6thly. The general tenor of the sacred writings opposes Dr. Payne's theory. "Faith," he says, "is the credit which is given to the record of God concerning his Son." This definition, it appears to me, is liable to two objections. Credit is not synonymous with either belief or faith. I think that in its ordinary acceptation it comes far short of their meaning; it is not a scriptural term, and I feel an objection to its use similar to that which Dr. Payne has expressed against assent.

The phrase, "the record of God concerning his Son," gives an equally defective view of the object of faith; nor is the representation, that faith is the belief of the meaning of the propositions of the gospel, more correct. This kind of statement tends to reduce the gospel to a system of mere philosophical abstractions, and to lead the mind away from that GREAT BEING of whom it speaks. I cannot separate the record from the person testified of; nor do I know of any proposition, the belief of which proposition merely will save a man. Christ Jesus is himself the Saviour. He is at once the sacrifice for our sins, and the High Priest who presents it; by virtue of whose work God justifies the ungodly. As this blessing is not obtained by a belief that the Scriptures are true, so neither is it by faith in any proposition contained in its authentic records, not even the proposition that "his atonement, in connection with his previous obedience, is the one great work for the sake of which the guilty are accepted." It is by faith in HIM of whom they bear record, who died for us and rose again. The propositions of the Scriptures are but the means by which I become acquainted WITH CHRIST; and it is to him, they bring before me, I must go. The language of those writings is, I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions. I will draw all men unto me. Look unto me. Believe in me. But if this be kept in view, I think it impossible to receive that definition of faith against which we are now contending.

So much for the object of faith. What do we learn from the Scriptures of its nature? Notwithstanding the remarks of Dr. P. on those passages which speak of trusting in Christ, receiving him, coming and looking to him, I am persuaded that they militate against his views, and show that faith, in his sense, does not justify. They form the current language of the sacred volume; they are used interchangeably with faith; and I cannot conceive of a man who should come to the Scriptures, ignorant of existing controversies, and bring good common sense to their interpretation, arriving at any other conclusion, than that what is meant by looking unto Christ, &c. &c. is necessary to the remission of sins. When the apostle, in the 3d of Philippians, speaks of a false ground of confidence, he calls it "trusting (Tenоores) in the flesh;" in the 9th verse, he uses míoris as a convertible term, and speaks of the true foundation as the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ. It is true that the sacred writers speak of the fear of the Lord, the love of God, believing the gospel, doing the Father's will, as comprehending the whole of religion, and represent the man described by any one of these phrases, as a saint; but though what each

N. S. VOL. IV.

Ꭰ

imports is necessarily connected with the other, they are not convertible phrases; they present the servant of God in different aspects of his character: but the former phrases, in a very different way, are indiscriminately used. They refer to one and the same thing, and are all employed to represent what the sinner must do to obtain forgiveness and peace.

Dr. P. admits that trust in Christ is inseparably connected with belief in the gospel; and that the sacred writers represent it as essential to salvation, while he denies that it enters into the essence of faith. Dr. Russell says that." trust is, strictly speaking, the effect of faith." "Persuaded of the truth that salvation is to be had through Christ, the sinner comes to him, or trusts the salvation of his soul to his hands." But, I ask, is the sinner justified before he thus comes, before he thus trusts? Can he be justified apart from these exercises? It will hardly be affirmed. But if necessary to justification, it must enter into the essence of the FAITH that saves, and must not be separated from it. But, it is said, trust in Christ is essential to salvation, as is obedience, or as is holiness. I answer, NOT in the same sense. They are essential to salvation, and necessary effects of faith. But a man who believes is justified properly and absolutely, without either the one or the other; but no man can be without trusting in Christ; at least the proof is wanted and I confess that looking at the Doctor's confession just noticed, and coupling it with his admission, that faith is an act of subjection and obedience, both holy and voluntary, (Lects. pp. 308-310,) it does strike me as a strange inconsistency, to contend that the faith which saves is an exercise of pure intellect: in other words, that he should represent it as justifying UNDER THE NOTION of an intellectual act.

