DISCOURSE VI.

The Affectionate Christian Vindicated, and the Sincere Soul Comforted under his Complaints of Deadness, &c.

WE have seen what are the various advantages that may be derived from the exercise of the passions, in the concerns of religion; and we have taken notice of the irregularities to which they are liable, and have endeavoured to guard against the abuse of them. We proceed now to the fifth general head of discourse which was proposed, and that is to vindicate the affectionate christian from the unjust reproaches of men, in his warmest exercises of love to God and devotion. Surely one would think there appears sufficient reason for pious souls to indulge their most lively affections in worship, and that without any abuse of their reason, or abasement of their religion. These inward sensations of holy delight, these secret joys which a stranger intermeddles not with, these experimental parts of godliness may be set in a rational light, and be justified to the understanding of men. What is there in all this account of a christian's love to God, and the regulated exercise of pious passions, that is not agreeable to solid reason, and to the natural notions that we have of God and our duty, as well as to the brighter discoveries we have by divine revelation? What is there in all these workings of a holy soul, but what is the just and proper result of the nature of man, as an inferior spirit, in the present circumstances of flesh and blood meditating on God, the infinite and supreme Spirit, with a lively hope of his favour and acceptance ?

Will the deist and the infidel tell me, that "this is all mechanical religion, the mere effect of animal nature, the visionary scenes of fancy, and the boilings of a warm imagination?" Will they laugh at all this account, and say, "there is nothing in it but the passionate ferments of flesh and blood, which we mistake for a reasonable religion and worship?" I would enter the lists with them, even upon the foot of reason, and justify these sensations of experimental christianity, by a few plain and gradual steps of argument.

1. Is not the great God the Creator and supreme Governor of all things? Is he not the most glorious and most excellent spirit? Is he not a being of infinite majesty, of holiness, and of mercy? Is he not a God of awful sovereignty, a wise ruler, and righteous judge? Is he not kind and compassionate toward his

humble and obedient creatures? Is he not a fountain of eternal blessedness, and an all-sufficient and everlasting good to those that seek and serve him? Is he not a God that hath terrors to vindicate his government, and to punish those that break his law? Is not this the God that the wiser and better sort of heathens acknowledged, and do acknowledge as well as the christians?

2. Is not the mind of man made capable, in some measure, of knowing this God? And are we not bound to acquaint ourselves with him? Is not man therefore bound to get these notions and ideas of the attributes of God his maker, represented to his mind, in the truest, the fairest, and the strongest light? Or are the faintest and the feeblest notions of our Creator the best? Are we not under an obligation sometimes to recollect these ideas of God when we come to converse humbly with him? Should we not endeavour to bring them fresh and strong into our me mory, and to make his majesty and his mercy, as it were, present to our souls, by the fullest and brightest conceptions we can form, when we come to worship before him, when we address him with prayer for any blessing that we want, or when we praise him for any mercies we have received from him?

3. Ought not this knowledge, this holy remembrance of God, to influence the other powers of our nature? Doth not conscience itself tell the deist, that his own sentiments of so glorious a being demand his highest honour, and his humblest worship? Do not his own thoughts require of him a behaviour agreeable to all those high conceptions which he hath of the perfections of the divine nature? Are not our minds bound to think of him with high esteem? Are not our wills bound to resolve upon obedience to this wise and holy Governor, and to submit with patience to all his providences? Are not our eyes made to contemplate his works, and ought we not to give him the honour of his wisdom and power, that formed this world of wonders which our eyes behold? And are not our tongues obliged to speak honourably of him, and to render him a just revenue of praise? Is it not our duty to offer the tribute of our lips in thankfulness for a thousand blessings we receive from his bounty and beneficence ?

4. Are not our passions or affections a particular power of human nature that owes God some honour as well as the understanding and will, the eyes and the tongue? Were not these affectionate powers made to be excited by thoughts of the mind, and to be exercised agreeably to the judgment and conscience? Or are the passions the only powers of our nature that owe no homage to the God that made them, and must not be employed in his service? Many of the affections are pleasing to nature intheir various exercises, and can they not have leave to be employed in piety? Must religion be made so dry and tasteless and

melancholy a thing as to forbid all pleasure? Have we not per nission to love God the most amiable spirit, whose perfections and glories surpass all created beings? Must we never take delight in God, the Author of our nature, and the source of eternal blessedness? Is religion the only thing whence all pleasing affection must be for ever banished and excluded? And must I withhold all these pleasant and powerful sensations of nature from intermingling with the things of God? Hath my wise and merciful Creator given me such a faculty as admiration, and may I admire the heavens and the earth, the fishes, the beasts, and the birds, and not admire that all-wise and almighty Being that made me and them? May I lay out my wonder on any thing, or on every thing besides the great God, who created all these wonders? Hath he formed my soul to delight and love, and hath he confined these sweet and pleasurable capacities only to be employed about creatures, when the Creator himself is infinite and supreme in loveliness? Will not this most amiable of beings expect that I should love himself, and give me leave to make him my delight? Is it lawful for me to fear a lion or an adder, a whirlwind or a flash of lightning, and may I not indulge a holy and solemn dread of that glorious being that made lightnings and whirlwinds, adders and lions, and has unknown thunders in reserve for profane sinners? Doth he give me leave to mourn and weep for the loss of my ease or my health, or my friends, and may I never indulge my sorrow, to arise for all my multiplied offences against his law, my former rebellions against his govern ment, and my refusals of his grace? Thus far I have begged leave for the passions to assist religion and I think reason gives an ample permission. But I may rise to bolder language here, and pronounce my argument with stronger force, if I should resume the first part of this head of reasoning, and make all these enquiries turn upon the point of obligation and duty. Since I know this God to be infinite in goodness, and the author of all my comforts, am I not bound to love him with all my strength, and with all my soul? If he is a being of sovereign power, holiness and justice, ought I not always to fear before him, and to grieve heartily that I have offended against his holy Jaws? Is it not my duty to mourn for sin, and to be ashamed of my unnatural and unreasonable conduct? And doth not God require, that I should rejoice before him with thankfulness, when I have some hope that he hath accepted my submission, pardoned my sin, and, holds me in his favour and love?

