■1^
.'>» M (t <« ^t^ ^^■" f ? "
*,|t||v|fc|M#
>> >v.^ ii" i,^' ,^ ,»r #, ^ 'iK "»"''*"' '
■i'l^mM
- -r!$^i.:^
w^ •»*• #■
y ig^ *^ #*■ ^jw :'r„. r-
.:^; :f V tv'
LIBRARY OF PRINCETON
FEB I 8 2005
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
THE
WORKS
OF THE
REV. ANDREW FULLER,
IN EIGHT VOLUMES.
VOL. iV.
NEW-HAVEN:
PRINTED AKD PUBLISHED BY S. CONVERSE.
1824
DIALOGUES, LETTERS,
AND
ESSAYS,
ON
VARIOUS SUBJECTS.
CONTENTS,
Dialogues and Letters between Crispus and Gains.
DIALOGFUE I. Page.
On the Peculiar turn of the present Age. 9
DIALOGUE II.
On the Importance of truth. ---15
DIALOGUE in. On the connexion between Doctrinal, Experimental, and Practical Re- ligion. ....-------19
DIALOGUE IV.
On the Moral Character of God. 23
DIALOGUE V. On the Free-agency of Man. -------- 27
DIALOGUE VL On the Goodness of the Moral Law. ------ -33
DIALOGUE VII. On Antinomianism. ....----. 37
DIALOGUE Vm. On Human Depravity. ...-.--.-41
DIALOGUE IX. On the Total Depravity of Human Nature. ..... 47
LETTER I. On the Total Depravity of Human Nature. - ... - 51
LETTER 11. On the Total Depravity of Human Nature. ----- 55
LETTER III. On the Total Depravity of Human Nature. - .... 61
LETTER IV. Consequences resulting from the Doctrine of Human Depravity. - 67
LETTER V. Consequences resulting from the Doctrine of Human Depravity. - - It
Three conversations between Peter, James, and John.
CONVERSATION I. On Imputation. --79
yj CONTENTS.
CONVERSATION 11. Oa Substitution. 91
CONVERSATION III. On Particular Redemption. ..------101
Answer to Three Queries. 113
A Meditation on the Nature and Progressiveness of the Heav- enly Glory. ._----- 117
Antinomianism Contrasted with the Religion taught and exem- plified in the Huly Scriptures. Introduction. ..----.---- 145
PART I. Containing: a Brief View of Antinomianifm, with Arguments against the leading Principle from which it is denominated. - - 159
PART II. The Influence of Antinomianism, in perverting some of the principal
Doctrines of the Gospel, - - - - ' - - - 173
Spiritual Pride : or the Occasions, Causes, and Effects of High- mindednesi in Religion ; with Considerations exciting to Self- abasement, Introduction, -----.---- 193
SECTION I. The Occasions, or Subjects, of Spiritual Pride, . - - - 195
SECTION II. The Causes of Spiritual Pride, 213
The Awakened Sijmer : a Correspondence between Archippus, a Minister of the Gospel, and Epaphras, a Young Man who had been one of his Hearers, - - - - 221
Part of a Body of Divinity.
LETTER I. On the Importance of System in the Study of Divinity, ... 853
LETTER II. On the Importance of a true System, --.-.- 261
LETTER III. On the Principal and General Outlines of the System, ... S71 ,
CONTENTS.
Vll
LETTER IV. On the Being; of God, 977
LETTER V. On the Necessity of a Divine Revelation, - - . . . ggj
LETTER VL On the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, ..... ^89
LETTER VII. On the uniform bearing of the Scriptures on the Person and Work of Christ, 297
LETTER VIII. On the Perfections of God, ........ 301
LETTER IX. On the Trinity ; or, on the Father, Son, and Spirit being One God, - 307
Thoughts on Preaching.
LETTER I. On Expounding the Scriptures, - - 31s
LETTER II. On Sermons, and the Subject-matter of them, .... SJi
LETTER III. On the Composition of a Sermon, -.-.--. 32T
The Great Question answered, - - - - . 339
The Backslider : or an Inquiry into the Nature, Symptoms, and Ef- fects of Religious Declension, with the Means of Recovery. Introduction, ... ....... 355
SECTION I. On the General Nature and Different Species of Backsliding, - 357
SECTION II. On the Symptoms of a Backsliding Spirit, . - - . . 371
SECTION III. On the Injurious and Dangerous Effecis of Sin lying upon the Conscience unlamented, -.-.t..... 378
SECTION IV. On the Means of Recovery, ....... 339
Expository Remarks on the Discipline of the Primitive Churches, 403
A Vindication of Protestant Dissent, from the Charges of the Rev. Thomas Robinson, M. A., Vicar of St. Mary^s, Leicester, 4I7
VUl
PREFACE.
Remarks on Two Sermons, by Mr. W. W. Hornty of Yarmouth,
entitled, The Faith of the Gospd Vindicated, - - 487
The Moral Law the Rule of Conduct to Believers, - 449
An Essay on Truth : containing an Inquiry into its Nature and Importance ; with the Causes of Error, and the Reasons of its being permitted, ..... 455
DIALOGUES AND LETTERS
BETWEEN
CRISPUS AND GAIUS.
DIALOGUE I.
ON THE PECVLIAR TURN OF THE PRESENT AGE.
Crispus. GOOD morning, my dear Gaius : I am glad to see you. The world is busy in grasping wealth, in discussing poli- tics, and in struggling for dominion ; all trifles of a moment : let us retire from the tumultuous scene, and discourse on subjects of greater importance.
Gaius. I am glad, my dear Crispus, to find your mind exercised on such subjects. The present agitated state of the world is doubtless a great temptation to many to let go their hold of heavenly things, and to bend their chief attention to subjects which originate and terminate in the present life.
Crispus. My mind has of late been much engaged on divine subjects. I find, in them a source of solid satisfaction. Yet I must confess I feel as well a variety of difficulties which I should be happy to have removed. I have often found your conversa- tion profitable, and should wish to avail myself of this and every ether opportunity for improving by it.
Gaius. Suitable conversation on divine subjects is commonly of mutual advantage ; and I must say there is something, I know not what, in the countenance of an inquisitive, serious friend, which, as iron sharpeneth iron, whets our powers, and draws forth obser- vations where, otherwise, they had never existed. I think 1 have
Vol. IV. 2
JO ON THE PECULIAR TURN
been as much indebted to you for asking pertinent qne«tiong, as you have been to me for answering them.
Crtspvs. I have been lately employed in reading the works of some of our first Reformers; and, on comparing their times with the present, T have observed that a considerable difference has taken place in the state of the public mind. At the dawn of the Reformation, the bulk of mankind were the devotees of supersti- tion, and stood ready to extirpate all those who dared to avow anj reli^iou'5 princi['le5 different from theirs. Even the Reformers themselves, though thev inveighed against the persecuting spirit of the Papists, yet seem to have been very severe upon one an- other, and to have exercised too little Christian forbearance, and too muh of a spirit that savoured of unchristian bitterness toward tho>«e who^e-ideas of reformation did not exactly coincide with their own. A great deal of their language, and some parts of their conduct, would, in the present day, be thought very censurable. How do you account for this change ?
Gains. Were 1 to answer that the rights of conscience have of late vears been more clearly understood, and that the sacred duty of benevolence, irrespective of the principles which men imbibe, has been more fre-quently enforced, I should so far speak the truth : and so far we have reason to congratulate the present age upon its improvement.
Crispns. Do you suppose there are other causes to which such a change may he attributed ?
Gains. 1 do. Scepticism, and a general indifference to religion appear to me to have succeeded the blind zeal and superstition of former ages It has been observed, 1 think by Dr. Goodwin, on that remarkable phrase of the apostle Paul, Ye walked according to the course of this rvorld. First, That there is a course which is general, and common to all ages and places, and which includes the gratifying of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye. and the pride of life, the laying up treasures on earth instead of heaven^ &c. Secondly, That there is a course which is more particular, and which is incessantly varying, according to times, places, and circumstances. Like the tide, it is ever rolling, but in different directions, in one age or country it is this, in another that, and
OF THE PRESENT AGE.
n
in a third different from them both. The cour-^e of this world, in the early ages was a course of idolatry. In this direction it ran until the days of Constantine, at which period the prince of dark- ness found it inipracticable in the civilized parts of the earth, any longer to suppoit the Pag;in throne. The leaders in the Roman empire resolved to become Christians ; and great numbers, from various motives, followed their exim|)le. The tide had then changed its direction : the profession of Christianity was fashiona- ble, was honourable, was the high road to preferment. Satan him- self if I may so speak, could now have no objection to turn Christian. The external profession of religion became splendid and pompous ; but religion itself was gradually lost, and a system of ignorance, superstition, and persecution, was introduced in its place- For many centuries the course of this world (I speak of the European part of itj was a course of Popery ; and so power- ful was it that those who ventured to resist it did so at the expense of every thing that was dear to them on earth. In this direction it ran till the Reformation. Since that period there has been another turning of the tide. Several nations have become Pro- testant ; and yet the course of this world goes on, and Satan has great influence among us. He has no objection to our laughing at superstition, provided that in any form we remain the slaves of sin. The world, of late years, has not directed its course so im- mediately towards superstition, as towards a criminal carelessness and Infidelity. Formerly the minds of men were so bent on uniformity in religion as to require it in civil society. Now they tend to the other extreme ; and are for admitting any kind of sen- timents even into religious society. In short, the propensity of the world in this day, is, to consider all religious principles what- ever, and all forms of worship, even those which are of divine institution, as of little or no importance. It is from this cause, I am afraid, Crispus, and not merely from a better understanding of the rights of conscience, that a great part of the lenity of the pres- ent age arises.
Crispus. Be it so : yet the effect is friendly to mankind. If mutual forbearance among men arose fronn a good motive, it would
] 2 ON THE PECULIAR TURN
indeed be better for those who exercise it ; but let it arise frona what motive it may, it is certainly advantageous to society.
Gains. Very true : but we should enUeavour to have laudable conduct, if possible, arise from the purest motives, that it may be approved of God, as well as advantageous to men.
Crispus. But do you think we are to expect as much as this from the apostate race of Adam ? In the apostle John's time the whole world was represented as lying in wickedness ; and, in fact, it has been so ever since. Formerly its wickedness operated in a way of intemperance : now it works in a way of indifference. Of the two, does not the last seem to be the least injurious ?
Gains. It is indeed the least injurious to our property, our lib- erty, and our lives ; but with regard to our spiritual interests it may be the reverse. Fashion, be it what it may, will always, in some degree at least, diffuse its influence through the minds of men, even of those who are truly religious. The intemperance of past ages gave to the temper of pious people, as well as others, a tinge of unchristian severity ; and the indifference of the present time has, I fear, operated with equal power, though in a different manner. We ought to be thankful for our mercies ; but at the same time we should take heed lest we be carried away by the course of this world.
Crispus. What evidence have we that religious people are influ- enced by a spirit of indifference.
