EZEKIEL XXXIII, 7.--So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word from my mouth, and warn them from me.

      THE prophet who is here addressed, had received a commission from the Lord of Hosts, which carried with it life or death to himself, and the people to whom he was sent. As he would hope to deliver his own soul, as well as theirs, he was called upon to execute faithfully the trust committed to him. In the words immediately following the text, God addresses him thus; "When I say unto the wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way, the wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way, to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul."

      It becomes him who bears a message of such fearful import, to look well to the charge which he has received. No licence is given him to rely on his own inventive powers, to furnish the subject of his communications. "Thou shalt hear the word from my mouth," saith God, "and warn them from me." The embassador of Christ has his commission from the same high authority, which gave this charge to the prophet; and for the same momentous purpose. God has set him as a watchman to the house of Israel; and has enjoined it upon him, to hear the word from his mouth, and warn them from him. The word which the preacher is to hear, is the will of God, revealed in the volume of inspired truth. The people who are to be warned by it, are those who attend on his ministrations. How simple, how definite, and how imperative is his commission.

      I. HE IS TO RESORT DIRECTLY TO THE SCRIPTURES, TO LEARN WHAT THE WILL OF GOD IS.

      II. THIS IS TO BE THE SUBJECT OF HIS COMMUNICATIONS TO HIS PEOPLE. [3]

      To illustrate these positions, will be the object of the present discourse.

      I. It is the duty of the Christian minister, to derive the truths which he preaches directly from the scriptures. This is the fountain from which he is to draw his religious doctrines, his rules of duty, his views of the human heart, his evidences of Christian character, and the sanctions of eternal retribution, by which he enforces his exhortations and warnings. He is not merely to call in the aid of scriptural authority, in confirmation of opinions which he has first derived from others, or formed from his own reasoning. He is to commence his search after religious truth, by opening the sacred volume, and yielding his whole soul to its teaching and its influence.

      In one respect, he is placed in a different situation from that of the prophet in the text. The preacher at the present day, has a written communication of the will of God, while the prophet might be directly instructed by a voice from heaven. But this is only a circumstantial difference. If the word of God has come to us, it has the same authority, whether addressed to our hearing, or placed before our eyes. The law which was written upon tables of stone, was as binding on the tribes of Israel, through all their generations, as upon those who heard it, amid the thunders of Sinai.

      Addressing as I do, a Christian audience, I go upon the supposition, that a revelation from heaven has actually been made to us; that it is contained in the book which we call the scriptures; that this is truly the word of the living God. This book of inspiration, the watchman on the walls of Zion is bound to regard as the source of his religious opinions, and the guide of his instructions, because God has commanded him thus to do--because its author is a being of boundless knowledge and eternal truth--because it is exactly adapted to the design of his ministry--and abundantly sufficient for the great purpose of salvation.

      1. The preacher is bound to derive his opinions and instructions from the bible, in obedience, to the COMMAND of its divine author.

      "Thou shalt hear the word from my mouth," saith God. Thus saith the Lord, "Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord's [4] house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word."¹

      Who is it that thus commissions the prophet to speak in his name? It is the God of heaven; the King of kings, and Lord of lords. Were an embassador from an earthly potentate, sent with a message to some remote portion of his dominions, would the servant venture to substitute the suggestions of his own reason, for the instructions of his sovereign? But he from whom the minister of Christ has received his commission, is the ruler of all worlds. In this lower province of his empire, the race of men are the subjects of his righteous authority. He has given them his law. He has made known its awful sanctions. And yet they have refused to obey. They stand condemned before him. If not saved by his grace, they must perish forever. All souls are his. Our eternal interests depend on his will. And now, when in the riches of his mercy, he has sent to us the message of reconciliation; when the embassadors of Christ are furnished with the offers of pardon; when the terms of acceptance are distinctly proposed; are these divine communications to be subjected to the modifying power of human philosophy, before they are delivered to those for whom they were made?

