scribes the evil principle in the heart of believers, are, indeed, very forcible, and may seem inconsistent with a regenerate state. It should, however, be considered, that this principle is described, as it is beheld by one who has a just sense of the turpitude and malignity of sin, and entertains a fervent zeal for the divine glory. But the main argument which should induce an impartial enquirer to think, that the Apostle is speaking of himself in his then present state, is derived from the decisive and magnificent terms in which he describes the opposite principle, the principle of good in his soul. He disallows and hates the evil which he does, insomuch that it is not so properly he who does it, as sin that dwelleth in him; he consents to the law that it is good; he delights in it after the inner man; he serves it with the mind; he himself serves it. Can such expressions as these be applied to an unregenerate person? or do such affections exist in the soul of an unconverted sinner? Much more might be said in favour of this interpretation of the passage in question. I might likewise overwhelm you and your correspondent with a host of highly respectable divines, who entertained the same view of it as is here defended: but fearing lest a controversy should be excited upon the subject, which might be carried to a greater extent than its relative importance would justify; more especially fearing, lest, in the prosecution of the controversy, the disputants should not be so anxious as they ought to be to speak the truth in love, I forbear adding any thing more, than that I am, with best wishes for the success of your undertaking, PAULINUS. A CORRESPONDENT, to whom we are under many obligations, sent us lately some remarks on the inconsistency which appears in the 16th and 17th chapters of 1 Samuel, referring at the same time to Warburton's explanation of the difficulty. On turning to the passage referred to, the criticism appeared to us so very important, that we have been induced to insert it for the benefit of such of our readers as may not have access to the works of that learned prelate. "THERE is a difficulty in the history of David, in which Spinoza much exults, as it supports him in his impious undertaking on sacred scripture. It is this: in the 16th chapter of the first book of Samuel, we find David sent for to court, to soothe Saul's melancholy with his harp. On his arrival, he gave so much satisfaction, that the distempered monarch sent to his father to desire that he might stand before him, (ver. 22.) that is, remain in his service. David hath leave; and becomes Saul's armour-bearer, (ver. 21.) Yet in the very next chapter, viz. the 17th, (which relates an incursion of the Philistines, and the defiance of Goliah), when David goes to Saul, for leave to accept the challenge, neither the king, nor the captain of his host, know any thing of their champion or his lineage. This is the difficulty, and a great one it is. But it would soon become none, in the usual way critics have of removing difficulties, which is by supposing that whatever occasions them is an interpolation; and some blind manuscript is always at hand to support the blinder criticism. But had more time been employed in the study of the nature of scripture history, and somewhat less in collations of manuscripts, these would have found a nearer way to the wood, who now cannot see wood for trees. In a word, the true solution seems to be this; David's adventure with Goliah was prior in time to his solacing Saul with his music, which latter story is given by way of anticipation in chap. 16, but very properly and naturally; for there the historian having related at large how God had rejected Saul and anointed David, goes on, as it was a matter of highest moment in a religious history, to inform us of the effects both of one and the other; though we are not to suppose them the instantaneous effects. The effects of Saul's rejection was, he tells us, the departure of God's spirit from him, and his being troubled with an evil spirit, (ver. 14,) this leads him naturally to speak of the effect of David's election; namely, his being endowed with many divine graces; for Saul's malady was only to be alleviated by David's skill on the harp. When the historian had, in this very judicious manner, anticipated the story, he returns from the fourteenth to the twenty-third verse of the sixteenth chap ter, to the order of time, in the beginning of the seventeenth chapter. So that the true chronology of this part of David's life stands thus:He is anointed by Samuel; he carries provisions to his brethren, encamped against the Philistines, in the valley of Elah; he fights and overcomes Goliah-is received into the king's court-contracts a friendship with Jonathan-incurs Saul's jealousy -retires home to his father-is, after some time, sent for back to court, to soothe Saul's melancholy with his harp --proves successful, and is made his armour-bearer-and again excites Saul's jealousy, who endeavours to smite him with his javelin. This whole history is to be found between the first verse of the 16th, and the tenth of the 18th chapter. Within this is the anticipation above-mentioned, beginning at the fourteenth verse of the sixteenth chapter, and ending at the twenty-third verse; which anticipated history, in order of time, comes in between the ninth and tenth verses of the eighteenth chapter, where, indeed, the breach is apparent; for in the ninth verse it is said, "And Saul eyed David from that day forward." He had just begun, as the text tells