:

And if trusting, confiding, relying, are not component parts of faith, what is their use? They have no office, produce no effect, bring no advantage. The sinner believes; he is pardoned; he has peace with God. As a GUILTY creature, this is all he wants; he may discard these terms from his vocabulary; or, if he retains them, retain them only for the hour of sorrow, or temptation, or fear. When the windy storm and tempest arises, he may look to the Rock that is higher than he, and find consolation; in the valley of the shadow of death, he may lean on the rod and the staff of his Shepherd, and be comforted; but in relation to Christ as a Saviour from the guilt and penalty of sin, and to himself as one who needs deliverance, he has no need whatever for them. His "judgment is convinced," and he is safe.

In my next and concluding paper, I shall attempt to ascertain what faith is, and show that it is not exposed to those objections, to sacrifice which Dr. P.'s notion seems partly to have been adapted.

T.

ON MINISTERIAL INFLUENCE.

By ministerial influence we understand that power which a minister exerts over the minds of others by the force of his character. It is not an official influence, arising solely, or chiefly from his office, as in the priesthood of the Popish church. It is not secular, having its source in rank or wealth. Neither does it proceed principally from mental power, literary acquirements, or popular talents; these in many cases are legitimate sources of moral power, and if consecrated to God they materially increase ministerial efficiency. But the influence of which we speak, is moral and religious. It arises from the minister's life being in agreement with the requirements of his office and the spirituality of his profession. This is that moral loveliness which invests the minister of Christ with an attraction that charms, impresses, and wins the minds of observers. It is the harmony of his entire character, convincing men of the uprightness, sincerity, and consistency of his motives, principles, and practices. Deep and fervent piety must be exhibited. σε Νο man can rise above the level of his own habitual godliness." Spirituality, devotion, and devotedness to God must be the foundation of his character. The main cause of ministerial defects and consequent destitution of moral influence, is the low state of religion in the heart. The religion of the minister must be presented to the world increasing and strengthening daily. He must adorn his profession by the beauty of his holiness, and the excellence of his example; by the benevolence, humility, and amiableness of his manners, by the piety, spirituality, and unction of his conversation, and by the fidelity, zeal, and wisdom which characterize his ministry; presenting in all these graces such a striking contrast to the mere hireling, that men deeply feel, and readily submit to his influence as a true pastor. The constant exhibition of ministerial virtues will create moral power, while the partial manifestation, or total destitution of them, will betray pitiable imbecility.

I. The Pastor's own flock must first and most powerfully feel his influence. The nearer the contact, the deeper ought to be the impression which his character makes upon theirs. The closer the union, the stronger should be the impulse which he imparts to their religious emotions. The more intimate the intercourse, the more profound should be the respect he inspires. He has not acquired legitimate, or lasting influence, who is most respected at the extremities of the circle of which he is the centre. He is in a false position who fails to secure influence at home. Until this be attained, little is done. This is the prize to be won-happiness, usefulness, honour-all are included in it. The minister's eye and heart must be fixed upon it; never must he be satisfied until he has obtained it. Within the Pastor's own immediate sphere his opinions must have weight-his plans, power-his wishes, respect-his preaching, authority, and his example, attraction. Here, the good must welcome him as the servant of God; while the wicked reverence him as a faithful ambassador of Christ, and in his presence feel "how awful

goodness is." All must regard him as a faithful shepherd, feeding, guiding, and defending the flock committed to his care. Among his charge his ministerial influence must be effective, energetic-I had almost said-omnipotent. Not for his own sake is he to seek this power, but that his ministry may become a blessing to many. The careful perusal of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, in which ministers are especially instructed in the duties of their high vocation, will produce the irresistible conviction, that no one can fulfil them without powerful religious and ministerial influence. The preacher may have in mind and talent the thews and muscles of a Sampson, yet without sanctity of character; his locks are shorn-he is powerless-he is despised, and insulted.

It thus becomes an all-important subject of enquiry, how such an influence may be acquired and maintained as shall impart efficiency and potency to the ministerial office?