      2. The minister of Christ is bound to derive the doctrines which he preaches directly from the bible, because it is the word of a being of BOUNDLESS KNOWLEDGE and ETERNAL TRUTH. His plan of moral government, which, in its provisions, embraces the successive generations of men, extends to other worlds, and reaches down through the ceaseless ages of futurity. He comprehends, in a single view, all the relations which the parts of this boundless system bear to each other. He knows how the different portions of his vast empire are affected by an example of apostacy in our world. He knows upon what conditions mercy may be extended to us, without endangering the safety of his kingdom. He knows perfectly the nature, the operations, the thoughts and the purposes of the human mind; and the truths which are best calculated to influence and control its affections. He has a full comprehension of the powers of human language; and of the modes of address which will [5] most effectually reach the heart. "Such knowledge is too wonderful for us. It is high; we cannot attain unto it." We cannot penetrate the deep recesses of the human heart. We cannot look through distant worlds, and distant ages, to sit in judgment on the divine administration, which embraces them all. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God's ways higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts."² He is a God of eternal and perfect truth. "Heaven and earth shall pass away; but his words will not pass away." He has no occasion to practice deception to accomplish his purposes.

      On the veracity and omniscience of God rests the peculiar evidence or revealed truth. It is the word of him who cannot err, and who will not deceive. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." It is a point of the highest moment to the Christian teacher, that he keep steadily in view, the broad line of distinction between this kind of evidence and every other. Different sciences are built upon different foundations. Mathematical propositions are supported by intuition and demonstration. Philosophical truths are established by observation and experiment. Our belief or historical facts depends mostly on the testimony of fallible men. But the evidence of scriptural truth is the testimony of God himself. Here human reasoning has no right to interfere. It is bound to stand aside, and hear what God the Lord hath said. Reason decides, indeed, and decides intuitively, that the word of the God of truth is to be believed. It is also the office of reason to inquire whether he has actually spoken to us; whether the scriptures are really his word. And it farther belongs to reason, to interpret the language which we find there; to determine what God hath said. Thus far, may reason go in this case, but no farther. It is bound to submit implicitly to the divine declarations, whatever they may be. Here is the distinction between faith and more reason. Not that faith, in divine testimony, is opposed to reason. But the objects of faith are frequently above unassisted reason. The highest efforts of the human mind; could not reach them without a revelation from heaven. Reason conducts us to the infinite fountain of [6] knowledge, but does not itself discover the truths which are made known by inspiration. These are to be received on the simple testimony of God. Reason points to the foundation on which our faith must rest. Faith reposes on this immutable support. Divine testimony is the highest of all evidence, unless it be intuitive and demonstrative certainty. There is no demonstration superior to the "demonstration of the Spirit" of God. Inspiration can never demand our assent to what is demonstratively false. But it discloses to us many truths, which to mere reason, unassisted by revelation, would appear highly improbable. This is owing to the immeasurable distance between the divine understanding and ours. What to our limited powers appears to be true, a God of boundless intelligence often knows to be false. Especially are we unable to penetrate the depth of his own designs. "How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out." Mysteries gather around us, whenever we attempt, by our own reason alone, to investigate the arrangements of his vast and eternal kingdom. The truths which he reveals to us, may or may not accord with the opinions which we ourselves had formed. Their previous probability or improbability, is, therefore, no ground on which we are to receive or reject them, when we find them in the word of God. The deepest mysteries are to be received with as full an assent as the most simple and obvious suggestions of reason. No considerations can give to the latter a higher degree of evidence, than that which the declaration of God affords to the former.

      3. The Christian preacher is to derive his religious opinions directly from the word of God, because this is so exactly adapted to the design of his ministry. His great object, if he is faithful, is the salvation of men. This is the very purpose for which the scriptures were written. They come from a God of infinite benevolence. They relate to his government over us. They unfold to us his dispensation of mercy for the recovery of a fallen race. They make known to us the great sacrifice of atonement for sin. They propose the terms on which we may be restored to the divine favor. They furnish perfect rides for the guide of our conduct. They offer us the assistance which we need from the spirit of grace. They disclose to us the retributions of the eternal world. All this is done by [7] him who is earnestly engaged in seeking our salvation. Is the system of means which he has devised for this purpose defective? Who will venture to propose improvements on the plans of infinite wisdom?