us, to entertain a jealousy of David from the women's saving in their songs, "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands." "From that day forward Saul eyed David," i. e. watched over his conduct; yet in the very next verse it says, "And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul-and David played with his hand-and Saul cast the javelin." This could never be on the morrow of that day on which he first began to entertain a jealousy; for the text says, "from that day forward" he began to watch over his conduct, to find whether his jealousy was well grounded. Here then is the breach between which, in order of time, comes in the relation of the evil spirit's falling upon Saul, his sending for David from his father's house, &c.; for when Saul began first, on account of the songs of the women, to grow jealous of David, and to watch his behaviour, David, uneasy in his situation, asked leave to retire, which we may suppose was easily granted. He is sent for again to court: Saul again grows jealous; but the cause, we are now told, was different: "and Saul was afraid of David," "because the Lord was with him, and was departed from Saul," (ver. 12.) This plainly shews, that the departing of God's spirit from Saul was after the conquest of Goliah; consequently, that all between verse fourteenth and twenty-third of the sixteenth chapter, is an anticipation, and, in order of time, comes in between verse ninth and tenth of the eighteenth chapter, where there is a great breach discoverable by the disjointed parts of distant time: thus the main difficulty is mastered. But there is another near as stubborn, which this solution likewise removes. When David is recommended by the courtiers for the cure of Saul's disorder, he is represented as a mighty valiant man, a man of war and prudent in matters, and that the Lord was with him," chap. 16, ver. 18. i. e. a soldier well versed in affairs, and successful in his undertakings: accordingly he is sent for; and preferred to a place which required valour, strength, and experience; he is made Saul's "armourbearer." Yet when afterwards, according to the common chronology, he comes to fight Goliah, he proves a raw unexperienced stripling, unused to arms, and unable to bear them, and as such despised by the giant. Í will not mispend the reader's time, in reckoning up the strange and forced senses the critics have put upon these two passages to make them consistent; but only observe, that this reformation of the chronology renders all clear and easy. David had vanquished the Philistine; was become a favourite of the people, and, on that account, the object of Saul's jealousy; to avoid the ill effects of which he prudently retired. During this recess, Saul was seized with his disorder. His servants supposed it might be alleviated by music, Saul consents to the remedy, and orders an artist to be sought for. They were acquainted with David's skill on the harp, and likewise with Saul's indisposition towards him. It was a delicate point, which required address; and therefore they recommend him in this artful manner "The son of Jesse is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person;" that is, "as you must have one constantly in attendance, both at court and in your military expeditions, to be al ways at hand on occasion, the son of Jesse will become both stations well; he will strengthen your camp, and adorn your court; for he is a tried soldier, and of a graceful presence. You have nothing to fear from his ambition, for you saw with what prudence he went into voluntary banishment, when his popularity had incurred your displeasure." Accordingly Saul is prevailed on; David is sent for, and succeeds with his music. This dissipates all former umbrage; and, as one that was to be ever in attendance, he is made his "armourbearer." This sunshine continued till David's great successes again awakened Saul's jealousy, and then the lifted javelin was, as usual, to strike off all court payments. Thus we see how these difficulties are cleared up, and what light is thrown upon the whole history by the supposition of an anticipation in the latter part of the sixteenth chapter, an anticipation the most natural, proper, and necessary for the purpose of the historian. The only reason I can conceive of its lying so long unobserved is, that in the seventeenth chapter verse fifteen it is said, "But David went, and returned from Saul, to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem." Now this being when the Israelites were encamped in Elah against the Philistines, and after the relation of his going to court to soothe Saul's troubled spirit with his music, seems to fix the date of his standing before Saul in quality of musician in the order of time in which it is related. But the words "David went and returned from Saul," seem not to be rightly understood; they do not mean, David left Saul's court where he had resided, but that he left Saul's camp to which he had been summoned. The case was this; a sudden invasion of the Philistines had penetrated to Shochoh, "which belonged to Judah." Now on such occasions, there always went out a general summons for all able to bear arms, to meet at an appointed rendezvous; where a choice being made of those most fit for service, the rest were sent back again to their several homes. To such a rendezvous all the tribes at this time assembled. mongst the men of Bethlehem, came A named; as the history related particularly to him. "Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethle hem-Judah, whose name