Gains. The crying up of one part of religion at the expense of another. You may often hear of practical religion as being every thing ; and of speculative opinions (which is the fashionable name for doctrinal sentiments) as matters of very little consequence. Because they are not cognizable by the civil magistrate, they treat them as if they were of no account ; and by opposing them to practical religion, the unwary are led to conclude that the one has no dependence on the other. The effect of this has been, that others, from an attachment to doctrinal principles, have run to a contrary extreme. They write and preach in favour of doc- trines, and what are called the privileges of the gospel, to the neglect of subjects which immediately relate to practice. In
OF THE PRESENT AGE. 13
other circles you may hear experience, or experimental religion, extolled above all things, even at the expense of Christian prac- tice and of sound doctrine. But really the religion of Jesus ought not thus to be mangled and torn to pieces. Take away the doc- trines of the gospel and you take avpay the food of Christians. In- sist on them alone, and you transform us into religious epicures. And you may as well talk of the pleasure you experience in eating when you are actually deprived of sustenance, or of the exquisite enjoyments of a state of total inactivity, as boast of experimental religion unconnected with doctrinal and practical godliness. The conduct of a man who walks with God appears to me to resemble that of the industrious husbandman, who eats that he may be strengthened to labour ; and who by labour is prepared to enjoy his food.
Crispus. Well, you have opened a field for discussion. The next time we meet we may inquire farther into theee subjects, Farewel.
%
DIALOGUE II.
ON THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH.
Crispus. IN our last conversation, Gains, you made some re- Xiiarks on the indifference of the present age, with regard to reli- gious principles, which struck me forcibly : I should be glad to know what degree of importance you ascribe to the leading doc- trines, or principles of Christianity.
Gains. If you mean to ask, whether I consider the belief of them as essentially necessary to the enjoyment of good neighbour- hood, or any of the just or kind offices of civil society, I should certainly answer in the negative. Benevolence is good will to men ; and as far as good will to them can consist with the general good, we ought to exercise it towards them as men, whatever be their principles, or even their practices. But if your question relate purely to religion, I acknowledge that I consider a recep- tion of the great doctrines of Christianity (in those who have opportunity of knowing them) as necessary to holiness, to happi- ness, and to eternal life.
Crispus. If your ideas be just, they afford room for very serious reflection. But will you not be subject to great difficulties in de- ciding what those truths are, and to what degree they must be believed ? You cannot deny that even good men entertain differ- ent opinions of what truth is, nor that those who receive the truth receive it in very different degrees.
Gains. The same objection might be made to the express deci- sion of scripture, that ■without holiness no man shall see the Lord. It might be said. You will find great difficulties in deciding what true holiness is, and what degree of it is necessary to eternal life ; for you cannot deny that even good men entertain different opinions of what true holiness is, nor that those who are subjects of it possess it in very different degrees.
Ig ON THE IMPORTANCE OP TRUTH.
Crispus. And what would you answer to this objection?
Gains. I should say, that no upright heart can be so in the dark respecting the nature of true holiness, as to make any essen- tial mistake about it. Whether I can determine, with metaphpsi- eal accuracy, the different component parts of it, or not, yet, if I be a true Christian, I shall feel it, I shall possess it, I shall practise it. As to determine what degree of it will carry a man to heaven, that is not our business. We do not know to what extent divine mercy will reach in the forgiveness of sin ; but this may be said, that a person may be assured he has no true holiness in him at all, who rests contented with any degree of it short of perfection.
Crispus. Will this answer apply to truth as well as to holi- ness ?
Gains. Why not? If the way of salvation be so plain, that a wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err therein, what can it be but prejudice that renders the truth difficult to be understood ? He who does the will of God shall know of his doctrine. Surely then I may say, that no one who is in a right temper of mind can be so in the dark respecting what truth is, as to make any essential mistake about it. Whether 1 can determine the question with accuracy, or not, yet, if 1 be a Christian, the truth dwelleth in me. As to the precise degree in which we must receive the truth in order to be saved, it is not our business to decide. But this is in- contestable, that he who does not seek after the whole of revealed truth, and sit as a little child at the feet of his divine Instructor, the truth is not in him.
Crispus. But is it not easier to discover what holiness is, than what truth is ?
Gains. I grant that conscience assists in determining between right and wrong, which it does not in many things respecting truth and error. Bnt if we were entirely on God's side, we should find the revealed dictates of truth as congenial to our hearts, as those of righteousness are to our consciences ; and in that case the one would be as easily determined as the other.
Crispus. But is there not a difference between the importance of beheving the truth of God, and that of complying with his com- mands ?
ON rUE IVIPORTAIVCE OF TRUTH. 17
Gaius. You would not think more favourably of a child who should discredit your testimony, than of one who should disobey your authority; and the same being who declares that without ho- li7tess no man shall see the Lord, has declared that he who belicveth not the record that God hath given of his Son, hath fnade him a liar — that he zvhrj believcth not shall be damned!
Crispus. But should every error or mistake, to which fallible mortals are liable, be considered as unbelief, and as subjecting us to damnation ?
Gaius. By no means. There is a specific difference between error and anbelief The one is a misapprehension of what the divine testimony contains : the other supposes that we understand it, but yet discredit it. It is the latter, and not the former, that is threatened with damnation.
Crispus. Do you then suppose error to be innocent ? Gaius. The answer to this question must depend upon the cause from which it springs. If it arise from the want of natural power, or opportunity of obtaining evidence, it is mere mistake, and contains in it nothing of moral evil. But if it arise from pre- judice, neglect, or an evil bias of heart, it is otherwise, and may endanger our eternal salvation.
Crispus. Will you be so good as to illustrate this distinction ? Gaius. Had David been engaged in the most wicked conspir- acy when he fled to Ahimelech, and had Ahimelech in this circum- stance given him bread and a sword ; yet, if he knew nothing of the conspiracy, less or more, nor possessed any means of knowing it, his error would have been innocent, and he ought to have been acquitted. But had he possessed the means of knowledge, and from a secret disloyal bias neglected to use them, giving easy credit to those things which his heart approved, he would have deserved to die.
Crispus. Among human errors, we can distinguish between those which arise from the want of powers or opportunities, and such as spring from the evil bias of the heart ?
Gaius. In many cases we certainly cannot, any more than we can fix the boundaries between light and shade; yet there are some things, and things of the greatest importance, that are Vol. IV. 3
18 ON THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH.
SO plainly revealed, and of so holy a tendency, that we are taught by the scriptures themselves to impute an error concerning them not to the understanding only, but to the heart. The fool hath said m his hkart, there is no Gad. — Why do ye not understand my speech? Because ye cat^not hear my words. — They stum- bled at the stumhbng-stnne , being disobedient.
Crispus. Have not all men their prejudices, the good as well as the wicked?
Gains. As all men are the subjects of sin, undoubtedly they have. But as it does not follow, that because a good man is the subject of sin he may live in the practice of all manner of abom- inations, neither does it follow, that because he is the subject of criminal error he may err in the great concerns of eternal salva- tion. Good men have not only their gold, silver, and precious stones; but also their wood, hay, and stubble, which will be con- sumed, while tliey themselves are saved; nevertheless they are all represented as building upon a i-ight foundation. He that errs with respect to the foundation laid in Zion, will, if God give not repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, err to his eter- nal overthrow.
Crispus. Does not this last species of error seem nearly rela- ted to unbelief?
Gains. 1 conceive it to be so nearly related as to be its im- mediate effect. The heart leans to a system of falsehood, wish- ing it to be true ; and what it wishes to be true, it is easily per- suaded to think so. The first step in this progress describes the spirit of unbelief; the last, that of error : the one grows out of the other. Such a progress was exemplified in those persons described in the Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians : They re- ceived not the love of the truth — believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness — therefore God gave them up to a rep- robate mind, that they might believe a lie, and be damned.
Crispus. Surely it is a serious thing in what manner we hear and receive the word of God I
Gains. True ; and I may add, in what manner we preach it too. Wo unto us if we teach mankind anj' other way of escape than that which the gospel reveals I Wo unto us if we preach not the gospel ! If an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed !
DIALOGUE in.
ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN DOCTRINAL, EXPERIMKNTAr., AND PRACTICAL RELIGION.
Grispus. IN our last interview, Gaius, we discoursed on the influence of truth as it respected our eternal salvation ; we will now inquire if you please, into its influence on the holiness and happiness of Christians in the present state ; or, in other words, into the connexion between doctrinal, experimental, and practical religion.
Gaius. Such an inquiry may convince us of the importance of each, and prevent our extolling one branch of religion at the ex- pense of another.
Crispus. What do you mean by experimental religion ?
Gaius. Experimental religion may be considered ^e/jera/Zy and particularly : in general, we mean by it the exercise of spiritual or" holy affections, such as hope, fear joy, sorrow, and the like.
Crispus. And what relation do these things bear to divine truth ?
Gaius. Under the agency of the Holy Spirit, they are its im- mediate effect. To render this matter evident, we need only in- quire what have been the best seasons of our life, and our own remembrance will convince us that divine truth has been at the bottom of all these enjoyments which were truly solid and valua- ble.
Crispus. Some of the best times in ray life have been those in which I have mourned over ray sin with godly sorrow.
Gaius. Very well ; this holy mourning arose from a sense of your own depravity, a truth plentifully taught in (he Bible.
20 ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN
Crispus. I can remember, also, many joyful seasons when I have been in the lively exercise of faith and hope.
Gains. Ver)' g;oofl ; but faith has truth for its object, and hope lays hold of a blessed immortality. Take avvav the doctrine of the cross and the promise of eternal life, and your faith and hope and jov woold be annihilated.
Crispus. I have heard some persons exclaim against doctrinal preaching, as being dry and uninteresting: 'Give me,' say they, 'something spiritual and experimental.'
Gaius. Doctrines, it is allowed, may be so represented as to become dry and uninteresting; but scripture truth is not so in its own uctture. The doctrines of the gospel are expressly called " spiritual things," which are spiritually discerned.
Crispus. Does not the term experience convey the idea of p7'oof 6v trial ?
Gaius. It does ; and this is what I had in mind when I said the subject might be considered particularhj . Though we use the term to expre-^s the exercise of spiritual affections in general, yet it is more accurate to apply it to that proo/ or trial which we make of divine things, while passing through the vicissitudes of life.
Crispus. Experimental knowledge, we commonly say in other things, is knowledge obtained by trial.
Gaius. Very well ; it is the same in religion. There are many truths taught us in the divine word, and which we may be said to know by reading ; but we do not know them experimen- tally till we have proved them true by having made the trial.
C7-ispus. Mention a few examples.
Gaivs. We resd in the scriptures of the doctrine of human impctenry, and we think we understand it ; but we never know this truth properly till we have bad proof of it in our own experi- ence. Farther: We read of the cortuption of the human hea?-t, 5-Hid think in our early years that we believe it ; but it is not till we have passed through a variety of changes, and had experience of its deceitful operations, that we perceive this truth as we ought. Again: We read much of the goodness and faithfulness of God, and we subscribe to each ; but we never realize these truths till, having passed through those circumstances in which we have occa-
DOCTRINE, EXPERIENCE, AND PRACTICE. 21
sion for thera, they become imprinted upon our hearts. It is then th.it we feel their force anrl taste their sweetness: hence it is that tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience. It was, no doubt, a cheerina; truth, at all times, that God was the portion of his people ; but never did they realize that truth so fully as when they were stripped of their earthly all, and carried into cap- tivity. It was then that they sang, as taught by the prophet, The Lord, is wy portion, saith my soul, therefore will I hope in him.
Crispus. All experimental religion seems then to bear some rel; tion to truth. If taken genenilly, for the exercise of spiritual affection, truth is here the cause, and these exercises are its imme- diate e^ecfs. If taken more particularly, for that proof or trial which we h ive of divine things as we pass through the vicissitudes of life, truth seems here to be the object of which we have expe- rience.
Gaius. True ; and the more we have of experimental reli- gion, the more we shall feel ourselves attached to the great doc- trines of the gospel, as the bread and water of life, from whence arises all our salvation and all our desire.
