LECTURE XXII.

: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SERMONS.

THERE remains one more topic, under the general head of indefinite preaching, which it seems necessary to expand, so much as to make it the chief subject of the present lecture. I proceed then to say,

5. That indefinite preaching may arise from WRONG THEORY IN THE PREACHER, AS TO THE BEST MODE OF EXHIBITING DIVINE TRUTH.

This may occur, perhaps, in a given case; not because there is any obvious deficiency of taste or discrimination, or boldness, or piety, in the dispenser of the sacred oracles; but because he honestly believes, that men are less likely to be converted, under a direct and explicit declaration of Christian doctrines, than under one that is more cautious and qualified..

The principle assumed, to express it briefly, is this; that religious truth, to produce any saving effect on men, must operate according to the philosophy of the human mind; and that to exhibit this truth in such a manner that the effect to awaken opposition in the hearers, is of course to harden their hearts, and confirm them in impenitence. The assumption is, in other words, that men are predisposed to embrace the truth if it is skilfully exhibited ; and that when they are excited to feelings of opposition, this must be owing to some fault in the preacher. After the remarks which I have already made on that point, no one will understand me as justifying a studied repul

siveness of manner in the pulpit. But I regard the theory just mentioned, though it is embraced by some good and able preachers, as wrong in principle, and as inconsistent both with the Bible and with facts.

Fully to show this might lead to a discussion more extended than is consistent with my present object, which is to suggest only those thoughts that have a direct bearing on the point in hand.

In the FIRST place, the Bible represents unsanctified men as predisposed, NOT TO RECEIVE AND LOVE THE TRUTH, BUT TO HATE AND OPPOSE IT. Every such man is an enemy to God. In proof of this I will cite but one text as a specimen of the concurrent testimony of the sacred oracles; "The carnal mind is enmity against God." To say that this refers only to Jews or to men of one age, is to trifle with the plain import of language; for it clearly applies to men universally of all ages. Hence a special renovation by the Holy Spirit is also taught in the Bible, as universally necessary to qualify men for heaven; because by nature they have no holiness, and never would have any if left to themselves.

Every such man loves himself supremely, and is therefore opposed to the law, which requires him to love God supremely. He loves sin, and is therefore opposed to the law, which requires him to be holy, and threatens him with death for every transgression. He loves tranquillity in his unbelief, and is therefore opposed to the alarming denunciation of the Gospel," he that believeth not shall be damned." He is proud; and therefore is opposed to that whole system of truth, by which "the loftiness of men is bowed down, and the haughtiness of men is made low, and the Lord alone is exalted." Accordingly this system of truths, when not disguised or explained away by preachers, has been, like the sect

of the Nazarenes, every where spoken against.' And can it be, notwithstanding all this evidence as to the native temper of the human heart, that it is predisposed to love the gospel, if properly exhibited; and that all its opposition to the truth, arises from the preacher's want of skill in presenting the system of Christian doctrines, according to the laws of intellectual philosophy?

In the SECOND place, such a theory of preaching HAS

NO COUNTENANCE FROM THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF

CHRIST. He did not represent men as predisposed to love God, so soon as they should see his true character, for this true character was the very thing which they hated. "Ye have both seen and hated both me and my Father." "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness, rather than light." When hatred arises from intellectual misapprehension, light will remove it; when it arises from the state of the heart, light will increase it. I mean that while the heart hates the true character of God, clearer views of that character do not produce love, but more hatred. If the opposition of sinners to God were only an intellectual mistake, if it were only opposition to a false character of God, it could not be criminal, for every false character of God ought to be opposed. But the difficulty with sinners in Isaiah's time, was not an intellectual one; "A deceived heart turned them aside." Just so it was in the time of Christ. If his hearers only needed to have the truth skilfully set before them, to love it, why did they often bitterly complain under his sermons? Did not Christ know how to preach his own gospel? Was it want of acquaintance with the human heart, or of skill in adapting his instructions to the real condition of men, which led him so to exhibit the doctrine of divine sovereignty at Nazareth, that "the whole

synagogue were filled with indignation?” Suppose that this great Teacher had conformed to the theory that the gospel must be so preached, as not to be repulsive to depraved hearts, the scornful and malignant opposition that was waged against him, he would indeed have escaped. Why? Just because he would have given men a system of religion at once adapted to please their pride, and to leave them without remedy and without hope in their alienation from God. He knew that the only way to save lost sinners, was to show them that they were lost; and to make them feel their awful guilt and danger. But this he could not do, without disturbing the enmity of their carnal minds.

In the THIRD place, the theory that the gospel, when properly preached, finds the unsanctified heart predisposed to embrace it, IS CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL

EVIDENCE OF FACTS.

From the ministry of its divine Founder to the present time, the gospel has fought its way against the pride, and prejudice, and unbelief of this same human heart, arrayed in a thousand forms of inveterate hostility to oppose its progress. Indeed, that this religion, in its primitive purity, should have maintained an existence on earth, in the face of so much opposition, and notwithstanding so many motives operating on its teachers to disguise its truths, and neutralize its character, is owing merely to the shield of omnipotence, interposed for its protection.

To the maxim then,-that to repel the human heart is not the way to convert it, I reply by another maxim ;— that to appease the enmity of the heart, by accommodating the gospel to its taste, is not the way to convert it; but is the direct way to frustrate the saving influence of divine truth, and to fix men in hopeless rejection of it. Paradoxical as it may seem to unbelief, it ought to be

no mystery to the Christian teacher, that those searching, humbling truths, which inflict agony on the sinner's conscience, are the only means of his deliverance from spiritual death. So thought the great physician of souls. To those diseased with sin, he did not scruple to administer bitter medicines. And shall we imagine ourselves more merciful and skilful than Christ, while we leave untouched the deadly malady of the soul, because we choose to accommodate our prescriptions to the wishes of those who are utterly ignorant of their disease as sinners, and of the only remedy provided in the gospel?

Suppose that St. Paul, when he was going to Corinth, could have been addressed by some adept in intellectual philosophy, and told, it is preposterous for you to preach the doctrine of Christ crucified in that refined city. This doctrine is "to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness."' He would have said, I know it, but this same doctrine is, notwithstanding, the wisdom of God, and the power of God unto salvation. Your maxim of modifying the gospel, lest it should repel the sinful heart, would bind over the world to despair.'

Suppose you were called to devise the best method of converting infidels to Christianity;-would you present it to them as it came from Christ? or as accommodated by a philosophical theory to their prejudices? Dr. Priestley tried this latter experiment,-fully expecting that Jews and philosophical unbelievers would embrace what he called a rational Christianity. What was the result? The Jews believed, not that Christianity is true, but that Dr. Priestley was no consistent Christian. And he very candidly acknowledging the disappointment of his own hopes, said, 'I do not know that my book has converted a single unbeliever.'