DIALOGUE II.

ON THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH.

Crispus. IN our last conversation, Gaius, you made some remarks on the indifference of the present age, with regard to religious principles, which struck me forcibly: I should be glad to know what degree of importance you ascribe to the leading doctrines, or principles of Christianity.

Gaius. If you mean to ask, whether I consider the belief of them as essentially necessary to the enjoyment of good neighbourhood, or any of the just or kind offices of civil society, I should certainly answer in the negative. Benevolence is good will to men; and as far as good will to them can consist with the general good, we ought to exercise it towards them as men, whatever be their principles, or even their practices. But if your question relate purely to religion, I acknowledge that I consider a reception of the great doctrines of Christianity (in those who have opportunity of knowing them) as necessary to holiness, to happiness, and to eternal life.

Crispus. If your ideas be just, they afford room for very serious reflection. But will you not be subject to great difficulties in deciding what those truths are, and to what degree they must be believed? You cannot deny that even good men entertain different opinions of what truth is, nor that those who receive the truth receive it in very different degrees.

Gaius. The same objection might be made to the express decision of scripture, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. It might be said, You will find great difficulties in deciding what true holiness is, and what degree of it is necessary to eternal life ; for you cannot deny that even good men entertain different opinions of what true holiness is, nor that those who are subjects of it possess it in very different degrees.

Crispus. And what would you answer to this objection?

Gaius. I should say, that no upright heart can be so in the dark respecting the nature of true holiness, as to make any essential mistake about it. Whether I can determine, with metaphpsical accuracy, the different component parts of it, or not, yet, if I be a true Christian, I shall feel it, I shall possess it, I shall practise it. As to determine what degree of it will carry a man to heaven, that is not our business. We do not know to what extent divine

mercy will reach in the forgiveness of sin; but this may be said, that a person may be assured he has no true holiness in him at all, who rests contented with any degree of it short of perfection.

Crispus. Will this answer apply to truth as well as to holiness?

Gaius. Why not? If the way of salvation be so plain, that a wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err therein, what can it be but prejudice that renders the truth difficult to be understood? He who does the will of God shall know of his doctrine. Surely then I may say, that no one who is in a right temper of mind can be so in the dark respecting what truth is, as to make any essential mistake about it. Whether I can determine the question with accuracy, or not, yet, if I be a Christian, the truth dwelleth in me. As to the precise degree in which we must receive the truth in order to be saved, it is not our business to decide. But this is incontestable, that he who does not seek after the whole of revealed truth, and sit as a little child at the feet of his divine Instructor, the truth is not in him.

Crispus. But is it not easier to discover what holiness is, than what truth is ?

Gaius. I grant that conscience assists in determining between right and wrong, which it does not in many things respecting truth and error. Bnt if we were entirely on God's side, we should find the revealed dictates of truth as congenial to our hearts, as those of righteousness are to our consciences; and in that case the one would be as easily determined as the other.

Crispus. But is there not a difference between the importance of believing the truth of God, and that of complying with his commands?

Gaius. You would not think more favourably of a child who should discredit your testimony, than of one who should disobey your authority; and the same being who declares that without holiness no man shall see the Lord, has declared that he who believeth not the record that God hath given of his Son, hath made him a liar-that he who believeth not shall be damned!

Crispus. But should every error or mistake, to which fallible mortals are liable, be considered as unbelief, and as subjecting us to damnation?

Gaius. By no means. There is a specific difference between error and unbelief. The one is a misapprehension of what the divine testimony contains: the other supposes that we understand it, but yet discredit it. It is the latter, and not the former, that is threatened with damnation.

Crispus. Do you then suppose error to be innocent?

Gaius. The answer to this question must depend upon the cause from which it springs. If it arise from the want of natural power, or opportunity of obtaining evidence, it is mere mistake, and contains in it nothing of moral evil. But if it arise from prejudice, neglect, or an evil bias of heart, it is otherwise, and may endanger our eternal salvation.

Crispus. Will you be so good as to illustrate this distinction? Gaius. Had David been engaged in the most wicked conspiracy when he fled to Ahimelech, and had Ahimelech in this circumstance given him bread and a sword; yet, if he knew nothing of the conspiracy, less or more, nor possessed any means of knowing it, his error would have been innocent, and he ought to have been acquitted. But had he possessed the means of knowledge, and from a secret disloyal bias neglected to use them, giving easy credit to those things which his heart approved, he would have deserved to die.

Crispus. Among human errors, we can distinguish between those which arise from the want of powers or opportunities, and such as spring from the evil bias of the heart?

Gaius. In many cases we certainly cannot, any more than we can fix the boundaries between light and shade; yet there are some things, and things of the greatest importance, that are VOL. IV.

3

so plainly revealed. and of so holy a tendency, that we are taught by the scriptures themselves to impute an error concerning them not to the understanding only, but to the heart. The fool hath said IN HIS HEART, there is no God.-Why do ye not understand my speech? Because YE CANNOT HEAR MY WORDS.-They stumbled at the stumbling-stone, being disobedient.

Crispus. Have not all men their prejudices, the good as well as the wicked?

Gaius. As all men are the subjects of sin, undoubtedly they have. But as it does not follow, that because a good man is the subject of sin he may live in the practice of all manner of abominations, neither does it follow, that because he is the subject of criminal error he may err in the great concerns of eternal salvation. Good men have not only their gold, silver, and precious stones; but also their wood, hay, and stubble, which will be consumed, while they themselves are saved; nevertheless they are all represented as building upon a right foundation. He that errs with respect to the foundation laid in Zion, will, if God give not repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, err to his eternal overthrow.

Crispus. Does not this last species of error seem nearly related to unbelief?

Gaius. I conceive it to be so nearly related as to be its immediate effect. The heart leans to a system of falsehood, wishing it to be true; and what it wishes to be true, it is easily persuaded to think so. The first step in this progress describes the spirit of unbelief; the last, that of error: the one grows out of the other. Such a progress was exemplified in those persons described in the Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians: They received not the love of the truth-believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness-therefore God gave them up to a reprobate mind, that they might believe a lie, and be damned.

Crispus. Surely it is a serious thing in what manner we hear and receive the word of God!

Gaius. True; and I may add, in what manner we preach it too. Wo unto us if we teach mankind any other way of escape than that which the gospel reveals! Wo unto us if we preach not the gospel! If an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed!

DIALOGUE III.

ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN DOCTRINAL, EXPERIMENTAL, AND PRACTICAL RELIGION.

Crispus. IN our last interview, Gaius, we discoursed on the influence of truth as it respected our eternal salvation; we will now inquire if you please, into its influence on the holiness and happiness of Christians in the present state; or, in other words, into the connexion between doctrinal, experimental, and practical religion. Gaius. Such an inquiry may convince us of the importance of each, and prevent our extolling one branch of religion at the expense of another.

Crispus. What do you mean by experimental religion?

Gaius. Experimental religion may be considered generally and particularly in general, we mean by it the exercise of spiritual or holy affections, such as hope, fear joy, sorrow, and the like. Crispus. And what relation do these things bear to divine truth?

Gaius. Under the agency of the Holy Spirit, they are its immediate effect. To render this matter evident, we need only inquire what have been the best seasons of our life, and our own remembrance will convince us that divine truth has been at the bottom of all these enjoyments which were truly solid and valuable.

Crispus. Some of the best times in my life have been those in which I have mourned over my sin with godly sorrow.

Gaius. Very well; this holy mourning arose from a sense of your own depravity, a truth plentifully taught in the Bible.