firmly expressed: and if a young person acted with due meekness and wisdom, with patience and affection, and with habitual self-denial and filial deference, few parents, we presume, would have the inhumanity long to inflict pain by insisting upon such a compliance. The probability would be, that the parent would rather seek to overcome the young person's scruples by explaining away the difficulty. He would say, that such conventional expressions are intended only to show your grateful sense of the kindness of your correspondent, who meant you a civility, and not an insult; and that the great majority even of Christian persons do not think it their duty to adopt the principle of the Society of Friends, so as to refuse to employ the usual titles of courtesy, or to "have the honour" of writing to you, or to sign themselves "your obedient servant;" and that the expressions under consideration are only in the same spirit. All this, and much more, might be said; but it would not convince us that the particular expressions mentioned by our correspondent can be used without palpable disingenuousness, where the mind does not go along with them. It may, however, be asked, might not a young person lawfully comply, as it were, under protest: as though he said-not perhaps in words, but in spirit-" I cannot myself see how these phrases can imply less than the sincere expression of what I do not feel; but my parent, who is wiser than I, says that they mean only so and so, and may be innocently used even with my views of the subject matter; for the present, therefore, diffident of my own judgment, and rather than violate filial obedience, I think I ought to yield?" As to the lawfulness of such a proceeding, it is evident that mere children must in numerous cases be guided, and even overruled, by the judgment of their parents; and that the age and understanding of the parties, and the various circumstances of each particular case, can alone decide when and how this implicit deference is scripturally superseded by independent action. We sympathize with religious young persons whose elder relatives oppose their conscientious feelings; but let them remember that these things are among the trials of their faith and patience; let them live in hope that it will please God to bring their friends also to the knowledge of the truth; let them earnestly pray for that object, as well as for much of humility, wisdom, and consistency upon their own part: and let them endeavour to avoid all unnecessary occasions of collision; all idle scruples in matters of little moment; and a pertinacious carriage, which often draws down opposition that Christian prudence and meekness would have avoided. We insert the above letter, not as a private case-which were perhaps better privately advised upon by a discreet Christian friend, with a full consideration of all the circumstances but to elicit information as to the principles which should apply to the general question, with such heads of advice as may be useful to many young persons similarly situated. It should, however, be understood, by those who oppose warm, earnest, novels, or Lord Brougham's speeches-but I would remind your readers, that even religious persons may be guilty, and perhaps unconsciously, of the same offence; for scriptural expressions often recur to the mind in mere secular discourse, upon occasions when they are not meant to be expressly quoted, and to which they were not designed to apply. Thus introduced, they often add to the beauty, dignity, or pathos of a remark; but if they are wrenched from their context, and employed for the mere purpose of embellishment, they are desecrated by the adaptation. A writer may sometimes be in a strait as to whether a scriptural allusion in a particular case is justifiable; but in all such instances he had better keep in the narrow way, and on the safe side, expunging the allusion where he is not sure that it is for the use of edifying. In the sentence just written, I have purposely introduced three scriptural phrases as illustrative of my remarks. The first expression in "a strait," is so obvious an allusion to a solemn passage of Holy Writ, to which the sentence into which it is foisted has no reference, that its introduction there would be painful and irreverent. The third phrase, "the use of edifying," is employed, I think, legitimately: it strengthens the sentence by a scriptural quotation introduced with due aptitude to the occasion. The middle phrase, "the narrow way," is doubtful. It might be employed seriously, with a view to point out, in a striking Scripture phrase, the narrow path of duty, which it is always easy to miss and sometimes difficult to find; or it might be used with a sort of levity, as if in forgetfulness that we are quoting the words of the Son of God, which we ought not to apply, either playfully with wit, or with the most felicitous rhetorical adaptation, but only with gravity and for a scriptural purpose. Upon the whole, therefore, I should prefer altering the phrase, so as to convey the sense without any possible appearance of lightly quoting any portion of the words of eternal life. I would not say of the glorious First of August, that it rose upon the captive with healing on its wings; or that in the great measure