ed? Thus Paul in the face of Christ's ministry and miracles, was prepared to shut up the saints in prison and when they were put to death, to give his voice against them, because he had assumed it as a first pinciple, that Jesus of Nazareth was an impos mean that all shall be finally sav- accomplished an entire change. must be effected in their views of truth. This difficulty proceeds from their errors, being errors in principle. The drunkard promises a speedy reformation: but the errorist in principle, although led to the commission of the blackest crimes, presses forward in the full persuasion that he is doing his duty. tor. With this illustration of the nature of first principles and of their connection with practical consequences, I can now proceed to the main design of this communication, which is to show, that Errors in principle are more pernicious than errors in practice. 1. They are more difficult of detection. Errors in practice, when not the result of errors in principle, are committed against the united testimonies of reason and conscience; but errors in principle are never sincerely adopted until reason and conscience are engaged to support them.Thus Paul verily thought, that he ought to shut up the saints in prison and when they were put to death, he gave his voice against them. Had Paul's been a practical error only, his own conscience would have testified a. gainst him; but being an error in principle, it was exceedingly difficult of detection. He really thought it his duty to shed their blood, and to compel them to blaspheme. We are aware of the great difficulty in persuading the heathen, that theirs is an idolatrous religion; before this can be 2. Errors in principle have a more pernicious influence on society than errors in practice. Although the errorist in practice is a pernicious example, as he blunts the edge of sensibility, and renders crimes familiar; yet his influence will not compare with that of the errorist in principle. He may render crimes familiar, but he dares not justify them. He is conscious that he is wrong; he therefore appears before the world with a self accusing countenance. He may endeavor to palliate, but he cannot justify his errors. the errorist in principle is persuaded that he is right; he comes in the disguise of religion, and like Paul, thinks that he ought to do many things against the name of Jesus of Nazereth. These things he will do. He offers you poison and with every appearance of sincerity tells you, it is an excellent medicine; he blinds your eyes, yet really believes, he has enabled you to see more clearly. Although he ruins the soul, he verily thinks he has done God service. Conscious of the rectitude But of his cause, and fired with a per severing zeal, like the ancient must be granted, that errors in Pharisees, he is willing to compass sea and land to gain one proselyte, although he makes him two fold more the child of hell than before. Here principle, whether in law, politics, or in religion, have been the most prolific source of errors in practice. Our subject may serve to illustrate the fallacy of the opinion, "That he is right who acts as well as he knows." Every person, who acts according to the testimony of his own conscience, may be said to do as well as he knows. Thus Paul, when he compelled the saints to blaspheme, verily thought that he ought to do many things against the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The heathen, who worship idols, burn widows, drown their children and commit suicide, are fully persuaded, that by such acts, they shall merit divine favor. The universalists, deists, and other errorists are doubtless many of them, sincere in their belief.Are they therefore guiltless? If In their sincerity will justify them, then Paul was guiltless; yet Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, called himself the chief of sinners, because he persecuted the church of God. But if Paul's sincerity did not acquit him of guilt, we may conclude that there is an error in the commonly received opinion, that he is right who acts according to the dictates of his own conscience. Permit me, reader, to substitute another in the place of this generally received principle. He is not necessarily right who acts as well as he knows; but he is right who acts as 3. That errors in principle are more pernicious than errors in practice, is evident from the fact, that they are the prolific source of the worst kinds of practical errors. They are the root of which practical errors are the branches. This is exemplified in the history of Paul. He went from city to city, to compel their inhabitants to blaspheme. He shut up the saints in prison and when they were put to death, he gave his voice against them. He raged for their blood and persecuted them unto strange cities. let us trace these cruel feelings to their cause. Was Paul more bloody than other men? Had he greater delight in blasphemy? This cannot be pretended. other situations, he was tender, affectionate and merciful. The cause of these cruelties may be found in the influence of errors in principle. Paul was a sincere believer in a false system of religion, and verily believed that he was doing his duty. The page of history is polluted with a long catalogue of crimes, which owed their existence to the same cause. Infidels have reiterated the charge that more blood has been shed on account of religion, than from every other cause. Whether we admit or repel the charge, it well as he has the means of knowing. Had Paul acted as well as he had the means of knowing, he would have been innocent; for then he would have improved the talents committed to his charge. Paul did not do this, therefore he was guilty. He had the means of knowing that Jesus is the Christ; but being exceedingly attached to the self-righteous religion of the Pharisees and exceedingly mad against the christians, he shut his eyes against the light and deceived his own conscience. The heathen possess the light of nature, and if they improved their advantages, they would be justified. But not choosing to know what they have the means of knowing; therefore, by the law of nature, they are guilty. You enjoy the light of the gospel, you have the means of knowing the way, the truth and the life. You may shut your eyes, prejudice your mind, harden your heart, and at last sincerely believe any of the false and destructive errors of the age: but your sincerity will not excuse you. God is treating us as rational and intelligent beings, and he will at last require of us, not sincerity merely, but an honest and faithful improvement of the talents committed to our charge. Our subject may serve to illustrate the importance of examining the evidence, on which we found our belief of first principles. Only take a false principle for granted, and you may reason fairly and conclusively, and yet be further and further removed from truth. Admit that Jesus of Nazareth was an impostor, and Paul would find no difficulty in justifying his persecutions, by the Jewish law. When Christ was brought before Pilate, the Jews demanded his crucifixion, because he was guilty of blasphemy. Admit that he was an impostor, and both their charge and plea are good: for by their law, blasphemy was punished with death. In the same way, every other errorist may establish his conclusions, if the principles on which they are founded are taken for granted.