      4. The treasures of religious truth in the scriptures, are abundantly sufficient for the great purpose of the Christian Ministry. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable,--that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." There is no deficiency in this book of revelation, to be supplied by the aid of human philosophy.

      Perhaps it will be said that philosophical knowledge is necessary, to enable us to interpret the scriptures; to learn from the written word, what is the mind of the Spirit. It must be admitted that the divine will is communicated to us through the medium of human language; that the writers were men who expressed themselves according to their own peculiar habits of thinking and speaking; and that what they wrote was adapted to the understandings and circumstances of the persons whom they addressed. Though inspired of God, they were themselves men, speaking to their fellow men, in the language of men. They spoke and wrote with the intention of being understood. That kind of learning, therefore, which explains the language of the bible, which shows the design, the views, and the situation of the writers, which places us in the condition of the persons addressed, which makes a skilful application of the correct rules of interpretation, is of the highest importance in directing our inquiries after the true meaning of scripture. But it is not a sound principle of interpretation, to determine before hand what doctrines ought to be found, or are probably to be found, in the bible; and therefore to make it speak a language in conformity with our preconceived opinions. Of the truths contained in the scriptures, there are some which are evident, or probable, from the light of nature. There are others, which, till they were revealed, the mind of man had not even thought of. There are others again, which natural reason would have pronounced to be improbable. "God revealeth deep and secret things." "He doeth great things, which we cannot comprehend." The scriptural evidence, therefore, in favor of any doctrine, is wholly independent of the probability [8] furnished by reasoning alone, without the aid of revelation. This evidence is the simple testimony of God. It is neither weakened nor strengthened by any previous opinion which we had formed on the subject revealed.

      Philosophical speculation, therefore, has nothing to do in ascertaining the meaning of scripture, except by explaining and applying the common principles upon which language is to be interpreted. The doctrines of metaphysical philosophy ought to have no influence in determining the doctrines of the bible. If the language of scripture is to be so explained, as to conform invariably to probabilities suggested by reason, then is it no revelation. It makes known to us no new truths. It can decide no controverted point. For each contending party will give the passages referred to as proofs, the meaning which accords with its own opinions. This is the great reason why the various denominations of Christians make, ordinarily, no approaches towards agreement in doctrine, by discussions, which, professedly, refer to the scriptures, as a common rule of faith. In truth, each party, instead of making the scriptures the only standard of belief, makes his own opinions, to some extent at least, the standard of scripture. This is very commonly done, by interpreting particular passages either literally or figuratively, as best answers the purpose of the disputants. Only grant to a theological combatant the option, of giving to the texts which he quotes, either a literal or figurative meaning, and he will find no difficulty in supporting, by an appearance of scriptural authority, any doctrine whatever. If the book of God is to be interpreted according to preconceived philosophical opinions, it will not be one bible, but many. It will be made to contain as many different systems of doctrines, as there are different schemes of philosophy brought forward to give a construction to its contents. Its meaning must vary, as one plan of speculation becomes unfashionable, and gives place to another.

      But it may be asked, Did not the writers of the scriptures, address themselves to the common understanding of men? Did they not accommodate their language to the opinions of those for whom they wrote? Did they not, like other writers, proceed on the supposition, that many things were already known to their readers? And is it not proper, that this knowledge, which had such influence in modifying [9] the composition of the sacred penmen, should be brought into view, in searching for their meaning? To this I answer, that it may be very necessary, in interpreting the scriptures, to take into consideration the opinions and modes of thinking of the classes of persons to whom they were originally addressed. The true point of inquiry is, how did they, if they were candid, understand what was said to them. How did the children of Israel understand Moses? How did the primitive Christians understand Christ and his apostles? But the words of scripture were not spoken to modern metaphysicians. Paul did not reason with philosophers of the present age. Their speculative opinions are not the standard according to which the bible is to be interpreted.

