which will overcome, in periods of great affliction, has in this very process both acquired and exhibited peculiar strength, and furnished evidence of its genuineness which can hardly be derived from any other source.

At the same time it is, I think, irresistibly inferred from the declarations contained in the word of God, and from the history of his providence recorded both within and without the Scriptures, that God, in his infinite mercy, furnishes his children with peculiar support and consolation in times of peculiar trial; and that, as their day is,' so he causes their strength to be.' Among the means of consolation enjoyed by Christians, none seems better adapted to furnish them with the necessary support under severe distresses, than an assurance that they are children of God. Accordingly, this very consolation appears to have been given to the suffering saints of the Old and New Testaments, as a peculiar support to them in their peculiar trials. From analogy it might be concluded, and from the history of facts it may with the strongest probability, if not with absolute certainty, be determined, that the same blessing has been given in times of eminent affliction to saints in every succeeding age of the church.

Still there is no reason to think that the faith of assurance is generally attained among eminent Christians. This fact has sometimes been called in question, sometimes denied, and oftener wondered at. "Why," it is inquired, " are not Christians oftener, nay, why are they not generally, assured of their gracious state? There certainly is a difference between sin and holiness sufficiently broad to be seen and marked. The Scriptures have actually marked this difference with such clearness and exactness, as to give us ample information concerning both the nature and the limits of these great moral attributes. They have separated those who possess them into two classes, not only entirely distinct, but directly opposite to each other: so opposite, that the one class is styled in them, the friends, and the other, the enemies, of God. Further, they present to us various means of judging, by which we are directed, as well as encouraged and enabled, to try and estimate our own religious character. The subject is also so spoken of in the Scriptures, as naturally to lead us into the conclusion, that these different characters may be distinctly known; and that it is our duty so to act, as upon the whole to

form satisfactory views concerning our moral condition. Finally, the writers of the New Testament, and indeed of the Old also, speak of themselves, as knowing their own piety; and of others, as able to know theirs."

To these observations I answer, in the first place, that holiness and sin are, in themselves, thus clearly distinguishable. Angels cannot but know that they are holy; and fiends, that they are sinful.

Secondly: This difference is sufficiently marked in the Scriptures. If we saw holiness in ourselves exactly as it is exhibited in the Scriptures, that is, unmixed, we should certainly know ourselves to be holy.

Thirdly: Holy and sinful men are just as different from each other as they are represented in the Scriptures; but this does not enable us to determine which they are.

Fourthly: The means furnished us in the Scriptures of judging concerning our religious character are, undoubtedly, the best which the nature of our circumstances will admit; and such as, if correctly applied to ourselves, and known to be thus applied, would undoubtedly decide this great point in a satisfactory manner. Still this does not infer, that it usually will or can be thus decided.

Fifthly: We are undoubtedly required in the Scriptures to examine ourselves; and the performance of this duty, while it is indispensable on our part, unquestionably may be and is of great importance to us; although we may not, as a consequence of it, become possessed of the faith of assurance.

Sixthly The writers in the old and New Testaments did, in many instances, certainly know that they were holy; but they were inspired. It will not therefore follow, that others who are uninspired will of course possess the same knowledge of their own state.

Seventhly: The scriptural writers very extensively use the words know, and knowledge, not in the sense of absolute science, but to denote belief, persuasion, a strong hope, &c. in the same manner as these terms are used in common speech. We cannot therefore certainly conclude, from the use of these terms with respect to this subject, that the divine writers expected those to whom they wrote generally to possess the faith of assurance.

Finally: It is our duty to possess this faith. It is also our

duty to be perfect. Yet St. John says of himself, and all other Christians, If we say, that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' As therefore, notwithstanding this duty, no man is perfect; so, notwithstanding the duty of obtaining the faith of assurance, few persons may actually possess it.

The real difficulty is chiefly passed by, in all the observations made above; and lies in applying the scriptural evidences of holiness to our own particular cases. This subject, I shall now attempt to examine in several particulars.

