"In flames of fire, I offer this soul of mine to thee, O Christ."

Paper fails, but permit me to say, until you thus realize, that, the moment you thus trust in the merits of Christ, you are loved of the Father; and, with a love as ardent as that which is felt by the Son; you never can honour the Father, even as you honour the Son; and, in that case, you cannot be converted to God. The bar therefore, is all in yourself. God would willingly remove it. O, permit him to do so, by thinking rightly of Him. Yours in Jesus Christ,

J. C.

LETTER XXXVI.

TO THE SAME.

My dear Brother,

Dublin, January 4, 1842.

You say, "I do not consider God as a consuming fire, when I trust in Christ. This is not my difficulty. It is this; when I thus trust, I am unable to view God, in any other position, than as removed to an immense distance from me. I feel I have a days-man with the Father; and, that infinite as the distance is between me and God, yet he lays his hand upon both, to effect a reconciliation; but I cannot consider the Father in any other state, than cold and repulsive, and unwilling to be reconciled. Though I come, and trust in the merits of Jesus, conscious that I can do no more, I am unable to think otherwise, than that my Mediator has hard work to persuade the great God to look with compassion

upon me. How insulting to God is this cursed unbelief. How it wrongs him. How injurious also to the soul. With such thoughts, you never can be happy, nor accepted. Were your views of God the same as noticed in my last, "that God is a consuming fire to the approaching penitent, although venturing to trust in Christ;" then I should consider you as standing in dread before "the God of all grace." It may be well said of the soul, when realizing such elements of terror, that peace must be as absent from the heart, as love. But, if a notion so erronious as the above does not fill you with fear, it must certainly chill your soul into alienation and distrust; both of which are positive enemies to that warm and confiding love, which is so essential to a religion which makes the soul happy. In the above sentiment you honour the Son, but you dishonour the Father. As long as you do this, your mind will be overcast with the gloomiest clouds; and its abiding state," the spirit of bondage again to fear." Perhaps you anxiously inquire, "What shall I do? How can I change those views, which seem to be the very element of my mind? I may wish these perceptions of God banished, if they are wrong; but I cannot, by dint of resolution, drive them from me." No; probably not. The mind cannot, perhaps, act in this case, without motives. It may be powerless to expel wrong ideas, without assistance; but what your mind may be unable to do, under certain circumstances, it may accomplish under others. I recollect, some years ago, reading a sermon, the title of which was, "The Expulsive Power of a New Affection." Now, may there not be an expulsive power in a new class of ideas? If those are usurpers, with which I have been finding fault, may they not be forced to abdicate in favour of those whose right it is to wield the sceptre

U

of the mind? If the former are but visionary; is it likely they shall long contend with realities? Do you inquire, "What are the ideas you wish me to entertain. Let me know them; and I will give them as welcome a reception, as those which have hitherto swayed my soul." The first passage I shall quote, wherein is a leading idea, is John, v. 23; "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." This passage proves that Jesus Christ is a proper person of the Holy Trinity; upon an equality with the Father; and to be honoured equally with Him; this is the evident claim. Now, this claim of our blessed Lord, was not only designed to guard his own right to divine honours, but those of the Father also. It is just as evident, that he does not claim more honour than is given to the Father, as it is, that he does not admit of any less. The passage, therefore, is calculated to impress this sentiment upon the mind;— that the Father is not to be honoured less than the Son this is just as clear as that the Son is not to receive any less honour than the Father. But is there not an infringement upon this rule, when under certain circumstances you suppose the Father loves you less than the Son.

The sentiment that Jesus is all love, when you endeavour to trust in the merits of his death; but that the Father is cold and distant, with respect to you, is dishonouring to the Father. You are then, unquestionably, found withholding from Him an honour which is justly his due, It is quite plain to me, that you and the Socinians are in opposite extremes. The Socinians give Godhead honours to the Father, but offer to the Son an honour infinitely less; because they consider him a mere creature; though a created being of the highest order: yet what proportion can magnitude, however great, if only

finite, bear to that which is infinite; seeing that,

"A million,

Is full as far from infinite as one!"

In the estimation of the Socinians, he is a creature still; and that places him at a distance infinite from God. Thus they refuse to obey the requirement of our Lord Jesus Christ. You go to the other extreme. Christ stands forth to your faith as the second person in the adorable Trinity,—you adore him as God; this is right. In the merits of his blood, you feel it to be your duty to trust, singly and alone, for salvation; and your faith anticipates Christ as full of compassion and tender love towards you. Now this is perfectly scriptural, so far as Jesus Christ is concerned; but your faith is sadly defective upon another point of vital importance; that the Father is cold and repulsive, and that were you to cast yourself fully upon the atonement, He would frown you away from his presence. Hence you asperse his character, by impeaching him with affections, which he has never felt towards any penitent sinner, who has renounced every other plea for mercy, and trusted sincerely in the merits of Christ's death for pardon and acceptance. The Socinians dishonour the Son by denying him the honours of the eternal Godhead, and that on an equality with the Father; you dishonour the Father by refusing him the honours of redemption, and that on an equality with the Son; as if the Father had no part in the wonderful scheme, but as if Christ alone planned it, as well as became incarnate and died for our race, without the approbation or consent of the Father: or, if any thing like a consent was given, yet, that in the sight of all heaven, it was "icy, cold, unwilling." The Socinians refuse to believe that the following declaration of John proves that Jesus Christ made the world,

1

and is therefore God:-" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was not any thing made that was made."

But you refuse to believe the declaration of Jesus Christ himself; a declaration which equally proves that love in the bosom of the Father was the procuring cause of the " unspeakable gift," the incarnation of his own Son. "For God so LOVED the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." Do you not therefore wrong and dishonour the Father?

Was there love in him in the bestowing of the gift; and shall there be no love in the acceptance of it? Can you assign any reason for such a reserve? Shall we impute it to the believing act of the penitent sinner, or tax the everlasting Father with capriciousness or inconstancy? Strange, that the doings of the penitent should fan the flame of love in the bosom of the Son, and at the same time extinguish it in the bosom of the Father. Strange, that he of whom it is said "In whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning," should beseech the sinner to be reconciled to him; and also continue his entreaties during the many years of his rebellion; and now, when the sinner is reconciled, and entreating pardon on the part of God; fulfilling at the same time the conditions of reconciliation, that He should, all at once, refuse to be propitious. Surely such views of God cannot be right.

Consider.—Was not the plan of reconciliation laid by the Holy Trinity in heaven, and carried into effect when the whole world was in a state of rebellion ? Reflect upon the declaration of the Apostle, "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." And is it possible when the