      II. I proceed to the consideration of the second branch of our subject; that THE TRUTHS WHICH THE PREACHER HATH DERIVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES, ARE TO BE THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS COMMUNICATIONS. "Thou shalt warn them from me, saith the Lord." This is the great purpose for which he is to apply himself so diligently to the study of the Scriptures, that he may make known to the people of his charge what the will of God is. He is bound to do this.

      1. Because nothing else will accomplish the design of his ministry. It is scriptural truth which is the, great instrument of sanctification. The prayer of Christ to the Father is, "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth." The preacher may entertain his hearers with fine speculations on the powers and operations of the human mind. He may trace, with the hand of a master, the connection between motives and actions. He may gain their admiration, by exhibitions of his own powers of invention and reasoning. Every link in the chain of his logical deductions, may be rightly placed; and firmly connected with its antecedent and its consequent. His philosophical theology may be wrought into a finely proportioned and compacted system. But all this will not be effectual to salvation. And why not? Because human philosophy is not the truth of God. It is "the wisdom of this world." I am aware, that even the light of nature is sufficient to enable us to read our sentence of condemnation. But it cannot devise a plan of redemption. It may shew us a world in ruins; but can discover no way of repairing the desolation. It may conduct the guilty soul to the chambers of [10] perdition; but cannot open to it the glories of heaven. The plan of redeeming mercy, is disclosed to us by revelation only. "When the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save those who believe. Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard; neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for those who love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit." And what he has revealed is sufficient, without the aid of human philosophy.

      It is admitted, that even scriptural truth, though preached in its purity and simplicity, will not save the soul, unless made effectual by the sanctifying influence of the Spirit. But we have no sufficient ground for expecting that renewing grace will accompany the speculations of philosophy. "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets, that prophesy unto you; they make you vain, they speak a vision out of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord. They shall not profit this people at all. But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused the people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way. Is not my word like a fire, saith the Lord; and like a hammer, that breaketh the rock in pieces?"³

      Some may be ready to ask; In what then consists the difficulty of the preacher's office, if he has nothing more to do, than merely to deliver to his people what is ready furnished to his hands in the sacred volume? Does it require years of preparation, and a life devoted to study, to enable a man to read portions of scripture to his audience? To this I answer, that the preacher's duty is two-fold; in the first place, to investigate the true meaning of the word or God; and secondly to communicate this meaning to his people. He is to perform the office of the Levites, who explained the law to the children of Israel. "They read in the book of the law distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading."⁴ This is what the Christian preacher is bound to do; to give the sense of scripture, and to cause the people to understand it. Each of the two parts of his duty, calls for high attainments and efforts. But the qualifications for one and the other, are of a different character. [11] In investigating the meaning of scripture, he derives assistance from a knowledge of the ancient languages. To make this meaning understood, he must possess a command over the powers of the language in which he speaks. For the former object, he needs a familiar knowledge of the local situation, modes of living, customs, and habits of thinking, of the people who originally received the oracles of God: For the latter, an acquaintance with the peculiar circumstances, feelings, pursuits, and opinions of the members of his congregation. He first learns how Paul spoke, to Greeks, and Romans, and Jews; and then considers how he would have spoken, to an English or American assembly, at the present day. By searching the scriptures, he is to enlighten and impress his own mind. In addressing his people, he is to communicate instruction and emotion to them. These two parts of his duty, are sufficient to occupy his time, and the resources of his mind, without the addition of curious speculations on philosophical theology.

      Still it may be urged that, although logical discussion may not be necessary for the purpose of discovering new religious truths; yet it may be of great service, in defending the doctrines which are the subject of revelation. If nothing more is here meant, than supporting the doctrines of Scripture by scriptural evidence; comparing, elucidating, and applying, the different parts of this evidence; this is included in what has just been described as the preacher's duty. It is the very purpose to which his reasoning powers ought to be pre-eminently devoted.