The difficulties which attend the application of these evidences to ourselves arise from various sources. Among them the following will be found to possess a very serious influence:

1. The vast importance of the case.

A case of great moment is at all times apt strongly to agitate our minds. Men deeply interested by any concern, are therefore considered as less capable of discerning clearly and judging justly, than the same men when dispassionate. As this is the subject even of proverbial declaration, it cannot need proof. The case in hand is of infinite moment to each individual. Whenever he brings it to view, he is prone to feel a degree, and often not a small one, of anxiety. It is therefore seen, together with the evidences which attend it, by the mind through the medium of disturbed feelings. Earnest wishes to find satisfaction, on the one hand, and strong apprehensions lest it should not be found, on the other, naturally disorder that calm temperament, which is so necessary to clear investigation, and satisfactory conclusions. In this state, the mind is prone to be unsatisfied with its own investigation; fears that it has not acted impartially; suspects that it has not viewed the evidence possessed by it in a just light; and when its judgments are favourable to itself, is prone to tremble lest they have been too favourable, and the result of biassed inclinations, rather than of clear discernment. A presumptuous decision in its favour it perfectly well knows to be full of danger; and is ready to think almost every favourable judgment presumptuous. In this situation, all such judgments are apt to be regarded with a general suspicion; and the mind chooses rather to continue unsatisfied, and to undergo the distresses of anxiety and alarm, than to hazard the danger of ill founded

conclusions in its own favour. Most Christians are, I believe, so strongly convinced that a state of anxiety will contribute to make them alive and awake to the danger of backsliding, to quicken them in their duty, and to secure them from carelessness and sloth, and that therefore it will have a happy influence toward rendering them safe, as willingly to judge too unfavourably, rather than too favourably, of their own religious character. An unfavourable judgment, they know, does not render the character itself any worse; but only deprives them of the consolation which with more favourable views of it they might enjoy; while the contrary opinion might naturally slacken them in their duty; and perhaps prevent them finally from obtaining salvation.

2. Another source of difficulties is found in the peculiar natural character of those who are employed in this investigation.

Some of these persons are naturally inclined to hope, others to fear. Some to cheerfulness, others to melancholy. Some are rash, others are cautious. Some are ignorant, others are well informed. But the evidences which establish, or should establish, a favourable judgment of our Christian character, are in substance always the same. As applied to persons of these different characters, they must however be seen in very different lights; because, although religion is the same thing, yet so much of the peculiar natural character of the man remains after he has become religious, as to render him a very different man from every other religious man. Paul and John were both eminently religious. Their religion was the same thing; but the men were widely different from each other. If Christians so eminent and excellent could differ in this manner, how much more different from each other must be ordinary Christians? How much more must the natural character remain in them? particularly, such as in a greater or less degree are sinful? The whole object therefore presented to the judgment of the individual must differ, and often greatly, in different cases.

For example: One person becomes the subject of piety, after a wise, careful, religious education, early and uninterrupted habits of conscientiousness, in the possession of a naturally sweet and amiable temper, in an original and regular course of filial duty, fraternal kindness, and exemplary conduct

to those around him, and in the midst of a life generally commendable and lovely. Another, scarcely educated at all, possessed of a rough, gross, and violent disposition, and shamefully vicious from early life, is sanctified in the midst of scandalous indulgences, and rank habits of sin.

It is perfectly obvious that these two persons will differ mightily from each other in the visible degree of that change of conduct which flows from their religion. The former will perhaps be scarcely changed at all, even to an observing eye; for he has heretofore done, and in a certain sense loved to do, in many particulars, the very thing which religion requires, and to which it prompts; and thus the tenour of his life will seem to those around him much the same after as before his conversion. The latter, sanctified in the same degree, will, it is plain, change almost the whole course of his conduct, and assume a life entirely new, and directly opposite to that which he led before.

Nor will the difference be small in the internal state of these individuals. The sanctified affections and purposes of the former will, in many instances, so blend themselves with those which he has derived from nature and habit, as to be often distinguished with difficulty, and not unfrequently to be entirely undistinguishable. Those of the latter, on the contrary, will be wholly opposite, in most instances, to all that he has heretofore thought, felt, and designed.

As the internal and external conduct of these individuals is the sole ground on which each must judge of himself, as well as be judged of by others, it is perfectly obvious that the objects concerning which they are respectively to judge are widely different from each other. But this is not all. The optics with which these persons judge concerning their religious state will plainly be widely different. Our dispositions naturally influence our judgment, and usually enter much more largely into the opinions which we form, than we are aware. Thus a person strongly inclined to hope will, almost of course, judge favourably, when a person equally inclined to fear would, in the very same case, judge unfavourably, concerning himself. Cheerful persons naturally entertain comfortable views concerning themselves; those who are melancholy such, and often such only, as are uncomfortable, discouraging, and distressing. The rash form bold and presump