Section 9.

SECTION 9.

Inferences.

1. IF faith be so closely connected with truth, present salvation with faith, and eternal salvation with the works of faith, how injudicious are those gentlemen, who assert that principles are nothing, and that it little matters what doctrines we hold, provided our actions be good! Alas! if our leading principles be wrong, how can our actions be right? If we be men of no principles, or of bad principles, and do seemingly good actions, do we not do them from bad, Pharisaical motives? Even when such actions appear good to man, who judges according to appearance, are they not evil before the Searcher of hearts? Are they not detestable before the Examinator of principles? Undoubtedly; hypocrisy being the most odious Sort of iniquity in the sight of Him who “requires truth in the inward parts.”

2. If the effects of truth be so wonderful, and if the pure word of God be essentially one with truth, how fatal is the mistake of the laymen who slight the Gospel word! who listen to a sermon with less attention than they do to a play! and who read the Scriptures with less eagerness than they do the newspapers! And how culpable are those clergymen who preach the first sermon they set their hand upon, without examining whether it contain truth or error, or a mixture of both; at least, without considering whether it be adapted to the capacity and circumstances of their hearers!

3. Can we decry prejudice too much, if it unfit our souls for receiving the truth, as trash unfits our stomachs for receiving proper food? Should not a narrow, bigoted spirit, that collects itself like a hedge-hog in its own fancied orthodoxy, and bristles up assertions and invectives instead of arguments, be firmly opposed by every generous inquirer after truth? Can we deplore too much the case of those sanguine persons, who judge of the strength of their faith by the force of their prepossession; and who fancy that a hundred plain scriptures, and as many cogent arguments, have no weight, if they do not countenance their favourite sentiments and misunderstood feelings? And can we too warmly recommend a candid, sober, fearless turn of mind, which lays us open to information, and disposes us publicly to espouse the cause of truth, even when destruction threatens her, and her despised adherents?

4. “Charity rejoiceth in the truth;” and “though I speak with the tongues of angels,” says St. Paul, “if I have not charity,” that is, if I do not “rejoice in the truth,” whether it makes for or against my prejudices, “I am become as sounding brass.” Upon this footing what can we say of those warm moralists who, in their zeal for works, are ready to burn against the doctrine of faith? What of those rash Solifidians who, in their zeal for faith, are ready to lay down their lives against the doctrine of works? Alas! like St. Paul; in the days of his ignorance, they court and yet persecute the truth; they embrace and yet stab the Divine stranger. These false martyrs may give their body to be burned for one truth against another; but God will say to them, “Who required this at your hands?” and they themselves will say, “It profiteth us nothing.”

5. If there be various forms in the school of truth, how unreasonable is it to say that none have any acquaintance with her, but such as are in one of the highest forms! And if the temple of truth has various divisions to which we advance, as we go on “from faith to faith,” how cruel is it to consign over to damnation the sincere souls who have yet got no farther than the porch!

6. If there are as many sorts of religious truths as there are of nourishing food, how irrational is it to despise those truths which the apostle compares to milk, merely because they are not the truths which he calls “strong meat!” On the other hand, if we cannot yet receive those strong truths, how rash are we, if we represent them as chaff or poison! And what mischief is done in the Church of Christ by those who deal in palpable absurdities, and in errors demonstrated to be of a stupifying or intoxicating nature; especially if they retail such errors to an injudicious, credulous populace, under the name of “rich honey” and” Gospel marrow!”

7. If Divine truth is one through its various appearances, and if “the light of the righteous [who holds on his way] shines more and more unto the perfect day;” what shall we say of those prejudiced men, who oppose the truth with all their might, merely because it does not come up to their false standard, or because it appears in a dress to which they are not accustomed? Did a Persian ever refuse to admire the rising sun, because it was not the meridian sun, or laugh at it as being an insignificant meteor, because it rose under a cloud? If Christ is not ashamed to call himself “the light” and “the truth,” should we be ashamed to confess him in his lowest appearances? If Christ, exalted at the right hand of God, is one with Christ transfigured on the mount, — bleeding on Calvary, — lying in the manger, — confined, a helpless embryo, in the virgin’s womb; may not the triumphant truth that shines like the sun in the heart of a “father in Christ,” have some affinity with the spark that glows in the heart of an infant in grace under the dispensation of Noah? Ought we to give up the greatest part of our neighbours as men that “never had grace,” when the Scripture expressly declares, that “the saving grace of God has appeared unto all men,” and that Christ is “the light of the world that enlightens every man?” Let mystical Herods seek the young child’s life; but thou, man of God, leap for joy, like the unborn Baptist, before the least and feeblest appearance of thy Lord. Instead of calling it “common grace,” that thou mayest cut it off the next moment as “no grace,” cherish it as saving grace in thy own breast, and in the hearts of all that are around thee.

8. If the most powerful displays of truth improve its feeblest appearances, without ever contradicting them, how mistaken are the men who impose upon us the immoral doctrines of the Antinomians, and the unevangelical doctrines of the Pharisees! When we have once admitted that “there is a holy God, who makes a difference between the just and the unjust,” can we, without renouncing that truth, become Antinomians, and think that a man, who actually defiles his neighbour’s wife, can be “a man after God’s own heart?” And when we have been taught our second gracious lesson, namely, that “we are miserable sinners,” can we, without renouncing this principle, suppose that we can be saved any other way than by the covenant of grace and mercy? Away, then, for ever away with Antinomian and Pharisaic delusions, which are built upon the ruins of these two capital truths, “God is holy,” and “man is sinful!”