Pleasant Review of His Life, Private and Public

My DEAR Children, — While musing with my pen in hand, and hardly knowing what to write next, it struck me that you may be ready to ask, how my life appears in review?

It is commonly said to appear short, and to some even in advanced years it may so appear; but they have been persons whose condition has been distinguished by much sameness, whose progress has seemed to consist of one journey, whose passage has been always smooth, and who have not many things to strike and, as it were, detain the mind, in looking back. But life to others in retrospect seems to be like a succession of stages, each having its beginning and ending, and a variety of separate, intermediate residences; from one of which to another the memory can hardly pass without re-entering and enjoying or suffering these scenes and events again. And this gives the notion of length. Now in my case, life has not only run through infancy, and childhood, and youth, and manhood, and in a great measure through age itself, but has been made up of such diverse states, and has been attended with so many new (as to myself) and interesting occurrences, that I cannot go over it quickly; and my first consciousnesses, feelings, and actings seem a long way back.

But, you may ask, should I be willing, such as I have found it, to go over life again? I have heard many express the sentiment, though not in the poetry of Cowper, —

“Worlds should not bribe me back to tread
Again life’s dreary waste,
To see the future overspread
With all the gloomy past.”

But such language is not for me. I should not shrink from the proposal of repetition.” Goodness and mercy have followed me all the days of my life.^^ My duties have not been burdening and irksome. My trials have been few compared with my comforts. My pleasures have been cheap and simple, and therefore very numerous. I have enjoyed without satiety the seasons and the sceneries of nature. I have relished the bounties of Providence, using them with moderation and thankfulness. I have delighted in the means of grace; unutterable have been my delights in studying and perusing the Scripture. How have I verified the words of Young: —

“Retire and read thy Bible to be gay!”

Preaching has been the element of my heart and my head. My labours have met with much acceptance — nor have I laboured in vain. I have seldom been without hearing of some instances of usefulness from the pulpit or the press. God has honoured me to call by my labours not a few individuals, even into the ministry. The seat of my residence was, of all others, the place of my preference. My condition has been the happy medium of neither poverty nor riches. I had a most convenient habitation, with a large and lovely garden — a constant source of attraction.

exercise and improvement. I had a sufficient collection of books of all kiads.” My wife was a gentlewoman, a saint, and a domestic goddess. My children were fair, and healthy, and dutiful. My friends were many, and cordial, and steady. Where shall I end?

“Call not earth a barren spot,
Pass it not unheeded by;
‘Tis to man a lovely spot,

Though a lovelier waits on high.”

I do not believe that in this earth misery preponderates over good. I have a better opinion of mankind than I had when I began my public life. I cannot, therefore, ask, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? I do not believe in the fact itself. God has not been throwing away duration upon the human race. The state of the world has been improved and is improving. Who justifies slavery now? What noble efforts have been made to break every yoke, and to let the oppressed go free! How is the tendency to war, on every slight pretence, giving way to reference and negotiation! How delightful is it to think of what is doing abroad among the heathen; and the exertions that are put forth by all denominations of Christians to make the Saviour’s way known upon earth, and his saving health among all nations!

We also rejoice in hope. We have many and express assurances in the Scriptures, which cannot be broken, of the general, the universal spread and reign of Christianity, which are not yet accomplished. Nothing has yet taken place in the history of Divine grace, wide enough in extent, durable enough in continuance, powerful enough in energy, blessed enough in enjoyment, magnificent enough in glory, to do anything like justice to these predictions and promises. Better days, therefore, are before us, notwithstanding the forebodings of many. ‘’ Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low j the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.^^

As so many distinctions and divisions prevail in the Christian world, you may require from me a few words concerning our religious denominations and parties.

I never viewed these so aversely and fearfully as some have done. Several things pertaining to them I would remark.

