found? And is not the number everywhere rapidly increasing?

6. Does it not appear from what has been said, that the cause of Christ and vital piety is declining in this place, which, in years past, has been noted for the constant and punctual attendance of the people on public worship and divine ordinances? The Sabbath, the public worship of God, and the holy sacraments, are the only religious institutions under the gospel, and were designed to be the great bulwarks of Christianity and vital piety. And they always answer this great and important purpose in a less or greater degree. Where is there more religion to be found, than in those places in which these gospel ordinances are constantly and punctually observed? Where is there so much religion to be found, as in such places? And where the Sabbath, the public worship of God, and the gospel ordinances are not constantly and punctually attended, does not religion languish and decay, and become nearly extinct? What then is the appearance and prospect of religion in this place? Do the people in general, whether young or old, as constantly and punctually attend public worship as they once did? Or do the professors of religion as constantly and punctually attend public worship and divine ordinances as they did ten or fifteen years ago? Are there not some out of the church, who never attend public worship from year to year? Are there not many more who seldom attend, and when they do, attend only part of the day? And is the case very different among professors of religion? Are there not some who are neither sick nor superannuated, who are rarely seen in the house of God on the Sabbath, and then only on sacrament days, and, perhaps, not always then? Does not such neglect of public worship and divine ordinances prevail and increase in this place? And do not the dreaded evils of this neglect equally prevail and increase? Does not the profanation of the Sabbath, the neglect of family prayer, the neglect of parental instruction and restraint, and of all religious duties, prevail and increase? These are infallible tokens of declension in religion and vital piety. Now, let me ask a serious and interesting question, Who have been primarily and principally concerned in bringing on such a declension? It seems necessary to ask another question, in order to answer this. In whose hands has the cause of religion been lodged in this place? Has it not been lodged in the hands of the church? Must they not, therefore, conclude that they have been the primary faulty cause of declension in religion in this place? With the church, I mean to include the pastor. Has he been constant and

punctual in attending public worship and divine ordinances? or, if he has been constant, has he been faithful? Has he preached the pure doctrines of the gospel plainly and fully? Has he properly invited sinners to accept the offers of the gospel, and secure the salvation of their souls? Has he warned and admonished them against fatal errors, and all manner of sinful and destructive practices? Or has he conformed to the sinful customs and manners of the world, and set an example that his people could not innocently follow? If he has done. this, he is undoubtedly chargeable with blame, in promoting and increasing religious declension among this once religious and exemplary people. He has reflected, and will reflect more upon this serious subject. In the next place, let the professors of religion seriously inquire whether they have not been, in a great measure, the primary and faulty cause of the unhappy declension of religion and vital piety here? Had those who first came to the house of God this morning asked the question, What think ye? Will not such and such a member of the church come to the feast to-day? What would one and another have said? Undoubtedly, they would have said, we think such and such ones will come, for they have always constantly and punctually attended; but whether such and such and such a one will come to the feast, we doubt, for we have known him to be very inconstant and dilatory in attending public worship and divine ordinances. Are there not some such inconstant attendants on public worship and divine ordinances in this church? Have they not been influential in bringing on the declension of religion here? Are there others who, though not so inconstant, are unpunctual in attending public worship? And is not their example of a detrimental tendency to the instituted ordinances of religion? Are not some constant and punctual attendants on divine ordinances, in some other ways doing injustice to the cause of Christ? In a word, what think ye; have not the professors of religion. here been blamably inconstant and unpunctual in attending public worship, and, by their example, led the men of the world to think, and speak, and act reproachfully with respect to the Sabbath, and all the ordinances of the gospel? If this be true, where should reformation begin? Should it not begin in the church? You have this day practically renewed your obligations to the divine Redeemer. Hear what he says to a declining church. "Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die."

SERMON XIV.

GROSS IGNORANCE OF DIVINE TRUTH, INCOMPATIBLE WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF PIETY.

"BRETHREN, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."-Romans, x. 1, 2, 3.

THESE words naturally lead us to inquire, why the apostle Paul believed, that his Jewish brethren were entirely destitute of true religion.