was Jesse, and he had eight sons; and the man went amongst men for an old man in the days of Saul: and the three eldest sons of Jesse went and followed Saul to the battle; and David was the youngest, and the three eldest followed Saul. But David went and returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem," i. e. he was dismissed by the captains of the host, as too young for service; and in these sentiments, we find, they continued when he returned with a message from his father to the camp. I have only to add, that this way of anticipation is very frequent with this sacred historian. In the eighteenth chapter verse eleven it is said, "And Saul cast the javelin, for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it; and David avoided out of his presence twice. But one of these times relates to a second casting of the javelin a considerable time after the first here spoken of, which is recorded in chapter nineteen verse ten. So again the historian telling us in the tenth chapter, how Saul, when he was first anointed by Samuel, prophesied amongst the prophets, says, “And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw, that behold, he prophesied among the prophets; then the people said one to another, What is this that is come unto the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets? Therefore it became a proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets?" (ver. 11, 12.) But it is evident, that the original of the proverb was his second prophesying amongst the prophets at Naioth, recorded chapter nineteenth, both for the reasons given above, and for these-1. Saul was not at this time known to the people; and 2. The original of the proverb is said to arise from this second prophesying, (ver. 24.) Therefore the account of the proverb in the tenth chapter is given by way of anticipation." WARBURTON'S WORKS, VOL. II. NOTE. Jesse and his eight sons; the three ON THE MOST PROBABLE SUBJEcts of eldest were enrolled into the troops, CONVERSION. and the rest sent home again. But of I HAVE frequently heard it advanced, these David is only particularly That a profligate sinner is more likely to become the subject of conversion than one of a more decent and moral cast. But I think the sentiment is supported neither by scripture nor general observation, and that it is pregnant with pernicious and dangerous consequences. The ground of the opinion has generally been, that a moral man, if unconverted, is necessarily a self-righteous man, and as such more hard to be convinced of his sins than an open and profligate sinner. But this argument appears in every view fallacious; for first I conceive, that a profane man is likely to be as much under the influence of a self-righteous spirit, natural to all, as a more moral man. I admit, indeed, that a moral man may, and generally does, make a righteousness of his defective morality. But the grossest sinner will do the same; he will la bour to bring the law of God down to his own standard however low: in the absence of all positive goodness he will pride himself on his negative merit, and where both fail, substitute a name of religion, or even a descent from a pious ancestor in the place of true religion; and to these delusory pleas he will adhere with so much pertinacity as makes it very difficult to convince him of the evil of his ways. No man, indeed, can be in the habit of sin in any degree, but, in that degree, his heart becomes hard, his conscience seared, his views of the evil of sin and of the law of God low and inadequate; and he who thus reduces the obligations and extent of the law of God, can easily suppose himself capable of performing a righteousness commensurate with them. A text frequently adduced in support of the sentiment in question is, Matt. xxii. 31, "Publicans and harlots, &c." Now the very turn of the expression here used evinces, that these are characters by no means the most likely to embrace the Gospel, yet that there are those who are even more averse to it than they. But who are these? Such as, like the Pharisees of old, who were in general gross hypocrites, are under the influence of principles of a tendency still more fatal. Mr. Henry observes on this passage, "An hypocrite is more hardly convinced than a gross sinner;" and surely an hypocrite is a more abandoned character than the grossest sinner who makes no profession of religion. The text, therefore, no more proves the point for which it is adduced than it would have done had it declared, that even publicans and harlots enter into the kingdom of God before assassins. The Pharisees of old were at once hypocritical and self-righteous; and from this latter circumstance it has probably arisen, that the term Pharisee has been applied to all' descriptions of persons who bear this one mark of resemblance to them, however in other respects they may differ from them; and the name being once applied, all the scriptures which mention it are readily applied too. Let us consider a moment the tendency of the sentiment in question. There was a time when the profligate sinner, though born with the principles of corrupt nature, had not run into that habit of profligacy in which he is now involved. Was he then in a less desirable state, or less likely to become the object of divine grace than at present? If so, he has done well that he has gone so far into iniquity, and he will do well to continue therein; for on the absurd hypothesis we are now examining, every step he takes brings him probably nearer to God. And what, in this case, is the awful dilemma in