Crispus. Will not the connexion between doctrinal and experi- mental religion account for the ignorance which is attributed to carnal men with respect to divine things, as they do not receive them, and cannot know them ?
Gains. It will : nor is there any thing more surprising in it, than that a mercenary character should be a stranger to the joys of benevolence, or a dishonest man to the pleasures of a good conscience : they never experienced them, and therefore are utterly in the dark concerning them.
Crispus. Will you give me your thoughts of the influence of truth on holy practice ?
Gaius. Perhaps there is no proposition but what has some con- sequence hanging upon it, and such Cf'insequence must be expected to correspond with the nature of the proposition. A truth in natural philosophy will be productive of a natural efTect. Divine truth, when cordially imbibed, proves the seed of a godly life. For example : if there be a God that jndgeth the earth, he is to he loved, feared, and adored. If man be a sinner before God, it
22 ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN, &c.
becomes him lo lie low in self-abasement. If salvation be of grace, boasting is excluded. If we be bought with a price, we are not our own, and must not live unto ourselves, but unto Him who died for us, and rose again. Religious sentiments are called prin- ciples, because when received in the love of them, they become the springs of holy action.
Crispus. Do the scriptures confirm this view of things ?
Gains. You must have read such passages as the following : — Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. — Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. — Grace and peace be multiplied unto you, through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord. — Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine. I suppose our Lord meant something like this when he told the woman of Samaria, The water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life : that is, the gos- pel or doctrine that I preach, when cordially imbibed, shall be- come a well-spring of heavenly joy and holy activity, rising higher and higher till it terminate in everlasting blessedness.
Crispus. What inference may be drawn from all this ?
Gains. If God has joined these things together, let no man, whether preacher or hearer, attempt to put them asunder.
Crispus. Is it proper to distinguish between doctrinal and ex- perimental religion ?
Gains. If by those terms it were only meant to distinguish be- tween the truth to be known, and a spiritual knowledge of it, they are very proper ; but if the latter be considered as existing with- out the former, it is a great mistake.
DIALOGUE IV.
ON THE MORAL CHARACTER OF GOW.
Crispus. YOUR late observations on the importance of truth, and the connexion between doctrinal, experimental, and practical religion, have excited in my mind an increasing desire after a more particular knowledge of the great doctrines of Christianity.
Gains. 1 am glad to hear it ; and if it be in my power to afibrd you any additional light on those interesting subjects, it will give me great pleasure.
Crisjjus. What do you consider as the first and most fundamen- tal principle of true religion ?
Gains. Unless I except the existence of God, perhaps none is more deserving of those epithets than his moral character. Crispus. What do you mean by the moral character of God ? Gains. The divine perfections have been distinguished into natural and moral. By the former we understand those perfec- tions which express his greatness : such are his wisdom, power, majesty, omniscience, omnipotence, immutability, eternity, im- mensity, &c. By the latter, those which express his essential goodness : such are bis justice, his mercy, his veracity, or, in one word, his holiness. These last are the peculiar glory of the di- vine nature, and constitute what is meant by his moral character.
Crispus. Are not all the attributes of Deity essential to the character of an all perfect Being ?
Gains. They are ; but yet the glory of his natural perfections depends upon their being united with those which are moral. The ideas of wisdom, power, or immutability, convey nothing lovely to the mind, but the reverse, unless they be connected with righteousness, goodness, and veracity. W^isdom without holiness would be serpentine subtlety ; power would be tyranny ; and im- mutability annexed to a character of such qualities would be the curse and terror of the universe.
24 ON THE MORAL eHA1l\CTER OF GOD.
Crispus. But as God is possessed of one as well as the other, they all contribute to his glory.
Gains. True ; and it affords matter of inexpressible joy to all holy intelligences, that a Being of such rectitude and goodness is possessed of power equal to the desire of his henrt, of wisdom equal to his power, and that he remains through eternal ages im- mutably the same. Power and wisdom in such hands are the blessing of the universe.
Crispus. Is the above distinction of the divine perfections, into natural and moral, applicable to any useful purposes ?
Gains. It will assist us in determining the nature of that most fundamental of all moral principles — the love of God. If holiness constitute the loveliness of the divine nature, this must be the most direct and immediate object of holy affection. True love to God will always bear a primary regard to that which above all other things renders him a lovely Being.
Crispus. I knew a lecturer on philosphy, who, by discoursing on the wisdom and power of God as displayed in the immensity of creation, was wrought up into a rapture of apparent devotion, and his audience with him ; and yet in less than an hour's time, after leaving the room, he was heard to curse and swear, as was his usual manner of conversation.
Gains. You might find great numbers of this description. They consider the Divine Being as a great genius, as a fine architect, and survey his works with admiration ; but his moral excellence, which constitutes the chief glory of his nature, has no charms in their eyes. But if that which constitutes the chief glory of his na- ture have no charms in their eyes, all the admiration which they may bestow upon the productions of his wisdom and power, will amount to nothing : the love of God is not in them.
Crispus. You consider the moral character of God as a funda- mental principle in religion ; what then are those principles which are founded upon it?
Gains. The equity of the divine law, the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the ruined stfite of man as a sinner, with the necessity of an Almighty Saviour, and a free salvation.
Crispus. Will you oblige me by pointing out the connexion of these principles?
ON THE MORAL CHARACTER OP GOD. 05
fitaius. If there be infinite loveliness in the moral character of God, then it is right and equitable that we should love him with all our hearts ; which, with a subordinate love to our neighbour as ourselves, is the sum of what the divine law require*. And in proportion to the loveliness of the divine character must be the hatefulness of aversion to him, and rebellion against him ; hence follows the exceeding sinfulness of sin. And if sin be odious in its nature, it must be dangerous in its consequences, exposing us to the curse of the divine law, the just and everlasting displeasure of a holy God. Finally : If, as rebels against the moral government of God, we be all in a ruined and perishing condition, we need a Deliverer who shall be able to save to the utmost, whose name shall be called the Mighty God, and a salvation without money and without price, that shall be suited to our indigent condition.
Crispus. Is not the moral excellence of the divine character ad- mitted by great numbers who reject these principles, which you say arise from it ?
Gaius. I suppose no person who admits the being of a God, would expressly deny the excellence of his moral character; but it is easy to observe that those who deny the foregoing principles, cither discover no manner of delight in it, but are taken up, like your philosophical lecturer, in admiring the productions of God's nat- ural perfections, or else are employed in moddelling his character according to their own depraved ideas of excellence. Being under the influence of self-love, they see no loveliness but in proportion as he may subserve their happiness ; hence the justice of God in the punishment of sin is kept out of view, and what they call his good- ness and mercy (but which, in fact, are no other than connivance at pin, and indifference to the glory of his government) are exalted in its place. A Being thus qualified may be easily adored ; it is not God however that is worshipped, but an imaginary being crea- ted after the image of depraved men.
Crispus. To know the only true God, and Jesus Oirist whom he hath sent ; in other words, to know the true glory of the Lawgiver and the Saviour, seems to be of the highest importance.
Gaius. True ; the former is absolutely necessary to the latter^ and both to grace and peace being muUiplied here, and t© our en- joyment of eternal life hereafter.
Vol. IV. 4
DIALOGUE V.
ON THE FRIiE-AGENCY OF MAN.
Crispus. OUR last conversation, on the moral character of God, has led me, Gaius, to desire your thoughts on the nature of man, as a subject of moral government.
Gains. This is, no doubt, a very interesting subject. As we all feel ourselves accountable beings, and must all give account of ourselves another day, it becomes us to know ourselves, and the nature of those powers with which the great Creator has invest- ed us.
Crispus. Do you consider man as a free-agent ?
Gains. Certainly; to deny this, would be to deny that we are accountable to the God that made us. Necessarians and anti-ne- cessarians have disputed wherein free-agenc}' consists; but the thing itself is allowed on both sides.
Crispus. Suppose then 1 were to change the the question ; and ask, wherein does free-agency consist ?
Gaius. I should answer, In the pozver of' following the inclina- tion.
Crispus. And is it in our power in all cases to follow our in- clinations ?
Gaius. No : there is such a thing as involuntary motion. By the exercise of an absolute force upon our bodies we may be com- pelled to move against our inclination, and to forbear to move ac- cording to our desire ; but in these cases we are not accountable beings.
Crispus. Some have thought man to be a free-agent in natural things, but not as to things moral and spiritual.
Gains. This is the same as supposing him accountable only for those things in which there is neither good nor evil ; and this, if
28 ON FREEAGENCY.
true, would prove that we are not subjects of moral government, and shall never be called to give account of either good or evil. Besides, it is a fact that we as freely pursue our inclinations in spiritual as in natural things ; we as freely yield ourselves to be the servants of sin, or of God, as ever we chose to eat, drink, or walk.
Crispus. Then you think we are free-agents in all those matters which are inseparably connected with eternal salvation.
Gains. Certainly : if otherwise, we should be equally incapable of rejecting, as of accepting, the gospel way of salvation.
Crispus: And flo you suppose we are free-agents, with respect to keeping or breaking the divine law ?
Gains. I do : ue are only required to love God with all our strength ; or to consecrate all our poxvers to his service, be they great or small.
Crispus. Why then do we not keep the law perfectly ?
Gains. Because of the depravity of our hearts. If our hearts. or iucliiiations, were wholly on the side of God, we should feel no difficulty in keeping it ; on the contrary, it would be our meat and drink.
Crispus. But if our hearts be deprived, and we be enslaved to sin, i-ou can we be said to be tree ?
Gaius. We cannot be morally free ; but moral slavery, any more than moral liberty, has nothing to do with free-agency. The reason is, in this case there is no force opposed to the agent's own will.
Crispus. I have often heard it asserted, that it does not signify whether the incapacity lies in the will, or in something distinct from the will. ' If we cannot do good,' say they, ' we cannot, and in that case we are not free agents."
Gaius. Those who speak thus of free-agency, must mean t« include in it a freedom from the influence of motives ; a power of acting with or contrary to the prevailing inclination ; or, at least a power to change the inclination.
Crispus. Yes ; I have heard it observed, that it amounts to nothing to say we have the power of following the prevailing
ON FREE-AGENCY.
29
inclination ; unless we have also the power of counteracting or changing it.
Gains. If, by amounting to nothing, they mean that we are not hereby any more qualified to be our own deliverers from the thral- dom of sin, than if we had no free agency, but must be indebted wholly to sovereign and efficacious grace for it, I admit the con- sequences. Little however as they made of this idea of free- agency, I might reply, it is all that they themselves can conceive of, and all that can be ascribed to any being in heaven, earth, or hell.
Crispus. How does this appear ?
Gains. No one can conceive of a power of voluntarily acting against the prevailing inclination ; for the thing itself is a contra- diction : and a power of changing it is no less absurd. If a per- son go about to change his prevailing inclination, he must, in go doing, be either involuntary, or voluntary. If the former, this can be no exercise of free-agency ; if the latter, he must have two opposite prevailing inclinations at the same time j which is a con- tradiction. And, if it were not a contradiction, he still does n© more than follow his inclination ; namely, his virtuous inclination, which he is supposed to possess, to have his vicious inclination changed. If freedom from the influence of motives, or power to change one's inclination, be essential to free-agency, the divine Being himself is not free. God, as all must allow, possesses an im- mutable determination to do what is right, and cannot, in the least degree, or for a single moment, incline to the contrary. His con- duct is necessarily and invariably expressive of the infinite rec- titude of his will. The same, in a degree, might be said of holv angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect. So far from be- ing free from the influence of motives, or having a power to change the prevailing inclination of their hearts, those motives, which, by reason of the depravity of our natures, have but little eflect upon us. have full influence upon them, and constantly determine them to the most ardent pursuit of righteousness.