      Will any one say, that it may be well to confirm this scriptural evidence, by considerations drawn from other sources? And shall we attempt to confirm that which we admit to be the testimony of God himself; that God who has given us all our powers of reasoning and judging, and who, if he were willing to deceive us, could stamp deception upon the very faculties of the soul? Are we to suspend our belief of a doctrine revealed by God, till we can prove it by other evidence? "And I brethren," says Paul to the Corinthians, "came not to you, with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God; but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power;--that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." [12]

      The harmony which exists between the truths presented in his word, and the light which shines upon us from his works and his providence, is a very proper subject of devout meditation, and of practical preaching. But God is to be believed, when he speaks to us; whether we can or cannot trace the connection between his declarations and the operations of his hands.

      If then, metaphysical philosophy is not allowed to lay the foundation of our religion; or to interpret, or modify, or add to the revelation of God; has the preacher no occasion for the cultivation of his logical powers? no use for the science of mental philosophy? Is the time devoted to this portion of a liberal education, to be regarded as all lost to him? By no means.

      There is a purpose, to which, with due caution, acquisitions and skill of this nature may be very properly applied;--meeting the cavils of those who pervert the scriptures, or who reject them altogether. One of these classes accommodate the meaning of the bible to their own pre-conceived and erroneous opinions. The other set aside the whole book of God, because it contains some things which do not accord with their own philosophy. Both are to be met, principally by presenting the direct evidence of the truth; but partly by shewing the fallacy of their own reasonings. "The fool is to be answered according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." The caviller is to be taken on his own ground, and driven from the positions in which he is attempting to fortify himself. But in doing this, it is of the utmost importance, to keep steadily in view, the difference between the foundation on which the truth is supported, and the weapons which you use in combating error. You may confound the objector, without bringing him to a conviction of the truth. There is reason to fear, that when driven from one strong hold of delusion, he will take refuge in another. The course of measures adopted in opposing him, if not managed with great caution, may carry this danger with them. The attitude of attack Which You assume, may seem to him to imply, that so long as he can fortify himself by starting new objections, he can maintain his ground. This may confirm him in permanent error. For some of the most important truths are inseparably connected with difficulties, which no human sagacity can wholly remove. The very being and perfections of God, and even our own existence, involve mysteries, which our limited powers [13] can never fully explain. A proposition is not of course false, because it is attended with difficulties. Nor, on the other hand, is its freedom from difficulties, any proof that it is true. The real design, therefore, of attempting to confute the objector to sound religious doctrine, should be to shake his confidence in his own unaided reasoning;--to prevail on him to submit his judgment to the direct evidence of the truth; and that is scriptural evidence, the testimony of God and his inspired messengers. The object should be, to bring him to feel the force of the expostulation, "Who art thou, that repliest against God?" It will be in vain, that you drive him from one resting place after another, if you do not persuade him to fix his reliance upon the "rock of ages." The forms of error are endlessly varied. Confuting a thousand heresies, does not necessarily establish the truth. This can be done only by direct and positive proof. And in the case of evangelical truth, no evidence is sufficient, but that of revelation. No other foundation can here be laid, than that which is already laid. Life and immortality are brought to light only by the gospel. Metaphysical reasoning may be sufficient to overthrow metaphysical error; but not to establish the truth as it is in Jesus. Believing merely because we have reasoned out a proposition, is not believing on the testimony of God.

      Let the preacher, then be furnished with philosophical weapons, to ward off the attacks of philosophical opposers. Let him be versed in mental science, that the enemies of the truth may not triumph over him, on the ground of their boasted superiority in this respect. Let him study it early; that it may not first come upon him, with a fascinating and bewildering influence, in the midst of his parochial ministrations. Let him study it deeply; that he may understand its proper use, its limits, and Its perplexities. On no subject, perhaps, is a little more learning dangerous than on this. The deleterious qualities of metaphysics, lie mostly on the surface.

