472 LETTER XXXVIII. CONCLUDING LETTER. MY DEAR FRIEND, You I THOUGHT YOU Would willingly dispense with the farther prosecution of an inquiry, which has extended so much beyond my expectation, and sometimes (I fear) beyond your patience. I cannot, however, take leave of the subject, without reminding you of the practical instruction, which it has been my object to draw from it, throughout the whole of our correspond ence. In laying our foundation, in a view of the general advantages of religion, and of its necessity to the temporal happiness and improvement of communities, as well as to the eternal salvation of individuals, I have, of course, confined myself to its influence the conscience as a rule of action, upon and upon the heart, as a motive to gratitude. This influence is inseparable from the sincere profession of Christianity, under any of its forms; and is the result of a full and cordial admission, of the authority and evidence of the Gospel. It may consist with differences of opinion, or discrepancies of practice, in religion; but it is the essential and indispensable character, by which the spirit of religion is distinguished from the spirit of unbelief. The infidel has no rule of action but his interest, and no principle of conscience but his inclination. He finds himself, indeed, often compelled to sacrifice both, to the interests and inclinations of others: and, in a country governed by the institutions, and partially pervaded by the principle, of a Christian morality, the force of example, of education, of general opinion, and of decency, may awaken within him a sort of spurious conscience, or of senti'mental virtue, which will operate in proportion to the strength of the impressions upon which it is founded, and lead him to consider his moral obligations, (if he acknowledge any such,) rather with a refer ence to the society with which these impressions have connected him, than with a reference to the God who made, and who will finally judge him. This distinction is clearly evinced, in the standard of social, or of honourable, morality, admitted by infidelity itself, and commonly received amongst the careless or sceptical professors of Christianity; - a standard, so widely different from the morality of the Gospel, that it is utterly impossible to bring them to any assimilation or consistency. By the Christian, another rule of action is proposed, and another principle of obligation is acknowledged. Whatever be the differences of interpretation or apprehension, in which some doctrines of the Gospel are received, all who believe in its divine origin and inspiration, refer to its precepts, as the standard of morality, and to its sanctions, as the sole authority on which the moral duties can be effectually enforced. Whether the capacity for these duties be regarded as inherent, or imparted, whether the performance of them be considered as the result, or the condition, of justification, -the judgment with respect to their nature, is the same, as well as with respect to their necessity; and there is an universal and unalterable agreement, as to the source from whence they are derived, and the great principle upon which they depend. But, whatever system of Christian belief may be in its tendency, more or less favourable to morality, no system, however practical in its object, or precise in its definitions of Christian duty, will be operative upon a heart that is not Christian; and whatever difference of opinion may exist, between those who participate in the spirit of Christianity, the influence of this spirit will invariably produce, in exact proportion to its degree, the fruits of righteousness, and peace, and patience, and charity, and candour. Whether there be a natural tendency to produce this spirit, in one system of doctrines, more than in another, is a question You will say, perhaps, that such a reference to local and personal history, as I have here suggested, is not within the reach of every reader; and if it were, that it would not excuse, in the writers under our review, any deviations from the standard of Scripture doctrine, however fairly it might account for them. This I readily acknowledge; and where such deviations actually appear, I trust that I should be one of the last to defend them. But I must protest against the sweeping censure, "that either condemns this whole class of divines unexamined, or examines them, without a reference to principles and rules of judgment, confessedly necessary in every other branch of criticism. Yet, while I would endeavour to vindicate these divines, from indiscriminate censure, or to rescue them, from unmerited neglect, I would not plead for the general revival of a similar style of preaching; nor wish to substitute their remains, for those more energetic and awakening addresses, which are necessary to arouse the careless sinner, to a |