Crispus. And yet you say they are free-agents ?
Gains. If God, angels, and saints in heaven, be not free-agentiR, who are ?
3d ON FREE-AGENCY.
Crispiis. But this is moral liberty.
Gains. True ; but the same reasoning will apply to moral slavery. If an unalterable bias of mind to good does not destroy free-agency, neither does an unalterable bias of mind to evil. Sa- tan is as much a free-agent as Gabriel, and as much accountable to God for all he does.
Crispus. Some suppose man to have lost his free-agency by the fall.
Gains. Say rather, man has lost his moral rectitude by the fall. All that was entrusted in his hands was lost. But we might as well say he had lost his reason, his conscience, or his memory, as to say he had lost his free-agency ; and this would be supposing him to have lost his intellectual nature, and to have become Ht- erally a brute.
Crispus. Wherein does your notion of free-agency differ from the Arminian notion of free-will ?
Gains. The Arminian notion of free-will is what I have all along been opposing ; the one consists merely in the power of following our prevailing inclination ; the other in a supposed power of acting contrary to it, or at least of changing it. The one predicates freedom of the man, the other of a faculty in man ; which Mr. Locke, though an anti-necessa)ian, explodes as an absurdity. The one goes merely to render us accountable be- ings ; the other arrogantl}' claims a part, yea, the very turning point of salvation. According to the latter, we need only certain helps or assistances, granted to men in common, to enable us to choose the path of life ; but according to the former, our hearts being by nature wholly depraved we need an Almighty and invin- cible power to renew them, otherwise our free agency would only accelerate our everlasting ruin.
Crispus. You suppose, I imagine that the invincible operations of the Holy Spirit do not interfere with our free-agency ?
Gains. Certainly : if the temper of the heart does not affect it, neither can any change upon that temper. It affects free- agen- cy no more than it affects reason, conscience, or memory : man all along feels himself at liberty to follow what inclination dictates : and, therefore, is a free-agent.
ON FREE-AGENCY 3I
Crtspus. Does your notion of free-agency agree with the lan- guage of the apostle Paul : Tlie good that I would, I do not ; and the evil that 1 would iiot, that I do. — To will, is present ; hut how to perform tJiat which is good, I find not?
Gains. I think we ought to distinguish between a willingness that is habitual and general, and one that is universal and entire. Paul, and every real Christian, generally and habitually wills to be holy, as God is holy ; but this volition is not universal and entire. It is not so perfect nor intense as that there is no remainder of in- dolence, obstinacy, or carnality. Perfection is the object appro- ved, or rather, desired ; but that approbation or desire is not perfect in degree : a perfect degree of willingness would be per- fect holiness.
Crispus. Then you do not suppose the apostle to mean, that sin operated absolutely, and in every sense, against his will ?
Gains. I do not : it was certainly against the ruling principle of his soul ; but to suppose that any sin can be strictly and abso- lutely involuntary in its operations, is contrary to every dictate of common sense.
DIALOGUE ¥!•
ON THE ©OODNESS OP THE MORAL LAW.
Crispus. OUR two last conversations on the moral character of God and the free-agency of man, have, I hope been of use to me. 1 have been thinking since of the great rule of God's gov- ernment— the moral law, as being the image of his moral char- acter.
Gains. Your idea is just : God is love. All his moral attri- butes are but the different modifications of love, or love opera- ting in different ways. Vindictive justice itself is the love of or- der, and is exercised for the welfare of beings in general; and the moral law, the sum of which is love, expresses the very heart of him that framed it.
Crispus. I have been thinking of love as the band which unites all holy intelligences to God, and one another ; as that in the mor- al system, which the law of attraction is in the system of nature.
Gains. Very good : while the planets revolve round the sun as their central point, and are supremely attracted by it, they each have a subordinate influence upon the other : all attract, and are attracted by others in their respective orbits ; yet no one of these subordinate attractions interferes with the grand attractive influ- ence of the sun, but acts rather in perfect concurrence with it. Under some such idea we may conceive of supreme love to God, and subordinate love to creatures.
Crispus. Among the planets, if I mistake not, the attractive power of each body corresponds with the quantity of matter it possesses, and its proximity to the others.
Gaiug. True : and though in general we are required to love •ur neighbour as ourselves, yet there are some persons, on ac
Vot. IV. i
S4 ©N THE MORAL LAW.
account of their more immediate connexion with us, whom we are allowed, and even obliged, to love more than the rest.
Crispus. If we could suppose the planets endued with intel- ligence, and any one of them, weary of revolving round the sun, should desert its orbit, assume a distinct centership of its own, and draw others off with it, what v ould be the consequence ?
Gatus. Anarchy and confusion, no doubt, with regard to the system ; and cold and darkness and misery, with regard to those which had deserted it.
Crispus. And is not this a near resemblance to the condition of apostate angels and men ?
Gams. Doubtless it is ; and yonr similitude serves to illus.* trate the evil of sin, as it affects the harmony of the divine gov- ernment in general, and the happiness of each individual in par- ticular.
Crispus. Is there not a general notion in the minds of men, that the moral law is too strict and rigid for man in his fallen state ?
Gains. There is ; and some who ought to know better, have, compared its requirements to those of an Egyptian task-master, who demanded bricks v^ithout straw ; and have recommended the gospel as being at variance with it. Many who would be thought the greatest, if not the only friends of Christ, have made no scru- ple of professing their hatred to Moses, as they term the moral law.
Crispus. But does not the precept of the moral law require what is beyond our strength ?
Gains. If, b^^ strength, you mean to include inclination, I grant it does ; but if, by strength, you mean what is literally and prop- erly so called, it requires us even now but to love God with all our strength. It is not in the want of strength, literally and strict- ly speaking, that our insufficiency to keep the divine law consists, but in the want of a holy temper of mind ; and this, instead of being any excuse, or requiring an abatement of the law, is the Tery essence of that wherein blame consists.
Crispus. I have thought it might serve to show the goodness of the divine law if we were to suppose it reversed. Suppose, in-
ON THE MORAL LAW 35
atead of loving, God should require us to hate him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbour likewise ?
Gains. This would require us to be both wicked and miserable j and the idea is sutficient to .shock any person of common sense.
Crispus. But suppose God were to require us to love him and one another, only in a less degree ?
Gains. That would be the same as requiring apart of our af- fection, and allowing us to be of a divided heart. Our powers cannot be indifferent : If they are not applied to the love of God and man, they will be applied to something opposite, even the love of the world. But as the love of the world is enmity to God, if this were allowed, it were the same as allowing men, in a degree, to be at enmity with him and each other ; that is, to be wicked and miserable.
Crispus. I have several more questions to ask you on this im- portant subject, but shall defer them to another opportunity.
Gains. Farewell then, Crispus : God grant that this divine law may be found written upon each of our hearts !
Crispus. Amen ♦
DIALOGUE VII.
ON ANTINOMIANISM.
Crispus. OUR conversation on the moral law has led me to think of some other subjects nearly related to it. I have obser- ved, that many people have been called Antinomians ; yet very few call themselves so. What is antinomianism ?
Gains. Enmity, or opposition, to the law of God.
Crispus. Are not all men then by nature Antinomians ?
Gaius. I believe they are; for the carnal mind is enmity against God : it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed an be.
Crispus. By this passage, it should seem that God and his law are so united, that a non-subjection to the one is enmity to the other.
Gains. How should it be otherwise ? The sum of the law is love ; and in this case, not to love is to be enmity.
Crisptis. All men, however, do not profess to be at enmity^ either with God, or his law.
Gaius. True ; but many men are very different, you know, from what they profess to be, and even from what they conceive of themselves.
Crispus. I can easily conceive of various wicked characters being enemies to the divine law, whatever they may say in its favour.
Gaius. And have you not observed, that all the different spe- cies of false religion agree in this particular ?
Crispus. I do not know whether I have sufficiently — To what do you refer ?
Gaius. 1 refer to the different forms in which mankind quiet their conscienceSj and cherish their hopes, while the love of
30 ON ANTINOMIANISM.
God and man are neglected. What is superstition, but the substi- tution of something ceremonial; something that may be done con- sistently with a heart at enmity with God. in the place of that which is moral ? the tithing of mint and cummin, and various things of the kind, were much more agreeable to the ancient Pharisees, than judgment, mercy, and the love of God. The modern Jews are greatly attached to ceremony; but the shocking indevotion which distinguishes their worship, and the mercenary spirit which too generally pervades their dealings, sufficiently discover their aversion from that law of which they make their boast. Impiety and cruelty are prominent features in the faces of our modern Heathens, with all their refinement ; and the same is observable in others who are less refined: gods and weapons of war are to be found in the most barbarous Heathen nations. Ignorant as they are, they have all learned to violate the two great branches of the moral law.* Beads, and pilgrimages, and relics, and all the reti- nue of Popish ceremonies are but substitutes for the love of God and our neighbour. The formal round of ceremonies attended to by »/tamaica/prq/essors of all communities is the same. Let an at- tentive reader examine the system of Socinus, and evenof Armin- ius and he will find them agreed in opposing the native equity and goodness of the moral law. The former claims it as a matter ©f justice, that allowances be made for human error and imperfec- tion ; and the latter, though it speaks of grace, and the mediation of Christ, and considers the gospel as a new, mild, and remedial law, yet would accuse you of making the Almighty a tyrant, if this grace were witnheld, and the terms of the moral law strictly ad- hered to. All these, as well as that species of false religion which has more generally gone by the name of antinomianism, you see, are agreed in this particular. This last, which expressly disowns the moral law as a rule of life, sets up the gospel in opposition to it ; and substitutes visionary enjoyments as the evidence of an interest in gospel blessings, in place of a conformity to its pre- cepts.— This last, I say, though it professes to be greatly at
* This reflection was made by a friend of mine on visiting The Bntish JSmeutn^ and seeing vavious curiosities from Heathen conntrics; amonj !W.hich were a number of idols and instrnments ©f war.
ON ANTINOMIANISM. - 39
Tariance with several of the forceoing schemes, is nearer akin to them than its advocates are willing to admit. If the love of God and man be left out of our religion, it matters but little what we substitute in its place. Whether it go by the name of reason or superstition, religious ceremony or evangelical liberty, all is delu- sion ; all arises from the same source, and tends to the same issue. Good men may in a degree have been beguiled, and for a time carried away with these winds of false doctrine ; but I speak of tiangs, and their natural tendencies, not of persons. In short, we may safely consider it as a criterion by which any doctrine may be tried : if it be unfriendly to the moral law, it is not of God, but proceedeth from the father of lies.
Crispus. What you have observed seems very clear and very afifecting : but I have heard it remarked, that some of these sys- tems naturally attach their adherents to the works of the law.
Gains. This is very true ; but there is a wide difference be- tween an attachment to the law, and an attachment to the works of' the law as the ground of eternal life ; as much as between the spirit of a faithful servant, who loves his master, loves his family, loves his service, 'and never wishes to go out free ; and that of a slothful servant, who though he hates his master, hates his family, hates his employment, and never did him any real service, yet has the presumption to expect his reward.
Crispus. This distinction seems of great importance, as it serves to reconcile those scriptures which speak in favour of the law, and those which speak against an attachment to the works of it.