which then came into operation, mercy and truth met together, righteousness and peace kissed each other; though no words of my own could be so expressive. I would not wish to make a man "an offender for a word;" but I see the rule above laid down so often transgressed, even by religious persons, that I consider the caution not superfluous. C. and scriptural piety, that the friends of religion are as far as possible from cherishing in young persons who have set out upon a religious course, a forward, self-opinionated, or pharisaical deportment; on the contrary, that they never cease to urge upon them that their religion should make them more exemplary and lovely in every sphere of life, the conduct of their Redeemer being their constant example; and that they should use unceasing efforts to maintain a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man. Let them especially shun all ostentation, all appearance of setting themselves up as a mark for persecution; and endeavour, by the exercise of Christian wisdom and meekness, to avoid all unnecessary occasions of domestic difference. Where a clear point of duty arrives, the Christian, however young or inexperienced, must make a firm stand: "one is his Master, even Christ," and no human relationship must intervene between him and his allegiance to his Lord: but let him beware of making difficulties for himself by his own conduct; of blazoning, as it were, his trials; and of needlessly drawing the eyes of persons upon him with a latent self-seeking, which may be quite as seductive a snare of his spiritual enemy as more obvious temptations. We say not this in reference to our correspondent's letter, which is judicious, Christian, and unassuming. THE THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF CONNECTICUT. The Pelagianism which now exists in the Presbyterian church, if it does not owe its origin to the Theological Professors of Yale College, has certainly had in them its ablest defenders, and its most efficient propagators. They not long since published a Statement, relative to the ground on which they were admitted to their official standing; and in which they particularly refer to their responsibility to conform their teachings to the Saybrook Platform-The amount of which is, that they are not bound to pay regard to that ancient Formula, except as to "substance of doctrine:" and they make a distinction between primary and secondary principles or doctrines, in speaking of the symbols of faith adopted by Protestants at the Reformation. Now we have no hesitation in saying, that several of the points which they place in the rank of secondary principles, were regarded by the Protestants themselves, as essential parts of their creed; and that the distinction made by the Professors, is entirely arbitrary, and a matter of their own invention. In a word, what with their subscribing only to substance of doctrine, and their distinction between primary and secondary principles; and considering them, as they consider themselves, the competent judges of what substance of doctrine is, and what primary and secondary doctrines are, we would not give a fig for their subscription; nor do we believe that they consider themselves as under any restraint whatever, from any existing Formula, in the theological principles which they teach and inculcate, in their lectures to their pupils. Between their subscription to substance of doctrine, and the subscriptions in the Presbyterian church to the System contained in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, there is great similarity. In fact, there is the same difference between the Pelagians and orthodox men in the Congregational churches of Connecticut, as there is between the same parties in the Presbyterian church; and the method in which the latitudinarians defend themselves, is precisely the same-"there is no real difference between us; there is no cause for separation, nor for any alarm.” The orthodox ministers of Connecticut think otherwise, and have established a Theological Institute of their own. Some of the orthodox ministers in the Presbyterian church also think otherwise, and have issued their Act and Testimony-The result remains to be seen. Our trust is in God, that he will smile on the stand taken, and prosper the efforts made, in both churches, to preserve his holy truth in its purity. It is a common cause; and we think our readers will thank us for giving a place in our pages to the appeal to the public, made by our brethren in Connecticut. AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC, IN BEHALF OF THE THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF CONNECTICUT. The Trustees of the Theological Institute of Connecticut, would invite the attention of the public to some considerations, suggested by a statement of the Theological Professors of Yale College, recently published, and extensively circulated. We should deem it altogether improper, in our official capacity, to take notice of this document, were it not necessary for the vindication of ourselves, and of the founders and supporters of the seminary under our care. But finding ourselves implicitly charged with being engaged in an enterprise for which no justifiable reason can be assigned, we feel Ch. Adv.-VOL. XII. 3 S |