which a minister of the Gospel stands? From the minister of righteousness he must become the minister of sin, and do evil that good may come; for when he cannot convince a moral man of his sins, it appears to be his duty, in order to place him in the most favourable situation for conversion, to bring him off from self-righteousness by persuading him to practice grosser sins. If one degree should not succeed he must be taught to proceed to a greater, till he arrives at the highest pitch of presumptuous iniquity. This argument might also be illus trated from the nature of the moral government of God. Allowing the fullest exercise to the divine sovereignty, would it not appear to reflect on the conduct of a moral governor, in selecting the objects of mercy from a world of rebels, to choose principally and for the most part such as were the most atrocious and abandoned. It might evidently comport well with his wisdom, equity, and goodness, to select some such, as an encou ragement to others to return to their allegiance; and to hold out this great lesson, that no degree of sin will be a bar to the restoration of the sincere. penitent to the favour of God: but it by no means follows, that the profligate sinner has any advantage for becoming a true penitent. The matter night also be safely referred to the impartial observation of every individual. We have not here adverted to the power of the Holy Ghost, which alone is equal to the conversion of the most decorous, as well as the most profligate sinner, because it will be admitted not to belong to the argument; the conversion of both being alike easy to divine power. All for which we contend is this, that there are gradations in sin; that every step we take in its course takes us farther from God and nearer to destruction; and that it becomes us to be very cautious how we indulge the thought ourselves, or hold it out to others, that a state of great and aggravated sin is attended with any advantage for the reception of divine grace, or, which appears nearly the same thing, that it is proper to continue in sin, that grace may abound. J. L. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. MANY persons, who feel the burthen of their sins, and their need of daily repentance and forgiveness, find it difficult to conceive how this state can go hand in hand with peace and joy in believing. Others, whose affections are warm, and minds sanguine, while they rejoice in the hope set before them, are almost disposed to consider themselves as past that period of the Christian life, which calls for continual exercises of humiliation and contrition. They are inclined to look upon these as more properly belonging to persons whose sins have not been forgiven, and in whose hearts the love of God has not been shed abroad. But while we speak of these false views as belonging to others, let us not forget or dissemble, that though we ourselves may not go into either extreme, remarkably and exclusively; yet we all, even the very best of us, verge to each at different times. It may, however, be worthy of enquiry, whether the sentiment in question does not take its rise in underrating either the evil of "spiritual wickednesses," or the power of the holy spirit in convincing the mind of them equally with sins of a grosser Dature. When convictions of sin seize our minds, are we always disposed to cry out Abba Father" with the true filial gratitude of children laden with blessings? And when we rejoice in our high privileges as members of Christ's spiritual body, do we always feel that we are weak and miserable sinners, and distrust, and try, and examine ourselves, as those in whom there is no health? I apprehend we must all plead guilty, if we give an honest and humble answer to these enquiries. Now what are the remedies for these evils? Many might be pointed out, but I shall only call your attention to one which has struck me most forcibly, namely, Praving and striving to obtain a warmer love of God, and a more lively sense of his love to us. When we are in danger of being overwhelmed by a sense of guilt, is it not either because we have a low measure of love to God, and therefore no cordial and zealous desire to please him and forsake sin; or, because we secretly distrust his love for us through Christ, and his perfect willingness to give us freely every self, to receive us again without a needful help to brin, us back to himfrown or a reproach, and to enable us to continue stedfast in well-doing? Such views would give a sweetness to repentance, and mingle the smiles of gratitude with the tears of corrow; at the same time, that when united, and genuine, and lively, they are the best pledge that we shall hereafter shun those sins, whose hideous deformity they make so apparent. When, therefore, we are bound to the earth by a sense of sin, and our souls are unable to rise to a reconciled God and Saviour, let us examine whether the chains which hold us fast are not those of selfishness and unbelief. Do we not in our sins see, our own ruin indeed, but not God's dishonour? When we look with a kind of despair to pardon, do we not undervalue the great sacrifice for sin, or distrust that free mercy which is ready to communicate its benefits to all? And when we view the power of sin in our souls, and the strength and malice of our spiritual enemies with dismay, do we not look to our own strength for deliverance rather than to God; or doubt the faithfulness of him, who has assured his people that his strength is made perfect in their weakness, and that his grace is suffici |