— Admit the principle for which Hume contended, that the reality of miracles cannot be established by testimony, and deism might triumph over christianity. Admit that sin does not deserve an eternal punishment, and it may be proved that there will be a general restoration of the impenitent, Admit that Christ came to abrogate the divine law, and you may prove that all will be happy after death. Hence the importance of examining the evidence, on which we rest first principles. If our first priciples are false, we may very sincerely embrace the greatest and most destructive errors: we may think ourselves right when we are wrong, our state safe, when it is ruinous; that we are the friends, while we are the enemies of God; that we are doing good, while we are doing evil; and that we are advancing the cause, while we are persecut ing the friends of the Lord Je- sincerity or comfort can he pro sus. Messrs. Editors, In looking over your Magazine for December, I perceived that one of your subscribers wishes for information upon a subject, which he thinks important. If you should judge the following communication will be of use to him, or to the public, you are at liberty to insert it in any of the subsequent numbers of your work. In order to bring the subject, and what I have to offer, respecting it, under one view, I will quote the words of your subscriber. "There are many persons with in the circle of my acquaintance, who hope they are pious, but still neglect to make a public profession of religion, from fear, that they have not the necessary qualifications for church membership. If you or some of your correspondents will state, what these qualifications are, and some of the evidences by which we may know whether we posses them, you will confer a favor upon an interested subscriber." C. In order to be qualified for membership in the christian church, it is necessary that a person should know the principal doctrines and duties of the gospel, and be settled in his belief of their truth and importance. For, if he be ignorant of them, or wavering in his faith concerning them, with what fess the religion of Christ? A second thing necessary to church membership is, that a person should understand the nature of covenanting with God, and with his people. He should know that God, in the riches of his goodness through the Redeemer, proposes to enter into covenant with all those who properly enter into covenant with him, and to be under engagement to them respecting their souls and salvation. He should be acquainted with what God engages to perform, and with what those who enter into covenant with him and with his professing people, lay themselves under obligations to do. And he should, not only, have information concerning what is implied and required in the covenant, but be willing to enter into it, and to be under special obligations to be and to do what it requires. A third qualification is a willingness to submit to the regular discipline of Christ in his church. No one that is unwilling to submit to the order of Christ's house, is qualified to enter it. Nor is he who is unwilling to be active and faithful and to stand in his lot in watching over the members, and in reproving and exhorting them, as occasion may require, and in maintaining the order and discipline of the church. If a person esteem the church of Christ, and is willing to be in subjection to it, and to use his influence and exertions for its order and purity he is, in these respects, qualified for membership. I mention, as a fourth qualification, a disposition to unite with the church in supporting the worship and ordinances of God. It is incumbent on a church to see that these are maintained among them, for the honor and glory of God, for their mutual instruction and benefit, and for the instruction and salvation of others. These are among the purposes for which a church is instituted. All who would unite with it, should be willing to aid in promoting them. Further. True religion, or a real change of heart is an indispensable qualification. Let his other qualifications be what they may, no one should unite with the church who is not a subject of renewing grace, and of consequence, of repentance and faith in Christ. He must be more than a nominal, he must be a real christian church was not designed to embody saints and sinners, but saints only. No others can honestly and and cordially enter into covenant with God, and with one another. No others are the real friends of Christ. No others renounce the world, and take God to be their God and portion, and accept of salvation by the Redeemer. No others do, in truth, give up themselves to God, to be his in life, in death, and forever. The To pass to the consideration of the other part of the subject: a person may know, whether he be a christian in reality, and of con sequence, whether he possess the other qualifications, in some good measure. First, by consciousness. True religion has its beginning and seat in the heart. As unrenewed men are entirely sinful, so any holy affections and exercises are evidence of being renewed in the spirit and temper of the mind.— Let those who feel interested inquire, whether they are conscious of having experienced any essential change in their feelings, and whether they have any holy exercises and affections. Right or holy affections are supreme love to God, a desire that his honor and glory may be promoted, and to know and to do his commandments and unreserved submission to his will. Those, who possess them, hate sin and are humbled for it before God. The controversy, which they have had with him, is given up, and they have been reconciled to his character and to his moral and providential government. If this should be thought not clear and distinctive, and that there is danger of being deceived, let the inquirer ask, in what his affections are centred, whether in God, or the world: what he feels to be his portion and chief good: in what he delights the most: or what is the most pleasing to his heart. If he cannot determine whether his motives be right, let him consider what are the highest objects of his affections and joys. In the next place, a person may |