The principal deficiencies of the ministerial character are not to be found, generally, in the neglect of the more imperative and public duties, but in want of attention to what might seem little things. In the pulpit, or the pastoral chair, ministers are not in much danger of doing or saying any thing injurious to their moral influence. But they are not so safe on the platform, or in the parlour. In the speaker they may degrade the preacher. In the guest, they may dishonour the pastor. He has acquired an invaluable talent, who can impart the charm, grace, and refinement of piety to the social intercourse of life. He that aspires to the honour of exerting a beneficial influence upon his congregation must carefully maintain the true dignity of the christian ministry-a dignity not secular, but proceeding from fervent piety and profound humility, alike removed from ambition and spiritual pride; preserving the minister from frivolity, levity, unbecoming familiarity, and meanness; preventing partiality and party spirit from ruling his conduct; keeping him from thoughtless expressions, prejudicial assertions, intemperate speeches, hasty decisions, and inconsiderate promises, and thus saving from evils which would wreck not only his usefulness, but also his happiness. The dignity allied to influence, preserves from habits, manners, indulgences, pursuits, and practices which degrade the pastor as a gentleman, and sink him as a minister in the respect of the wise and good. The servant of God must magnify his office and have his own mind impressed with an overwhelming sense of its supreme importance. He must solemnly feel its connection with the cross and eternity. Time, talents, toils must be devoted to its awful responsibilities. The soul must be consecrated to its sacred duties. Earthly grandeur, station, rank, office, must in his estimation dwindle into comparative insignificance to the exalted dignity of an ambassador of Christ. His conceptions of the glory of his office will soon impress the minds of others, and secure proportionate respect. If this dignity be lost, there may be eloquence, learning, refinement, but there will be no moral power, no commanding influence.

It is to bo feared that the ministry among the nonconformists exerts not the same influence which it once did over the minds of

the people. It is not to be concealed that many forsake the religion of their puritan fathers. The ministry has not power either to retain them or win them back. Excuses may be made, explanations given, which may appear satisfactory. But ought there not to be a more careful examination of the causes of these defections? If the principles of nonconformity, are worth any thing, should not their support and diffusion command attention?-should not every thing which impairs their efficiency be corrected?-The deplorable deficiency of ministerial influence among the nonconformists proceeds from the very slight intercourse which the pastor has with the younger members of his congregation; and from the almost entire absence of all efforts to instruct them in the doctrines, principles, and discipline of their church. They are not visited by the pastor for this purpose, nor are they made sufficiently acquainted with the strong claims which their denomination has upon their respect and affection. No ministers are less sectarian than the nonconformist clergy. They do not impart such catechetical instruction to the young as did the primitive and puritan churches, therefore they do not obtain the same influence. The same seed is not sown, therefore the same harvest is not reaped and housed. "We have confined ourselves to preaching ecclesiastical duties, to occasional visits to the sick, to the regulation and discipline of the church;" but what have we done in personal care-in affectionate catechetical conferencesin instructing the children of our charge in the principles of Christianity and nonconformity?

The congregation attentively visited, and whose children are wisely instructed by the minister, will appreciate his worth, and esteem him for his work's sake. His fidelity, consistency, and piety will excite an interest which nothing else can awaken, and exert a controul which nothing else can create.

II. The minister most beloved at home will be respected abroad. The circle of home, when filled with his influence, will soon diffuse its impulse and power to other circles. The influence of such a man cannot be confined to his own church; it will be felt in the denomination to which he belongs, and will be acknowledged by other sections of the church. The pastor who is not respected by neighbouring Christians, will soon fose the affections of his own charge, because there must be some defects in his habits and spirit, or in his character and consistency. The opinion of other churches will, sooner or later, act upon his own, so as either to diminish or increase his ministerial power. The minister's influence in his own denomination will arise principally from the extent of his moral power at home, and then, from the cordiality and affection with which he regards his brethren, by the cheerfulness with which he endeavours to meet their claims upon his time, talents, and exertions. He that shuts himself up from his brethren, will soon find himself shut out from their respect and regard. Besides, in the present day, ministers are often required to associate with Christians of other denominations. That association will either materially increase or considerably decrease ministerial influence. It may be diminished, either by the minister's obtruding