Gaius. It is the same distinction, only in other words, which has commonly been made respecting the law as a rule of life, and as a covenant.
Crispus. Will you be so obliging as to point out a few of the consequences of denying the law to be the rule of life, and repre- senting it as at variance with the gospel ?
Gaius. First : This doctrine directly militates against all those scriptures which speak in favour of the moral law, and afford us an honourable idea of it ; such as the following : — 0 how J love thy law ! — The. lata is holy, and the commandment is holi/,just^ anil
40 ON ANTINOM!ANISM.
good. — / come not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. — Do we make void the law through faith ? God forbid ; Yea, we establish the late. — I delight in the law of God after the inner man. — J with my mind serve the law of God. Secondly : This doctrine reflects upon God himself for having given a law under one dispensation, which is at variance with a gospel given under another. Thirdly: It justifies the sinner in the breach of the law. There can be no evil in sin, but in proportion to the goodness of that law of which it is a transgression. Fourthly : It is in direct opposition to the life and death of the Saviour. By the former he obeyed its pre- cepts, by the latter endured its penalty, and by both declared it to be holy, just, and good. Every reflection, therefore, upon the moral law, is a reflection upon Christ. Fifthly : It strikes at the root of all personal religion, and opens the flood-gates to iniquity. Those who imbibe this doctrine talk of being sanctified in Christj in such a manner as to supercede all personal and progressive sanctification in the believer.
DIALOGUE VIII,
ON HUMAN DEPRAVITf.
Crispua. I thank you, Gains, for your observations on Tarioiu important su!)jects ; and now, if agreeable, I should be glad of your thoughts on the painful isul interesting subject of human de- pravity.
Gnhis. An interesting subject indeed! Perhaps there is no one truth in the scriptures, of a more fundamental nature with respect to the erospel-vvay of salvation. 1 never knew a person verge to- ward the Arminian, the Arian the Socinian, or the Antinomian schemes, without first entertaining diminutive notions of human depravity, or blame-worthiness.
Crispns. Wherein do you conceive depravity to consist ?
Gains. In the opposite to what is required by the divine law.
Crispus. The sum of the divine law is love ; ibe essence of depravity then must consist in the want of love to God and our neighbour ; or in setting up some other object, or objects, to the exclusion of them.
Gains. True ; and perhaps it will be found that all the objects set up in competition with God and our neighbour may be reduced to one, and that is self. Private self-love seems to be the root of depravity, the grand succedaneum in human affections to the love of God and man. Self admiration, self-will, and self righteousness are but different modifications of it. Where this prevails, the creature assumes the place of the Creator, and seeks his own grat- ification, honour, and interest, as the ultimate end of all his actions. Hence, when the Apostle describes men imder a variety of wicked characters, the first link in the chain is — lovers of their swnselves.
Vol. IV. 6
42 ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
Hence also the first and grand lesson in the Christian school is — to deny ourselves.
Cnspus. Almost all evangelical writers, I helieve, have con- sidered men as utterly depraved ; and that not by education, or ' any accidental cause or causes, but by nature, as they are born into the world.
Gains. They have. This was manifestly the doctrine gener- ally embraced at the Reformation, and which has been maintained by the advocates for salvation by :sovereign grace, in every age.
Crispus. Yet one should think, if men were totally depraved, they would be all, and always alike wicked.
Gains. If by total depravity you mean that men are so corrupt as to be incapable of adding sin to sin, I know of no person who maintains any such sentiment. All I mean by the term is this : That the human heart is by nature totally destitute of love to God, or love to man as the creature of God, and consequently is desti- tute of all true virtue. A being may be utterly destitute of good, and therefore totally depraved, (such, it will be allowed, is Satan,) and yet be capable of adding iniquity to iniquity without end.
Crispus. 1 should be glad if you would point out a few of the principal evidences on which the doctrine of human depravity is founded.
Galas. The principal evidences that strike me at this time may be drawn from the four following sources : scripture testimony, history, observation, and experience.
Crispus. What do you reckon the principal scripture testimo* nies on this subject ?
Gams Those passages which expressly teach it ; such as the following : — //;/rf Goa saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagiaatinn of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. — God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, thai did seek God. Every one of them is gone hack, they are altogether hecome filthy : There is none that doeth good, no not one. — Both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin ; as it is written. There is none righteous, no not one. Destruction and misery are in their ways ; Ond the ways of peace have they not known. There is no fear qf
ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 43
(lod before their eyes. The carnal mind ia enmity against Gnd for it is not subject to the law of Ood, neither indeed can be. — The whole world lieth in loickedness. — Among whom also we alt had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our fush, fulfilling the dc' sires of the fesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. — Those passages also which teach the necessity of regeneration. If men were not essentially depraved, a reformation might suffice : but if all be corrupt, the whole fab- ric must be taken down : Old things must pass away, and all things must become new.
Crispus. What evidence do you derive from history in favour of this doctrine ?
Gains. If our limits would allow us to survey the history of mankind, from their first apostacy to this day. the amount would go to prove what the scriptures affirm— that the whole earth lieth in wickedness. The circumstances and changes among mankind have been various. They have greatly differed in their manners, cus- toms, and religions : one age has established what another has de- molished ; in some ages they have been enveloped*in ignorance, in others irradiated by science ; but in all ages, and in all circamstan- ces.they have been alienated from the love of God.
Crispus. The history of the world, though it appear to favour the doctrine in question, yet seems to be too large and complicate an object to be viewed distinctly. Suppose you were to single out one nation as a specimen of the whole.
Gaius. Very well ; and suppose this one nation to have been attended above all others with mercies and judgments, divine laws, special interpositions, and every thing that could have any tenden- cy to meliorate the hearts of men.
Crispus. You seem to have in view the nation of Israel.
Gaius. I have ; and the rather because I consider this nation as designed of God to afford a specimen of human nature. The Divine Being smgled them out, crowned them with goodness, strengthened them with the tenderest encouragements, awed them with the most tremendous threatnings, wrought his wonderful works before their eyes, and inspired his servants to give us a faithful history of their character. I need not repeat what thix
44 ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
character is. Excepting the conduct of a few godly people amoi>g them, which, being the effect of divine grace, argues nothing against the doctrine in question, it is a series of rebellion and con- tinued departures from the living God.
Crispus. What additional evidence in favour of this doctrine do you derive from observation.
Gains. In looking into the composition of the human mind, we observe various passions and propensities ; and if we inspect their operations, we shall see in each a marked aversion from the true God, and from all true religion. For example : Man loves to think, and cannot live without thinking ; but he does not love to think of God ; God is not in alt his thoughts. Man delights in activitiff is perpetually in motion ; but has no heart to act for God. Men take pleasure in conversation, and are never more cheerful than when engaged in it ; but if God and religion be introduced, they are usually struck dumb, and discover an inclination to drop the subject. Men greatly delight in hearing and telling news ; but if the glorious news of the gospel be sounded in their ears, it frequently proves as unwelcome as Paul's preaching at Athens. In fine, Man feels the necessity of a God ; but has no relish for the true God. There is a remarkable instance of this in the con- duct of those nations planted by the king of Assyria in the cities of Samaria. They were consumed by wild beasts, and consider- ed it as an expression of displeasure from the god of the land. They wished to become acquainted with him, that they might please him. An Israelitish priest is sent to teach them the man- ner of the god of the land. But when he taught them the fear of Jehovah, his character and worship do not seem to have suited their taste ; for each nation preferred the worship of its own gods- 2 Kings xvii.
Critipus. What evidence do you draw in favour of this doc- trine from experience!.
Gains. The best of men whose lives are recorded in holy scripture, have always confessed and lamented the depravity of their nature ; and 1 never knew a character truly penitent, but he was convinced of it. It is a strong presumption against the CDptrary doctrine, that the light-minded and dissipated part of man-
ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
44
kind are generally its advocates ; while the humble, the serious, and the godly, as generally acknowledge, with the Apostle, that, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mindy they rsaere by na- ture ( hildren of wrath even as others.
Crispus. I have several more inquiries to make on this inter* esting subject, which I must defer till another opportunity.
DIALOGUE IX.
ON THE TOTAL DtT^AVnY OF HUMAN NATURE.
Gains, I think you said, Crispus, at the close of onr last COB- rersation, on the depravity of Human Nature, that you had sev- eral questions to ask upon the subject.
Crispus. I did so. No subject has appeared to me more interest- ing, or more pregnant with important consequences. The doctrine of total depravity, according to your own explication of it, seems to imply, that all that which is called in virtue in unregenerate men, is not virtue in reality, and contains nothing in it pleasing to God ; is no part of their duty towards him ; but, on the contra- ry, is of the very nature of sin.
Gains. And what if these consequences were admitted ? Crispus. I have not been used to consider things in so strong a light. I have generally thought that men are universally depra- ved ; that is, that all their powers, thoughts, volitions, and ac- tions, are tainted with sin ; but it never struck me before, that this depravity was total, so total as that all their actions are of the very nature of sin.
Gaius. You must admit that this was the doctrine embraced by the English Reformers. They tell us that " Works done be- fore the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his spirit, are not pleasing to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school authors say,) deserve grace of congruity : Yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin."* Crispus. True ; but I should have suspected that they had carried things rather to an extreme. There is something so aw- ful in the thought of a human life being one unmixed course of
* Article XIII of th« Church of England.
4S ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
evil ; so contrary to what appears in numberless chracters, wboDa Vfe cannot but respect for many amiable qualities, though they do not appear to be the subjects of true religion ; in a word, so dis- couraging to every effort for the attainment of any virtue short of real godliness, that my heart revolts at the idea
Gains. I am willing to examine every difficulty you can ad- vance. Before you raise your objections, however, your first in- quiry, I think, 0 iuht to be. Isi tiie ?
Crixpus. Very well ; proceed then to state your evidences.
Gains. The following are the principal evidences which oc- cur to me at present : (1.) All those passages of scripture cited in the last dialogue, which expressly teach it ; declaring that evert/ im is^ina^ion^ purpose, o: desire, of man'' s heart, is only evil con- tinually— that there is none that seekctk after God — tvery one fif them is gone back — they are altogether become filthy — 4 here is none that doeth good, no not one. (2.) Those scriptures which declare t e uit-r imp ssibihty of carnal m^^n doing any thing to please God ; such as — Without faith it is impossible to please God. To be carnally minded is death — because the co'nd mii-d is euniity against God: f >r it is not subject to the luio of G d, net her in- deed can be. So then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God.* If they that are in the flesh did any part of their duty towards God ; or if what they did were good and virtuous in his sight, so far as it goes ; their minds would so far be subject to the law of God : and being such, they might and would please him ; for God is not a capricious or hard master, but is pleased with righteous- ness wherever he sees it. (3.) Those scriptures which speak of the whole of goodness or virtue as comprehended in love ; name- ly, the love of God and our neighbour : — hove is the fnlfilling of the law. — Thou shalt love the hard thy God with all thine heart, with all thy soul, and zvith all thy mind, and with all thy strength^ and thy neighbour as thyself. If the love of God supremely, and the love of creatures subordinately, comprise the whole of vir- tue, where these are wanting, virtue can have no existence. And that these are wanting in all ungodly men is evident, for they have
* See this passage clealy illustrated, and the truth contained in it fully enforced, in two pieces in the Evangelical. Magazine for August and Decern- be;r^ 1793, pp. 72. 239.
ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 49
not the love of God in them ; and where God is not loved supreme- ly, creatures cannot be loved in subordination to him ; but are either disregarded, or regarded on some other account : sucli love therefore, has no virtue in it, but is of the nature of sin. (4.) Those scriptures which teach the necessity of regeneration to eternal life : — Ye must be born again. — Except n man be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of Gnd. — If any man be in Christ, he is anew creature : old things are pass- ed away, and all things are become new. If there were any de- gree of virtue in the carnal heart, or any thing that was pleasing to God, it might be cultivated and increased ; and in this case, old things need not pass away and all things become new. Regenera- tion would be unnecessary ; a mere reformation, or an improvement of principles already inherent in man, would suffice. (5.) Those scriptures which promise the blessings of salvation and eternal life to every degree of righteousness or true virtue : — All things work to- gether for good to them that love God . — Christ is the author ofeter' nal salvation to cdlthem that obey him. — He that doth riohtkous- KESS is righteous. They that have done good shall rise to the resur- rection of life. — He that gioeth a cup of cold water to a disciple, in THE NA5IE OF A DISCIPLE, (or bccause he belongs to Chrht,) shall have a disciple'' s reward. In these passages we must observe tha^ God's gracious declarations and promises are not made to this or that degree of goodness, but to every, or any degree of it : or rather, it is not the degree, but the nature of it that is considered in the divine promise. From hence we may certainly conclude, that un- regenerate men have not the least degree of real goodness in them, or of any thing that is pleasing to God.
Crispus. I must acknowledge there is much apparent force in these arguments, and I am not at present sufficiently prepared to encounter them ; but I have some strong objections in my mind, which I wish to have thoroughly discussed.
Gaius. With all my heart. Consider, Crispus, the force of what has been already alleged, and let me have your objections in the strongest light in which you are capable of arranging them.
Crihpus. 1 will endeavour to comply with your advice, and he result of it shall be the subject of a future discussion.
Vol iV. 7
LETTER I.
ON THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF HUMAN NATVBE.
[Crispus to Gaius.]
C n, July 3. 1794.
My dear Friend,
As providence has lately, by removing my situation, deprived me of the pleasure of your company, I hope that defect may be in some measure supplied by writing. The subject of our two last interviews, on the total depravity of human nature, has much occupied my attention. I feel it to be a fundamental principle in religion ; it is that, take it how we will, on which almost all other principles are founded. I have objections to your ideas of tliis doctrine, I confess ; and you desired me when we were last to- gether, to place them in the strongest light I was able. The principal things which have hitherto occurred to me may be re- duced to the following heads :-—
First : The scriptures appear to speak with approbation of some actions perfo»'med by unregenerate men, and even God him- self is represented as rewarding them. It appears to have been thus in the case of Ahab, when he humr>led himself; and the Ninevites when they repented at the preaching of Jon;ih ; as also in the case ef the young Ruler in the Gospel, whom our Lord is represented to have loved ; and the discreet scribe whom he as- sured that he was not far from the kin^^don: of heaven. Now, if all the actions of unregenerate men are of the nature of sin, these must have been so ; but if these were so, how are we to account for the favourable manner in which they wpre treated ?
Secondly : The common sense of mankind unites to attribute many excellencies and amiable qualities to pergons whom, never-
52 ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
theless, we are obliged, from other parts of their conduct, to con- sider as destitute of true religion. Is it not right and amiable, even m the sight of God, so far as it goes, that children are dutiful to their parents, and parents affectionate to their children ; that men are obedient to the laws, benevolent to the poor, faithful in their connexions, and just in their dealings ? And is it not evident to univer^^al observation that these are things which may be found in characters who, nevertheless, by other parts of their conduct, evince themselves to be strangers to true religion ?
Thirdly: Everyman is possessed of conscience, which bears witness to him in unnumbered instances of what is right and wrong; and this witness is known to have considerable influence even on wicked men, so as to impel them to the performance of many good actions, and to deter them from others which are evil.
Fourthly: If all the actions of unregenerate men be not only mixed with sin, but are in their own nature sinful, then whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, they sin against God : but eating and drinking, in moderation, appear to be mere natural ac- tions, and to have in them neither moral good, nor moral evil.
Lastly : If all the actions of unregenerate men be in their own nature sinful, surely there can be no ground for a ministerial ad- dress, no motive by which to exhort them to cease from evil and to do good ; nor any encouragement afforded them to comply with any thing short of what is spiritually good. It has been very com- mon for^jeven the advocates of salvation by free grace to distinguish between moral virtue and true religion : the former they have allowed to exist in a degree in unregenerate men, and have thought it their duty to encourage it, though at the same time they have insisted on the necessity of what is superior to it. But your ideas of total depravity would go to destroy this distinction, and render what has been usurdly called moral virtue, no virtue. " This," I remember an ingenious writer once observed, " is not orthodoxy, but extravagance." For my part, I would nor speak so strong; yet I cannot but say, you seem to carry things to an extreme. I am free to own, however, that I feel the difficulty of answering what you advanced in the last dialogue. Every truth is doubtless
ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 53
consistent with other truths. Happy should I be to obtaia satis- fiiciory :>nd consistent views on this important subject.
Some religious people to whom I have repeated the substance of our conversntions, do not at all appear to be interested by them. They seem to me to be contented with a confused and superficial view of things. I wish I could transfer my feelings (0 them. Did tliey but know the worth of just sentiments in religion, they would think no labour too great to obtain them. They seem to be averse to the pain which accompanies a state of hesitation and suspense, and therefore decline to examine all those ditficult subjects which would produce it. But then they are of course equally unac- companied with the pleasure which arises from the solution of these difficulties, and from obtaining clear and satisfactory views of divine subjects. Surely it were criminal indolence in us as well as meanness, if, rather than be at the trouble of drawing from a deep well, we are contented to sip muddy waters from any puddle that presents itself. Your answer to the above will much oblige
Yeur affectionate friend,
CRISPU^.
LETTER II.
ON THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF HUMAN NATURfc
[In reply to the objections of Crispus.]
K , Drc. 1794.
My dear Friend,
I RECEIVED yours with pleasure. It is quite agreeable to me to supply, as well as may be, the defect of personal intercourse by a free and friendly correspondence. Your thirst after truth is pleasing. Would to God we were all more of that temper which seeks for wisdom with the ardour of those wlio dig for hidden treas- ures ! I intend it not as a mere compliment, when I say, that you have stated your objections to the doctrine of total depravity, in as ilausible a manner as 1 ever recollect to have seen them. I will endeavour to give them all the weight they possess.
The point m dispute between us, you will observe, is, Whether an unregenerate sinner can be said to perform any part of his duty, or to obtain in any measure the ■'porobation of his Maker ? And I hope you will consider that this is, for substance, the same thing as, Whether the carnal mind be wholly enmity against God, or whether it be in any measure subject to the law of God, or indeed can be ? You allow, I think, that whatever excellencies such characters possess, the love of God is not in them, no, not in any degree. Their amiable qualities therefore, be tbey what they may, must be ■something quite distinct from love, or any of its ope- rations. But, as love is the fulfilling of the laTu, it must compre- hend the whole of moral excellence ; and consequently there can he no moral excellence in the sight of God without it.
56 ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
You Jirst reason from the cases of Ahab, the Ninevites, the young man whom our Lord is said to have loved, and. the scribe who was declared to be not far from the kingdom of heaven. In answer to which I would observe. Though the ^reat God know- eth the secrets of all hearts, yet in the government of the world he does not always proceed upon this principle. He has some- times thought fit to reward men for their actions, not because he approved of them as actions of theirs, but merely/ because they tended to subserve his own great and wise designs. God rewarded Nebuchadnezzar for his long siege against Tyre, by giving him the land of Egypt ; yet Nebuchadnezzar did nothing in this under- taking which in its own nature could approve itself to God. The only reason why he was thus rewarded was, that what he had done subserved the divine purposes in punishing Tyre for her insulting treatment towards the people of God.* God also rewarded Cyrus with the treasures of Babylon, the hidden riches of secret places, as they are called ;t not because Cyrus did any thing that was pleas- ing in his sight ; his motive was the lust of dominion : but because what he did, effected the deliverance of Judah, and fulfilled the divine predictions upon Babylon.
And as, in the great system of the divine government, actions may be rewarded which have no appearance of innate goodness ; so others may be rewarded which have such an appearance, even though it be nothing but appearance. God does not always avail himself of his omniscience, if 1 may so speak ; but proceeds upon the supposition that men are what they profess and appear to be. The end of Jehovah in punishing the person and the house of Ahab, was to make manifest his displeasure against their idola- tries. But if, when Ahab humbled himself, and rent his garments, God had j)roceeded towards him on the ground of his omnis- cience ; and, knowing him to be destitute of sincerity, had made no difference in his treatment of him, that end would not have been answered. For, whatever might be Ahah's motives, they were unknown to men : and if no difference had appeared in the divine treatment, they would have concluded that it was vain to
* Ezek. xxvi. 1—7. xxix. 17—20. + Isaiah xlv. 3.
ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 57
•erve God. h seemed good therefore to him, in the present life, to treat Ahah upon the suppo'^ition of his being sincere : and as to his insincerity, he will call him to account for that another day.
There is a case much resembling this of Ahab, in the history ot Abijah; the son of Rehoboam. In 2 Chron. xiii. we read of his wars with Jeroboam the son of Nebat, king of Israel, and how he addressed the apostate Israelites previously to the battle. Having re- proached them with forsaking the God of their fathers, and turning to idolatry, he adds, But as for us, Jehovah is our God, and we have not forsaken him: and the priests which minister unto Jehovah are the sons of Aaron, and the Levites wait upon their business : and they bring unto Jehovah, every morning and every evening, burnt sacriji- «es and sweet incense: the shew-b read alio set they in order upon the pure table, and the candlestick of gold, with the lampa thereof, to hum every evening : for we keep the charge of Jehovah our God ; but ye have forsaken him. And bihold. God himself is with us for our captain, and his priests with sounding trumpets to cry alarm against you. O ye children of Israel, fight ye not against Jehovah, God of your fathers ; for ye shall not prosper ! To all appear- ance this prince was zealous for Jehovah, God of Israel ; and one might suppose that the signal victory given him over Jeroboam was an expression of divine approbation : but if we turn to the account given of the same reign, in I Kings xv. we shall find that this Abijah, (or bijam, as he is there called,) was a wicked prince ; that, notwithstanding his boasting language when addressing Israel, he walked in all the sins of his father ; and that although God gave him a signal victory over the idolatrous Israelites, yet it was not for his sake, or out of regard to any thing he did ; but/or David's sake, and for the establishment of Jerusalem. His attachment to Jehovah was nothing better than pharisaical formality; and his boastings of the state of things in Jud:ih were no better than the swellings of spiritual pride : but God proceeded with him, not according to his principles, but according to his professions. His hypocrisy was known to God ; and he will appear to take cog- nizance of it in the day when he shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.
Vol. iV, 6
55 ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
Much the same tilings might be observed concerning the Nine- >vites. There might be many true penitents among them, for ou^ ht ^e know 5 but whether holy love or slavish fear was their motive, they professed and appeared to be humbled and discovered all the apparent fruits of repentance ; and as such it was manifestly an instance of divine wisdom, as tending to do honour to his own gov- ernment in the eyes of surrounding nations, to proceed with them upon the supposition of their repentance being sincere. The con- fessions and humihations of Pharaoh likewise were repeatedly followt^d by the removal of those judgments which appalled his proud spirit, and so occasioned them ; yet few will attribute good- ness to Phar:ioh. Not only the Divine Being, but Moses himself saw his insincerity, and bid him glory over him. God however would remove the judgment when he made confession, let his mo- tives he what they might, and even though he might laugh to him- self for having imposed upon Moses so fir as to gain his point.