First: I do not consider them as incompatible with Christian unity. God promised to give his people one heart and one way; and our Saviour prayed that all his followers may be one. Can we suppose the promise and the prayer have never yet been accomplished? But if they have been fulfilled, we may reason back from that fulfilment, and see what was the oneness intended. We perceive that it was not a oneness of opinion, or a ritual oneness; but a oneness of principle, and afiection, and dependence, and piu-suit, and co-operation. For this has taken place among the real followers of the Lamb, and among them only.

Secondly: They are not inconsistent with the support and spread of the Christian cause; yea, I consider them,. by the excitements they favour, and the mutual zeal they kindle, and the tempers they require and exercise, as far more useful than would be the stagnancy of cold and dull uniformity, the idol of every bigot, and which must always be not so much real as professed, and held in hypocrisy where there are numbers; and where persons with so many sources of diversity in their structure, their education, and opportunities, think for themselves.

Thirdly: I do not, therefore, conclude that prophecy authorizes us to look for their entire suppression, but for their correction and improvement only. In what is called ‘’the latter-day glory,^’ they will indeed see eye to eye, but this will regard the clearer and closer perceptions of the great objects of vision, and not the minuter appendages; and they will perfectly accord, and

see eye to eye in one sentiment, viz., ‘^ Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind.^^ Judah and Ephraim shall remain, so to speak, distinct tribes; but” Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.’^

The creatures figuratively mentioned by the prophet Isaiah will not be transformed into each other, but ^’ the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb; and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fathng together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp; and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.^^

Fourthly. We may view denominations as we do individual Christians. None of them are absolutely perfect; and none of them are entirely defective. Neither is possessed, and neither is destitute, of every truth and every excellency. All the members of the body have not the same quality, or the same office, yet they are alike parts; and though they may be compared, they are not to be opposed; and though one may be more admired, another is not to be depreciated. One denomination may excel in diligence and zeal; another in discipline and simplicity of worship; another in contention for purity of doctrine; another for intelligence and liberality; and thus they not only stand in the same relation to Christ, but are members one of another; — checking each other’s extremes, and supplying each other’s defects, and sharing each other’s advantages; and so by mutuality to produce a comparative perfection in the whole.

Fifthly. In consequence of this, I could never regard the differences of the truly godly as essential; and though I have bad my convictions and preferences, they were never anathema-M tizing or exclusive. And I could have communed with any of their churches, and should not have been sorry if circumstances had enabled me to say I had done so.

I know religious parties are too free in censuring other bodies as less liberal than themselves; but in this respect I have not seen, (and my opportunities have been favourable for observation and comparison,) much difference between them. There are bigots in them all, both as churches, members, and teachers; and there are men of real candour, and who can say from the heart, ^’ Whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother.” And if one party were by constitution or accident more rigid and narrow than another, the more commendation is due to the noble minds among them that rise above their fellows and their trammels; and let us never try or wish to detach them from their own communities, but rejoice in the influence they may exert in bettering and liberalizing them.

In accordance with these views and reflections, I have commonly lamented, when persons holding the Head, and differing only in minor matters, pass from their own fellowship into another, especially in country towns and villages. It often excites suspicions that unfair means have been used to proselyte such individuals; and grudgings are felt by the losers, to whom one member was perhaps of considerable importance. I have known ministers and members becoming, by such changes, shy of each other; while the individual who has changed his communion has been more noticed by his new party for a particular tenet than for his general excellence; and been in danger of attaching too much importance to it himself. I have often observed the zeal of proselytes subsiding into little things; and I never remember to have seen an individual improved in religious character and excellence, by passing from one Christian church to another, unless it was called for by something more than a non-essential

difference. If our present connexion requires of us anything we deem sinful, our duty is clear,, and we must follow our convictions regardless of consequences; but I am taking the matter on lower ground, that is, where there may be imperfections with which we may bear, and which we may endeavour to correct, rather than withdraw. And surely some regard is due to the providence of God which orders our situations, and to the solemn act by which we gave ourselves to the Church, in which we have taken sweet counsel together, and” our fellowship has been with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.^^