      2. The preacher is to make the truth of scripture, the burden of his communications to his people, because this is a message which can be easily understood. It is brought down to the comprehension of a common religious assembly. It is the simplicity of scriptural truth, which adapts it to all classes of hearers. "To the poor, the gospel is preached; to men of common life, and of common education. It will not be denied, I trust, that it is possible for the omniscient [14] Creator through the medium of ordinary language, to make a revelation of his will, which can be understood by men of plain common sense. Such is in fact the revelation of the scriptures.

      But of all modes of communication, the language of metaphysical philosophy, is the least adapted to the understanding of an ordinary congregation. Philosophical preaching requires a philosophical audience. It is true, there are some things even in the Scriptures hard to be understood. But the great doctrines and precepts, which are the means of sanctification and salvation, though they may be indistinctly presented in some passages, are clearly exhibited in others. Not only the meaning of the statements is easily seen, but the evidence by which they are supported. The declaration, "Thus saith the Lord," can be instantly understood and applied, by a whole congregation. Here is no necessity for a long logical process, to bring conviction to our minds. We may believe a fact, on the testimony of God, without knowing the train of causes from which it has proceeded. We may believe a doctrine without tracing its connection with a system of doctrines. We may believe in the foreknowledge of God, without being able to explain the manner in which he foresees all events. We may believe in the resurrection of the dead, without knowing how they will be raised, or "with what body they will come." We may believe in the influence of the Spirit, without being able to explain the mode of his operation.

      But how is a plain man to arrive at a knowledge of religious truth, by the refinements of metaphysical reasoning? Suppose he make the attempt. He has a new science to learn; a science abounding in nice distinctions; requiring an analysis of the faculties and operations of the mind: and embracing a knowledge of the relations of cause and effect, powers, and susceptibilities, ties, motives and actions. When examining a particular proposition, he finds that this is dependent on another, that other on a third; and that he is to follow out a chain of dependencies and logical deductions. To establish a single truth, be must show its connection with a whole system of truths.

      If he looks to the pulpit, for instruction on these subjects, he is involved in the mysteries of metaphysical phraseology. His minister speaks to him in an unknown tongue. He finds that he has not only a new science, but a new language to learn. The language of common life, and common business, has not the philosophical precision [15] which is requisite for nice metaphysical investigation. Here again a new difficulty is presented. The language of metaphysics is far from being settled. In some sciences, the peculiar precision which is required, is in a good degree attained, by a general agreement in the use of terms. But this is by no means the case in metaphysical theology. Even the classification of the powers of the mind, is not agreed upon, by writers on mental philosophy; some enumerating many original faculties, others reducing them to a very small number. This must of course lead to a great want of precision, in the application and use of terms. Such indistinctness, where the language ought, if possible, to be settled with mat mathematical exactness, is a source of endless misapprehensions. It always furnishes to a disingenuous disputant an opportunity of retreating, under the cover of indefinite phraseology. Metaphysical controversies become interminable except from the weariness of the contending parties, or of their readers. There is reason to believe that another generation, at least, must pass off, before the language of mental philosophy will become settled. In this chaotic state of metaphysical phraseology, how are the common people to establish their religious opinions, by a course of philosophical investigation?

      But if they turn to the word of God as the foundation of their faith, they are relieved from these perplexities. The evidence of religious doctrines, as it is there presented, is of such a nature, as not to require the use of philosophical expressions. God has spoken to us in the language of common life; "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." He who gave to the human mind its existence and powers can surely speak to it in such a manner as to be understood. The language of scripture is often figurative; but the figures are mostly drawn from the business and scenery of common life. The original communications were chiefly made to a single people, occupying for many generations the same spot of ground, and remarkably simple and uniform in their modes of living. So that, with a moderate acquaintance with their peculiar circumstances and history, we may place ourselves in their situation, and understand the most important parts of the bible, as they understood them. If metaphysical philosophy had been necessary to salvation; it would seem that the bible would have given us a new metaphysical language. [16]

      It is true, there are controversies respecting the meaning of scripture. But these are, in a great measure, owing to the fact that different and opposite philosophical opinions are applied to the interpretation; that we are not satisfied with receiving implicitly the testimony of God, without knowing the reasons of his declarations. In this way, we give to the bible various and contradictory meanings; instead of deriving the true one from the book itself. The preacher ought so to address his hearers, as to put them upon searching the scriptures for themselves; bringing every doctrine which he teaches to the trial of this unerring standard. This is the most effectual way of establishing them firmly and unitedly in the truth. The best of all commentaries on the bible, is the bible itself.