The young man who came to Christ, appears to have been a conceited pharisee, who loved the present world, and not God ; and is represented by our Lord as being as far from entering into the kingdom of heaven, as a camel was from passing through the eye of a needle. The only difficulty arises from its being said, that the Lord beheld him, and loved him ; which may seem to im- ply at least a partial approbatipn of his character. But to this it may be answered : Our Lord was at this time acting in the charac- ter of a preacher, or instructor of men. His feelings towards the young man in question were much the same as ours would have been, had we been possessed of true benevolence, and in the same circumstances. Let the best man that ever existed be addressed in this manner ; let him behold a poor self deceived youth, flatter- ed by all around him for his seeming virtue, and flattering him- self with the hopes of heaven, while in reality he is a slave to the present world ; and let him, if he can, forbear to feel towards him like our Lord. He would tell him the truth, though it should send him away sad and grieved; but his heart would at the same time melt in compassion to his poor deluded soul. But this would imply no more of an approbation of his spirit or conduct than w,is
ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 59
included in our Lord's looking upon Jerusalem and weeping over it.
As to the scribe, who answered our Lord discreetly, and was assured that he was not far from the kingdom of God, read the pas- sa2;e, (Mark xii. 28 — 34.) and you will perceive that it was not in relation to his spirit or conduct that our Lord spake, for not a word is recorded of either; but merely of his confession of faith: That the love of God and manwas of more account than whole burnt-offerings or sacrifices. This doctrine was so true, and contained so much of the spirit of the gospel dispensation, that our Lord very properly assured this discreet inquirer, that he was notfarjrom the kingdom of God; that is, that the principles which he had avowed, if truly imbibed and properly pursued, would lead him into the very heart of Christianity.
The remainder of your objections I must take another opportu* nify to answer ; and at present subscribe myself
Your affectionate friend,
GAIUS.
LETTER in.
«N TIVS TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF HUMAN NATBRE.
[A further reply to the objections of Crispus.^
K , Feb, 9, 1795.
My dear Friend,
I TAKE up my pen to answer some other of your objections, as stated in yours of July 3, 1794. You not only reason from the case of Ahab, the Ninevites, &c. but, secondly, from the common sense of mankind, which attributes amiable qualities to persons whom nevertheless, on other accounts, we are obliged to consider as destitute of true religion But let me intreat you to consider whether the common sense of one man can take cognizance of the motives which govern the actions of another ; and whether there- fore it can be any competent judge of the acceptableness of bis ac- tions in the sight of God, who sees things as they are. All the morality in the world consists in the love of God and our neighbour. There is not a virtue, nor a virtuous action in being but what is aD expression of love ; yet, as there are niimberless actions which bear a likeness to those which arise from love, and as it is beyond the province of man to take cognizance of the heart, it is common for us to call those actions amiable which appear to be so, and which are beneficial to human society. It i^ fit we should do so ; otherwise we invade the province of the Supreme Being, who alone is able so to judge of actions as perfectly to ascertain their motives. He is the God of knowledge, by uhom actions are weigh- ed.
It is right, no doubt, that children should be dutiful to tbeii' parents, parents affectionate to their children, and that every rela-
(^ ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
tioD of life should be filled up with fidelity and honour. But these duties require to be discharged in the love of God, not without it : nor is there any duty performed, strictly speaking, where the love of God is wanting. Read those parts of Paul's epistles, where he exhorts to relative duties, and you will find that he admonishes children to obey their parents in the Lord ; parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ; servants to obey their masters in singleness of heart, as unto Christ ; and masters to be just and kind unto their servants, as having an eye to their master in heaven adding, And whatsoever ye do, do it hear- tily, as to the Lord, and not unto men. Now all those persons whose behaviour may appear to be amiable in such relations, but who have not the love of God in them, do what they do, merely a# unto men; and, consequently, fly in the face of the apostolic exhor- tation, instead of complying with it, even in the least degree.
It may me asked, If a merely external compliance with relative duties be a sin, would the omission of them be any better? I an- swer, No ; but worse. There are as has been allowed before^ diflferent degrees of sin. To perform an action which tends to the good of society from a wrong motive, is sin ; but to neglect to per- form it, or to perform one of an opposite tendency, is a greater sin. In the one case we sin against God ; in the other, against both God and our neighbour.
Thirdly : You allege, that " every man is possessed of con- science, which bears witness to him in numberless instances of what is right and wrong ; and this witness is known to have con- siderable influence even on wicked men, so as to impel them to the performance of many good actions, and to deter them from others which are evil." To this I answer, (1 .) Conscience though necessary to the performance of both good and evil, does not par- take of either the one or the other. Conscience is that branch of the intellectual faculty which takes cognizance of the good and evil of our own actions ; but is itself distinct from both. It is sim'» pie knowledge, essential indeed to moral agency, being one of the principal things by which we are distinguished from the brute cre- ation ; but, as all duty is contained in love, good and evil must con- sist entirely in the temper or disposition of the heart ; and the
ON HUiMAN DEPRAVITY. (J3
loere dictates of conscience including no such dispositions, neither good nor evil can, strictly speaking, be predicated of them. Nei- ther men nor devils will ever cease to possess consciences, wit- nessing to them what is good and evil, even in a world of misery, when, as all must allow, they will be utterly destitute of virtue or goodness. We read, it is true, of a good conscience, and an evil conscience, of a conscience seared as with a hot iron, &c. and so we read of an evil eye, of eyes full of adultery that cannot cease from sin: but, as there is neither good nor evii in the sight of the eye, only as it is under the influence of the temper or disposition of the soul, so neither is there in the dictates of conscience. If there be any virtue or goodness in wicked men, it consists not in their knowledge of the difference between good and evil ; but with complying with the one, and avoiding the other. — (2.) That compliimce with the dictates of conscience of which wicked men are the subjects, has nothing of the love of God in it ; and consequently no real virtue. While conscience suggests what is duty, a variety of motives may induce men to comply with it, or rather with those actions which are usually the expressions of it ; such as, self-interest, a sense of honour, the fear of reproach in this world, and of divine wrath in another : and while they act in this manner, they are considered as acting conscientiously ; but if love be the fulfilling of the late, where love is wanting, the law is not fultilled ; no, not in the least degree.
Fourthly : You allege that *' if all the actions of unregenerate men be not only mixed with sin, but are in their own nature sinful, then, whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, they sii^ against God : but that eating and drinking in moderation appear to be natural actions, and contain neither moral good nor moral evil." When I affirm that all the actions of unregenerate men are sinful, I would be understood by actions to mean all voluntary ex- ercises, and which are capable of being performed to a good end. W^hatever is capable of being so performed is not a mere natural, but a moral actioti. That eating and drinking, and every other voluntary exercise, are moral actions, is evident ; for we are ex- horted, whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, to do all to the glory of God. In an irrational being, it is true, these wouW
64 ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
be mere Batural actions ; but in a moral agent they are not s©; and the manner in which they are attended to renders them either good or evil. Every rational creature performs these actions either to the glory of God, (that is, that he may be strengthened to serve the Lord, and do good in his generation,) or he does not. If he do, they are virtuous ; if not, there is a criminal defect in the end of them : and, as the end or intent of an action is that which determines its nature, that which otherwise would have been lawful and laudable becomes sinful. To plow the soil is as much a natural action as eating and drinking; yet, as all such ac- tions are performed by wicked men for mere selfish purposes, without any regard to God and the general good, they become sinful in the sight of God ; and hence we read that the plowing of the w.cked is sin.
Lastly : You allege, (hut '' if these principles be true, there can be no ground for a ministerial address ; no motive by which to ex- hort unregenerate men to cease from evil, and do good ; nor any encouragement for them to comply with any thing short of what is spiritually good." If you mean to say that ministers, on this account, can entertain no well founded hope of success from the pliability of men's hearts, I fully grant it. Our expectations must rest upon the power and promise of God, and these alone, or we shall be disappointed. But if you mean to suggest that therefore all addresses to unregenerate sinners, exhorting them to dj good, are unreasonable, this is more than can be admitted. If a total depravity would take away all ground for a rational address, a par' iial one would take it away in part ; and then in proportion as we see men disinclined to goodness, we are to cease warning and ex- postulating with them ! But this is self-evident absurdity. The truth is, while men are rational beings they are accountable for all they do, whatever be the inclination of their hearts ; and so long as they are not consigned to hopeless perdition, they are the sub- jects of a gospel address. Nor can it be affirmed with truth, that there are no motives for them on which they can be exhorted to cease to do evil, or learn to do well : the motives to these things «xist in all their native force, independently of the inclination or disinclination of their hearts to comply with them. Nor is the
ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 63
«e of them in the Christian ministry thereby rendered improper: on the contrary, it is highly necessary ; as much so as it is for the sun to keep his course, and sfo on to shine, notwithstanding it may prove the occasion of a filthy dunghill emitting a greater stench. If any means be adapted to do good to wicked men, they are such as tend to fasten conviction upon them ; but there is no mean more adapted to ;his end than putting them upon trial. A sinner is exhorted to repent and beheve in Christ — he feels hardened in insensibility — he cannot repent — he has no desire after Christ. A consciousness of this kind, if it operate according to its native tendency, will lead him to reflect, ' What a state must I be in ! Invited to repent and believe in Christ for the salvation of my soul, and cannot comply ! Mine, surely, is the very heart of aa infernal !' Let a sinner be brought to such a state of mind, and there is some hope concerning him.
You seem to feel sorry that there should be no encouragement held out to sinners to comply with any thing but what is spiritually good ; and many who have sustained the character of Christian ministers have telt the same ; and, considering that poor sinners cannot comply with duties of this kind, have contented themselves with exhorting them to things with which they can comply, and still retain their enmity against God. But what authority have they for such a conduct ? When did Christ or his apostles deal in such compromising doctrine ? Repentance toward God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ were the grand articles on which they insisted. So far from hesitating to exhort their carnal audi- tors to what was spiritually good, it may be safely affirmed, that
THEY NEVER EXHORTED THEM TO ANY THING ELSE. It WOuld liave
been unworthy of God, and of his servants, to require any thing short of the heart, or its genuine expressions.
To conclude : The following supposition may serve to illus- trate the foregoing subject. A ship's company rise against their officers, put them in chains, and take the command of the ship upon themselves. They agree to set the officers ashore on some unin- habited island, to sail to some distant port, dispose of the cargo, and divide the amount. After parting wiih their officers, they
Vol.. ir. 9
6(B &N HUMAN DEPRAVITY,
fiDd it Decenary, for the sake of self preservation, to establish some kind of laws and order.
To these they adhere with punctuality, act upon honour with respect to each other, and propose to be very impartial in the dis- tribution of their plunder. But, while they are on their voyage, one of the company relents, and becomes very unhappy. They inquire the reason. He answers, ' We are engaged in a wicked cause !' They plead their justice, honour, and generosity to each other. He denies that there is any virtue in it : ' Nay, all our equity, while it is exercised in pursuit of a scheme which violates the great law of justice, is itself a species of iniquity !' — ' You talk extravagantly ; surely we might be worse than we are if we were to destroy each other as well as our officers.' — ' Yes, wickedness admits of degrees ; but there is no virtue or goodness in all our doings ; all has arisen from selfish motives. The same principles which led ns to discard our officers would lead us, if it were not for our own sake, to destroy each other.* — * But you speak so very discouraging ; you destroy all motives to good order in the ship : what would you have us do V — ' Repent, return to our injure©
OFFICERS AND OWNERS, AND SUBMIT TO MERCY !' ' O, but this We
cannot do : advise us to any thing which concerns the good order of the ship, and we will barken to you I' — ' I cannot bear to advise in these matters ! Return, return, and submit to mercy !' Such would be the language of a true penitent in this case ; and such should be the language of a christian minister to sinners who have cast off the government of God.