A question may be now asked concerning the ecclesiastical community to which I belong. If a man be not a party-man, he can hardly avoid being of a party; neither is it safe or useful, (though he may occasionally do some execution) for a soldier to be isolated and rove about alone, impatient, perhaps, of authority and direction, rather than acting with some regiment or company. I was always a friend to order and regularity — not tyrannical order or enslaving regularity — but that which will oppose the whims and vagaries of self-willed and self-conceited individuality; so that zeal may not rush and spread like floodwater, but be a river guided and restrained, flowing between its proper banks.

I do not think, as I have expressed myself in one of my lectures, any very particular form of government is absolutely laid down in the New Testament. I am not ignorant that this will surprise and offend several classes of advocates, all of whom appeal to the Scriptures, and all of whom find their peculiar and opposite systems laid down there clearly and definitively — that is, to themselves. Yet there are not wanting in the New Testament general principles of church-government, which will admit, without subverting them, of considerable modifyings in their application, according to times, places, and circumstances. All our present religious communities, perhaps, really deviate in some

M 2 degree from these model-maxims; though some diverge more than others. I could never be reconciled to Prelacy, but I have thought differently of Episcopacy, where the bishop, as Usher says, is only a primus inter pares, and is chosen by his brethren, for his age, talents, and piety; having no secular function, or not being empowered to lord it over God’s heritage. This is now pleaded for by many churchmen themselves, and is much defended in the United States, where the connexion between Church and State is as much censured by Episcopalians as by Congregationalists. Perhaps, had I been led to choose, instead of being led by circumstances, I should have preferred Presbyterianism, as to church-order and regimen. But the truth is, I never deeply studied the theories of ecclesiastical government. I had neither inclination nor leisure; and other things of greater moment always eeemed to press upon my immediate attention. Nor was my mind upon this subject made up so entirely and exclusively and stiffly, as that I could only have moved in one direction, j the providence of God, I was trained among the Independents, and with them I remained. I agreed not in every iota of their system, but I approved of it in the main; and felt nothing in it that violated my conscience, or abridged my liberty. I found also in it many advantages and efficiencies. It allowed the people the privilege of choice, and the minister a sufficiency of authority. It secured churchpurity, and maintained due discipline. It promoted Christian communion and edification. It befriended, urged, and employed means and exertions for the conversion of sinners; and presented a ready and unfettered medium for the extension of the Redeemer’s cause, abroad and at home. But could it not be reheved of a little of its democracy, and of its great dependence on individual suffiage? Or would a change hei*, in its working, (it is possible,) introduce an agency more exceptionable and liable to abuse? Could there not be established some power

of appeal, so that its ministers in cases of accusation or complaint, should be heard and judged by their peers, and not be left to interested, prejudiced, and ignorant arbiters? Could nothing be done to render a number of churches of the same faith and order, within such a distance, constituent parts of a whole, with some delegated power for this purpose, without invading their independence? Cannot the Table of the Lord be preserved from profanation, unless a lion be placed at the door of entrance; and conditions be exacted of candidates, which will drive back many who ought to be encouraged; but which are unlikely to check few, if any, of those who ought to be restrained? This feature of the old discipline I softened in my own case; and I believe many of my brethren have had influence to do the same, while others lament the continued and unconditional requisition of oral or written experiences, delivered before the church. But bodies of men are not easily moved; and the mistakes of pieus men, being conscientious, are with difficulty rectified. *