      3. The preacher is bound to make the scriptures his guide, not only in the doctrines which he teaches, but in the practical exhortations which he gives to his people. Thou shalt warn them from me says God to the prophet. The preacher has two classes of hearers to address, the righteous and the wicked. To each of these, he is called to give appropriate instruction and admonition, derived from the word of God.

      The scriptures are the only safe guide, in giving directions to impenitent sinners; particularly when their attention is excited to the great interests of salvation. This is no time for hazarding experiments upon the conflicting emotions of the trembling inquirer; no time for trying the efficacy of favorite philosophical theories. When the question appears to be on the point of being decided, whether the sinner shall turn and live forever, or harden himself in a hopeless continuance in transgression, the spiritual guide who has any just sense of the worth of the soul, will deeply feel his own need of assistance and direction from on high. Who would venture, in such a situation, to substitute the suggestions of refined speculation, for the counsels of infinite wisdom? God only knows the hearts of all. He only, knows the means of turning them, as the rivers of water are turned. He knows the truths which will most frequently be accompanied with the sanctifying influence of the Spirit. We may safely adopt the directions which we find in his word, whether we are able or not to determine their proper place, in a system of speculative theology. [17]

      The Christian minister, in faithfully warning the people of his charge, is called upon to discriminate between the saint and the sinner. This is one of the most important and difficult parts of his duty. The traits of Christian character ought to be so delineated, that each individual may apply them to his own case; and determine whether he is a friend or enemy of God. But how is this to be done? The only safe way, is to follow the directions given in the word of God; directions from him who has a perfect knowledge of the human heart, and of the grounds on which he will make the final separation between the righteous and the wicked. We may form rules for the trial of character, more conformable to systematic theology, than those which we find in the scriptures; stated with greater logical exactness, and seemingly better fitted to expose the refuges of self-deception. But is it possible that human sagacity can furnish more decisive tests of character than those which are given by infinite wisdom? Can philosophical acuteness penetrate deeper into the recesses of the heart, than he who understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts?

      Inf. 1. The view which has now been taken of this subject, naturally suggests the inference, that the preacher, whenever he thinks proper to introduce philosophical reasoning into his discourses, ought effectually to guard his hearers against confounding his own speculations with the simple truths of revelation. "The prophet who shall presume to speak a word in my name, says God, which I have not commanded him to speak;--that prophet shall die." The people have a right to know what doctrines are supported by the testimony of God; and they should be taught how to distinguish between these and the inventions of uninspired men. But the two are so often blended together, in discourses from the dusk, and in religious publications; metaphysical reasoning is so interwoven with scriptural declarations, that no marked line of distinction is preserved between them. A doctrine is found in the scriptures. A philosophical theory is proposed to explain it. The doctrine and the theory are exhibited in such intimate union, that they soon come to be Considered as indissolubly connected. He who doubts the one, is believed, of course to have renounced the other. We forget what has come to us from heaven, and what from the wisdom of this world; and in point of [18] importance, reduce them to a common level. No wonder then, that philosophy should greatly corrupt the simplicity of revealed truth.