The apostle here solemnly declares, that he believed his Jewish brethren were totally destitute of true religion, and exposed to future and eternal ruin. It is, therefore, a very serious and important inquiry, why he entertained such an unfavorable opinion of those, who were of the seed of Abraham, of the stock of Israel, and descendants of God's peculiar people. Here then, I would observe,

1

1. That he did not form this unfavorable opinion of his brethren according to the flesh, through any religious prejudice. Religious prejudice is of a blinding nature, and tends to lead those who are under its influence, to form an unjust and censorious opinion of the religious character of others. Nathanael was prejudiced against Christ, on account of the place of his birth and education. For when Philip told him, "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph," Nathanael expressed his surprise and prejudice-" Can there any good thing cóme out of Nazareth?" The Jews also were so prejudiced against the Samaritans, that they would have no dealings with them. But Paul had no such national prejudice against the Jews. He felt both a natural and benevolent affection towards them, which he expressed in the strongest terms. "Brethren,

my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." He not only wished and desired, but heartily prayed for their salvation. He really believed, that they were entirely destitute of grace, and were pursuing a devout path to destruction. He knew, that they had a very different opinion. of themselves, and thought that they were eminently pious, and going in the direct road to heaven. But he saw something about them, which convinced him that they were under a strong delusion, which exposed them to final disappointment and ruin. This excited his tender compassion towards them, and his ardent, benevolent desire and prayer, that they might be undeceived and saved from the wrath to come. It was not owing, therefore, in the least degree, to any prejudice he had against them, that he plainly and faithfully told them, that they were in the state of nature, unrenewed, and without a title to eternal life; but it was solely owing to his sincere and compassionate desire for their spiritual and eternal good. Nor,

2. Did he believe that they were entirely destitute of grace, because they did not profess to have true religion. All the Jews were professors of religion, and some of them, especially the Scribes and Pharisees, were high professors, and verily thought they were eminently pious. They "trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others." Paul says, that while he was a Pharisee, he thought he was perfectly holy or entirely blameless. And he tells one of that sect, that he not only professed, but boasted of his piety. "Behold," says he to him, "thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law, and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law." This was the high opinion which the Jews in general had of their piety, of which they publicly professed and boasted. Some persons appear so amiable, virtuous, and religious, that we should certainly believe they were truly pious, if they only had made a public profession of religion. It was not owing to the want of a public profession of religion, that the apostle did not believe his Jewish brethren had any true religion or vital piety. He did not complain of their not professing enough, but rather of their professing too much. Nor,

3. Was his disbelief of their piety owing to their neglect of the external duties of religion. They were extremely exact and punctilious in their external obedience to the law, and in

They

the duties of devotion. They paid tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin. They made long prayers, and fasted twice in the week. They shone like whited sepulchres in their external conduct, and outwardly appeared righteous unto men. resembled the young man, who said he had kept the whole law from his youth up. Christ allowed, that they sustained such a beautiful external appearance, and the apostle does not deny it. But yet he did not believe, that they had the love of God in them, or possessed the least degree of true holiness. Besides,

4. It was not owing to their want of zeal, in performing the duties and promoting the cause of what they considered true religion, that he did not believe that they had any saving grace. Christ did not complain of them for having too little, but for having too much religious zeal. He said, "Wo unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him two-fold more the child of hell than yourselves." Paul likewise acknowledges, that they were as zealous in religion as he ever was. He said to them, "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous towards God, as ye all are this day." And again he said, "Ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure, I persecuted the church of God and wasted it; and profited in the Jews' religion above many, my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers." Hence he frankly acknowledges in the text, "I bear them record that they have a zeal of God." But at the same time, in the most friendly and fraternal language, he told them that he did not believe they knew the grace of God in truth. It certainly appears strange at first view, that he should have such an unfavorable opinion of their piety, after he had owned them as his brethren according to the flesh, and expressed an ardent desire for their future and eternal good; after he had acknowledged their universal external obedience to the divine commands; and after he had allowed that they were very zealous in their religious duties and devotions. The serious and important question, which we proposed to consider, now arises: "Why did not the apostle view his Jewish brethren as visible saints?" He did not pretend to speak to them and judge of them, as a searcher of hearts, but only as a faithful minister, who had a right to form his religious opinion of them by visible evidence. But what visible evidence could