* We must request the reader to pause at this statement, while we offer a brief comment. Our venerated friend seems to take credit to himself, in the above sentences, for a commendable innovation upon an ancient and common practice. But the practice was certainly never so strict noy so common as he intimates; nor was he the only one, nor the first, that had broken through it, at the period when he wrote. Moreover, we are rather inclined to think it crept into the Independent churches from the Methodists, who dwelt much more upon the consciousness and palpable evidences of conversion than the Independents had been accustomed to do. Some of Mr. Jay’s first connexions were Calvinistic Methodists, and from them probably he received the impression of the prevalence of the custom which he here condemns. The enforcement of such a rule of admission was, at any time, far from general or rigid. It may possibly have prevailed more among Baptist churches than among Independents. But it certainly went into general disuse about the time when Mr. Jay renounced it. There is, we conceive, not a single case in which it is now enforced; so that, if it ever was, it certainly is no longer, the “lion” Mr. Jay represents it, guarding the door of access to the Table of the Lord..

My doctrinal views, both as to their truth and importance, have undergone very little variation from the beginning, though of course, on the subjects they contain, I have read and thought much. I have felt indeed less disposed to inculcate them “in the words which man’s wisdom teaches,^’ or in dry and straitened systematic arrangement. Divinity cannot be taught at the college without system, but, in preaching, it is better that many things should be assumed than technically discussed. It is better for the preacher to give way to his holy and fervent feelings, than to be chilled and checked by the apprehension of some supposed inconsistency. It is better to let the text speak its own language, naturally and glowingly, than to use coercive measures, and torture out the meaning, or bombard it into submission.

There is a magnificence and a vastness in the Scriptures, which no human attempts can comprehend, or limit, or define; and it will be our highest wisdom, at present, to endeavour to understand and improve the interesting parts of a whole, which all our creed-mongers have found and will find too wonderful for them.

In my considerable acquaintance with the religious world, some of the most exemplary individuals I have met with have been Calvinists. Of this persuasion were the two most extraordinary Christian characters I ever knew — John Newton, and Cornelius Winter. They held its leading sentiments with firmness; but their Calvinism, like that of Bunyan, was rendered, by their temper, milder than that of some of their brethren; and they were candid towards those who differed from them; and esteemed and loved them as fellow-heirs together of the grace of life.

With this scheme of divinity my principles accorded generally more than with any other; but certain parts of it I could never admit. If it be said that the inclusive and the exclusive parts

are inseparable; and that we cannot hold the one without the other, I hesitate. — We know not enough to determine, in hardly any case, what is impossible. A difficulty, apparently inexplicable, may not be a contradiction, but be solved by an extended view of the subject. Things which appear quite inconsistent to the apprehension of a child, and which, for want of capacity, it cannot harmonize at present, jar not in the mind of a man. But what a difference must there be between the perceptions of a finite and an infinite understanding! and in the scriptures we have ^’ the deep things of God,” as well as the plain.

Two grand truths have always seemed to me to pervade the whole Bible, and not to be confined to a few particular phrases, viz., that if we are saved, it is entirely of God’s grace; and if we are lost, it will be entirely from ourselves. I know full well, a man may easily force me into a corner with things seemingly or really related to the truth of either of these affirmations; but he will not shake my confidence in either, while I can read, “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself: but in me is thy help.’’ The connexion is like a chain across the river; I can see the two ends, but not the middle; not because there is no real union, but because it is under water. Lower the water, or raise the links, and I shall see the centre as well as the extremes.

Paley observes that we should never suffer what we know to be disturbed by what we know not. And Butler remarks nearly the same, when he says, “If a truth be established, objections are nothing. The one is founded on our knowledge, and the other in our ignorance.^’

You may here remember what you have so often seen, and which I early prefixed to my Study Bible.

In reading this Book let me guard against four things —

1. The contractedness of the Systematic:

2. The mysticism of the AUegorizer:

3. The Dogmatism of the Bigot:

4. The presumption of the Rationalist.

Let me tremble at Gods word, and let me in reading it keep three purposes in view:

1. To collect facts rather than form opinions:

2. To regulate practice rather than encourage speculation:

3. To aid devotion rather than dispute.

I am, &c.