      2. Another inference which may be drawn from the subject is, that ministers and Christians who are agreed in their belief of the great truths of revelation, ought not to be alienated from each other on account of their different philosophical explanations of scriptural doctrines. The differences of opinion which occasion Such animated controversies among the numerous divisions and subdivisions of parties in the Christian world, are frequently nothing more than different modes of accounting for doctrines in which most of the combatants are agreed. Now there would be some reason for this zealous adherence to philosophical theories, if these constituted the evidence by which the doctrines are supported. Rejecting the former, might be considered as removing the foundation of our belief in the latter. But with truths supported by the testimony of God, the case is widely different. We may equally believe them, whether we adopt this or that mode, or no mode of showing their connection with other truths. Shall I then denounce a man as a heretic, because we have adopted different metaphysical theories, in explanation of scriptural truths which we both receive? I may suppose that if I were to admit his hypothesis, I must, to be consistent, reject the doctrine to which it is applied. And are the divine declarations to be set aside unless they can be shown to accord with my favorite philosophy? If he who differs from me, claims that his speculations are essential to salvation, that they are necessary additions to revealed truth, that without them the word of God cannot be supported or believed; the let him be admonished for his presumption. But the great danger to the cause of religion is not so much that this or that unfounded theory may be advanced, as that any metaphysical theory whether true or false, should be relied upon, as the foundation of our faith. It is the dependence upon philosophical speculations which open the floodgates of error. Points of metaphysical theology may be amicably discussed, they are not allowed to usurp the place which belongs exclusively to revealed truth. But we so elevate their importance, and so fiercely contend for them, that a doubt respecting a speculative theory, is certainly draws upon a man the imputation of heresy, as a rejection of the faith to be delivered to [19] the saints. Is it proper, that the peace of the churches, and the harmony among faithful ministers, should be violated, by contests for victory, between systems of curious speculation? If these points of ardent contention are scriptural truths, they can be supported by scriptural evidence. If they are not doctrines of scripture, let them have their proper rank among other inventions of philosophy. Is it right, that the simple truths of the gospel should be so interwoven with questions of doubtful disputation, that plain Christians cannot separate the one from the other. Let us have the river of the water of life, as it comes to us, pure from the eternal fountain, unadulterated by mixtures of human philosophy.

      3. The real improvements which have hitherto been made, or which are hereafter to be made in religious opinion, consist not of additions to the doctrines of revelation; but of a more exact understanding of the scriptures themselves. The progress of Christians in the knowledge of God, and the truths relating to his kingdom, is much more rapid, in one age and country than in another. This progress, however, is not proportioned to the advances which are made at the time in refined speculation; but to the earnestness, the humility, and the teachable spirit, with which the scriptures are studied. Periods in which the pride of philosophy has been most exalted, have often been distinguished for the widest departures from the simplicity of scriptural theology. We need no additions to the inexhaustible treasures of inspired truth. They are sufficient to occupy the researches, not only of the longest life, but of successive ages. When Christians of every sect and name, instead of wasting their strength, in building and fortifying walls of partition in the church, shall set themselves down to the study of one and the same divine book; when the instructions which they draw from it shall be prized above the highest attainments in sciences merely human; when the spiritual riches thus accumulated in one age, shall be transmitted to succeeding generations: then may we expect that the different denominations, as they approach nearer to a common standard of faith, will be brought nearer and nearer to each other; that the influence of the spirit will be given abundantly, to bless the discoveries of heavenly truth; that increasing light will be accompanied with increasing holiness and peace; till the earth shall be full of the knowledge of God, and the glory or his praise. [20]

[TCPC 1-20.]

      The electronic version of Jeremiah Day's The Christian Preacher's Commission Christian Preacher's Commission: A Sermon, Delivered before the General Association of Connecticut at Saybrook, June 22, 1831. (New Haven, CT: Hezekiah Howe, 1831) has been produced from a copy of the book held by the Yale University School of Divinity Library. Thanks to the School of Divinity and Adams Memorial Library for providing a copy of the pamphlet.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. In the printed text, footnotes are indicated by printer's devices (asterisks, daggers, etc.); in the electronic text, they are treated as sequentially numbered endnotes. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained; however, corrections have been offered for misspellings and other accidental corruptions. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 11:     of the preachers office [ of the preacher's office
            the preachers duty [ the preacher's duty
 p. 12:     Corinthians, came [ Corinthians, "came
 p. 15:     to the undertanding [ to the understanding
            requires a philsophical [ requires a philosophical
 p. 19:     zealous adherance [ zealous adherence
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 30 November 2003.