But let me proceed yet further in this argument, and say, have not my passions themselves been too often engaged in folly and sin? And must they do nothing for the interests of religion and virtue? Hath not the great and blessed God been affronted and dishonoured by these warm and active powers of my

nature? And may not he make some reprisals of them by leading them captive by his grace, and devoting them to his own service? Must the passions which have been defiled with so much iniquity, and which have helped to defile the soul, never be refined? Never be sanctified? Never attempt to restore that tribute of honour and obedience to the great God, of which they have long defrauded him? Have I loved vanity? Have I delighted in sin? Has my desire, my hope, and my joy, been heretofore employed on criminal objects? And must these affections of desire and hope, of love and delight, be forbid to pursue objects divine and heavenly, and be for ever excluded from all pious employment? Have I grieved for the loss of a sinful pleasure, or been angry with my brother, and hated him without a cause? And ought I not to turn the stream of my wrath and hatred against my sins, and to give a loose to the passion of grief, and pious sorrow for my guilty behaviour toward God and man? Are these faculties of my nature capable of sinning only, and incapable of practising virtue and goodness? Or is it not lawful to attempt to employ them in the service of religion? Let the deists, and the men of cold philosophy tell me, that virtue and piety, and goodness, consist only in subline ideas of God, and in a will devoted to him; and that it is only the pure affections of the mind or spirit, that are to be exercised towards God and religion; but the motions of flesh and blood must have nothing to do here, nor passions of the animal have any part or share in the religion of the man. To such objectors I would reply thus:

5. Is it possible that the purest affections can be exerted in any vigorous efforts in our present state of mortality, but flesh and blood will feel and follow them a little? Can these sublime ideas of the blessed God, and these pure and spiritual affections be raised to any high degree, but the powers and passions of animal nature will be suitably touched and moved, at least in some degree, according to the natural temper? All persons are not equally capable of warm affection,and vigorous ferments of blood: But there is not a son or daughter of Adam, without some degree of these natural emotions. They have been felt by wise and holy men, that have lived in all ages of the world; and it must be so, in some measure, while we are such a composition of flesh and spirit.

I grant, indeed, that some such cold and indifferent worshippers as can make this objection, whose religion consists only in a philosophical thought of the great God, and a devout wish perhaps once in a week or two, may not feel any of these sensible effects in animal nature. Those also may be excepted who are brought up in a mere round of forms; and never say their prayers, but at the sound of a bell, and a public hour; I except also those popish devotees, who mutter over their latin service;

their pater-nosters" and "ave-marias" by tale, and drop their beads, to count their prayers right, and to secure themselves from mistaking the number. All these sorts of worshippers may join in the same opinion, and renounce their affections in their religion, and that for this reason, because they have not religion enough to employ them. But where a constant and supreme love to God is the real spring that moves us to our duties, the rest of the natural passions will have some correspondent share in the work. And it is a very false way of judging for these kinds of people to compare all men with themselves, and make their cold indifference, and their lazy practice the standing model of the reEgion of all mankind.

Let us suppose for once, that we were confined to the mere religion of nature; hath it not been sufficiently proved, that reason and the light of nature provide for the passions some share of employment, even in natural religion? And it is to be feared, that it is not merely the unbelief of christianity, but the want of serious inward religion of any kind, that inclines the infidels of our age, to oppose and ridicule the exercise of devout affection. Is not the book of Psalms a noble and sublime collection of lyric poesy? Are not several parts of these sacred odes confined to such notions and practices in religion, as the light of nature and reason dictates? Now if these persons had true piety at heart, one would think they should rejoice in these sprightly and pious composures, and use them as a help to raise their souls to God, their Creator, in love and praise. Will they make this excuse, that the language is too warm, too much animated and pathetic, that there is too much of the beauty of metaphor, too many bright images that strike powerfully upon the passions, whereas the religion of nature, in their opinion, is a more calm and sedate thing? Surely it is much to be feared and suspected, that their prayers and their praises, and all their pretences to piety, will go but a little way to raise their souls to heaven, when their modes of worship cannot bear the language of such devout affection, and admit of no elevations above calm ideas and sedate indolence.- -But I return to my vindication of the affectionate christian, in his warmest exercises of devout passion.

I might proceed much farther on this point, and say, when the affections are impressed and awakened to a powerful exercise, by divine truths, will not these lively powers have a farther and a reflexive influence on the mind and the will? Do they not sensibly impress the ideas of divine things with much stronger force on the mind? Do they not set all the affairs of religion in a more lovely and attractive light? Do they not confirm the will in all its holy resolutions for God and heaven? Have they not often been found to stamp divine things on the memory and