I am affectionately yours.
L.ETTEH IV.
COIfSEQUBNCKS RKSULTING FROM THE DOCTRINE OF HUMAN Btr
?RAVITY.
[From Crispus to Gaius.}
C n, March 9, 1795.
My dear Friend^
Your last two letters have occupied much of my attention, 1 confess I feel the force of the argument ; and though there are difficulties in my mind which I scarcely know how to state m form, yel 1 must ingenuously confess that the grand objections which I advanced are answered. The subject is more interesting to me than ever : it affects all the great doctrines of the gospel. My thoughts have already been at work upon its consequences. I could wish, after having discussed the subject, we could examine its bearings on the different systems which are embraced in the religious world. With your leave, I will mention a few of those consequences which have struck my mind as resulting from it ; and shall be obliged to you for your opinion of their propriety, and the addition of any thing wherein you may perceive me defect- ive.
First : If your views be just, I perceive that all mankind, with- out any distinction of sober and profligate, are utterly lost, ANn ABSOLUTELY IN A PERISHING CONDITION. All men wiU ac- knowledge that they are si7iners ; that they have broken Gods commandments, most or all of them, in thought or in deed, at one time or other ; and that the best of their works have their iraper- fectioDS. But such acknowledgements are seldom expreisive •f
(38 ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
any deep concern. On the contrary, it is common for men, while they speak thus, to discover a spirit of indifference, supported by a kind of hope ihafGod will pardon a few sins, and make up for a few imperfections ; otherwise, they say, he must keep heaven to himself. Buu if your views be just, their whole life has been one tininterrupted course of foul revolt and abominable apostasy ; and the irregularities of their lives bear no more proportion to the whole of their depravity, than the particles of water which are occasionally emitted from the surface of the ocean to the tide that rolls beneath. Nor is there any propriety in men of thi» description acknowledging their imperfections : imperfections re- late to a standard, and imply an habitual aim to conform to it. Such lang'iage is properly applied to the righteous, the best of whom fall short of the mark ; but the life of wicked men is, in one shape or other, an uninterrupted course of evil.
Secondl}( ; If your viewi« be just, they seem to afford a pre- sumptive, if not more than presumptive proof of oub need of a Saviour ; and not of a Saviour only, but of a orkat one ! I d* not know whether 1 can exactly trace the operation ot these prin- ciples, or their opposites, in the human mind ; but this I know, it is a fact sufficiently notorious, that those professors of Christianity who reject the proper Deity and atonement of Christ, at the same time entertain very diminutive notions of their own depravity. I have known manv persons, who. as soon as they have begun to lean towards the Socinian, Arian, or Arminian systems, have dis- covered an inclination to treat this doctrine with contempt. Those people, on the other hand, who have sat under such preaching as has led them to entertain low thoughts of Christ and the grace of the gospel, if at some period of their life they have been convin- ced of their guilty and perishing state as sinners against God, they have soon given up their other notions, and embraced the deity and atonement of Christ with all their hearts, and that with but little if any persuasion on the part of their friends. Nor does this appear very difficult to be accounted tor : as the whole need no phij- sician, but those that are sick; so it is natural to suppose, that in proportion as a person feels the depth and danger of his malady.
ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 69
be will estimate the necessity, the value, and the efficacy of the remed}'.
Thirdly : If your views be just, I perceive that the work of turning a sinner's heart must be altogether of God, and of free grace. If a sinner could return to God of his own accord, oi even by divine influence helping or aasisti^g him, it must be upon the supposition of hi* having some will wish, or desire to set about it. But if men are totally alienated from God, all desire after him roust be extinc* ; and all the warnins^s, invitations, or expostulations of the word will be ineffectual : yea, divine influence itself will be insufficient, if it falls short of renewing; the heart. We have heard much of late concernino^ political regeneration. It has been warm- ly contended by many in behalf of the change which has taken place in a neighbouring nation, that things were too bad for a mere reformation; and that therefore regeneration was necet^sary. However that be, is it not on these principles that we are told, Ye must be born again. Old things must pass away, and all things must become new ? If men be so depraved as you suppose, the ne cessity of a divine and entire change must be indubitably evident. Fourthly : If your views be just, the doctrine of fee or uncoti' (iitional election may be clearly demonstrated, and proved to be a dictate of right reason. If men be utterly depraved, they lie entirely at the discretion of God, either to save, or not to save them. If any are saved, it must be by an act of tree grace. If flome are brought to believe in Christ, while others continue in unbelief, (which accords with continued fact,) the difference be- tween them must be altogether of grace. But if God make a dif- ference in time, he must have determined to do so from eternity : for to suppose God to act without a purpose is depriving him of wisdom ; and to suppose any new purpose to arise in his mind, would be to accuse him of mutability. Here, therefore, we are landed upon election — sovereign unconditional election. And does not this accord with the holy scriptures ? — You hath he quickened tcho were dead in trespasses and sins : wherein, in limes past ye walked aecording to the course of this world, according to the spir- it that now worketh in the children of disobedience. Among whom, also, we all had our conversation in times past, fulfilling the de- ttres of the flesh and of the mind ; and were by nature the ckH-
To ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
dren of wrath even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he lotted us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ. By grace are ye saved! — J will have mercy on whom J will have mercy ; and will have com,' passion on whom I will have compassion ! — He hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling ; not according to our works, but ac- cording to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.
Fifthly: If your views be just, the Justif cation of sinners by the work of their hands utterly (i\\\s to the ground. The founda- tion on which sinners in general build their hopes is something like this : They have more virtue than vice, more good works than evil ones : that, as none are without fault, (and which they conceive affords a good excuse for them,) God will not be strict to mark iniquity ; but will weigh the good against the evil, and so balance the account ! But if all the works of unregenerate sin- ners be of the nature of sin, there is an end to all hope of being accepted of God on their own account. When ministers have en- deavoured to dissuade sinners from a reliance on their own right- eousness, I have heard them reason to this effect : ' Your good deeds are all mixed with evil, and therefore cannot be acceptable to God.' This I acknowledge is just, and that the least mixture of sin is an eternal bar to our being justified by our own righteous- ness : but methinks if they could have alleged that all their works were essentially and entirely evil, their arguments must have been more effectual, as to the cutting up of self-righteous hopes. And such a doctrine would leave no room for the supposition of Christ dying to render our imperfect but sincere obedience ac- ceptable to God, instead of that which is perfect : for, in this case, the idea of imperfect sincere endeavours in unregenerate men is inadmisible — there are no such endeavours in existence.
These things 1 hare been used to believe in time past ; but if the principle in question be admitted, 1 tind such solid grounds on which to rest them, as 1 never felt before. I shall leave you to conclude the subject and remain
Affectionately yours,
CRISPUS.
LETTER V.
•ONSEQUSmES RR8ULTING PROM THE BOCTRINK OF HUMAN OF.
PRAVITV.
[From Gaius to Crispus.]
K , Aprils, 1795.
My dear Friend,
If any thing 1 have advanced in the course of our correspon- dence has been of use to you, I am satis^fied. The inferences which you have drawn from the doctrine of total depraviti/, as far a? they go, appear to me to be just. I shall offer a few others in addition to them : and as 1 have some other necessary employ- ments which require my attention, you will excuse me, if I pro- pose with these, for the present, to close our correspondence.
Your inferences relate to the bearings of the doctrine of total depravity on the Socinian and Arminian schemes ; mine shall concern what I should call the Pseudo-Calvinistic scheme, or that view of the doctrines commonly called Calvinistical, which indu- ces many, in the present day, to disapprove of all exhortations to sinners, except to merely external obedience, or things which con- tain in them nothing truly or spiritually good. If the foregoing principle be just, three things at least will follow ; namely — that the distinction between moral virtue and true religion has less foundation in truth than is commonly supposed — that men in gen- eral are either obliged to perform spiritual actions, or allowed to live in sin and perform sinful actions — and that we ought not, as ministers, so to compromise matters with God's enemies, as to ex- hort them to merely external services. Let us particularly exam- ine these consequences. They will be found to be aaore than a lit- tle interesting.
72 ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
First : Let us inquire, whether the distinction between moral virtue and true religion be founded in truth. It is true, the term religion includes more than that of morality ; as it is applied to doctrine as well as practice, and to the performance of things pos- itive as well as moral : but if genuine morality be supposed to ex- ist without true religion, such a supposition I conceive to be un- founded. It is allowed that what is commonly called morality, is very diflferent from true religion ; because much that goes by this name is not morality, nor any thing truly virtuous. Nothing is morality, strictly speaking, but that which is in some degree a- conformity to the moral law ; and nothing contains the least degree of conformity to the moral law, unless it include the love ofGod and our neighbour. There is, therefore, no such thing as morality in wicked men. On the contrary, the carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the laxa of God, neither indeed can be. That which constitutes the essence of genuine morality, namely, the love of God and man, contains the sum of practical religion. Repentance, faith, and every species of obedience, are but different modifications of love. If we love God, we cannot but repent of having offended and dishonoured him. If we love God in his true character, and bear genuine benevolence to man, we cannot but love a Saviour, and embrace a salvation which pro- claims glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, and good will to men. The rejection of Christ by the Jews afforded a proof that they had not the love of God in them. If we love God, we shall love his image in those that are born of him. In fine ; if we love God, we shall keep his commandments, and his commandments will not be grievous.
It is common for professed Infidels, and other enemies to true re- ligion, to cry up morality as something opposed to it ; and hence, it may be, some have thought proper to cry it down : yea, many, who by their practice have proved themselves friendly to a holy life, have yet, on this account it should seem, found it necessary so to distinguish between morality and religion as to represent the former as something very inferior in its nature to the latter. But it ought to be considered, that the morality on which the enemies of true religion love to dwell is of a sptirioas kind: it does not
ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 73
consist in the love of God in his true character, or of men in such a w:iy as to rejoice in wh;it contributes to their grenfest good. It is H morality essentially defective ; it leaves God and religion out of the question, and is confined to what are called the social vir- tues, or things which every man in his dealings with men finds it his interest to promote. When we hear such characters cry up moralitVi instead of coliily admitting it to be a very good thing in its place, and insi>iting that reliirion is something of an entirely difi'erent nature, we ought cordially to allow the importance of genuine mo- rality, and insist upon it, that if this were attended to, true reli- gion could not be nenlected. Such characters would then discov- er their dislike to our morality, as much as they now do to what is called religion. Such a statement of matters, though it might grate i»u their inclinations, must, however, approve itself to their consciences. Every man feels him«elf obliged to act upon the principles of morality. Let us then drive home that point in which we have their consciences on our side : let us say with the poet,
"Talk they of moral?, O thou hleedins: love !
The grand morality is of love of Thee !"
While you speak of religion as something entirely distinct frona morality, such a character will rest contentedly in the neglect of the one, and think himself happy inasmuch as you allow him to be possessed of the other. But could you prove to him that morali- t}', if genuine, would comprise the love of God, of Christ, of the gospel, and of (he whole of true religion, it would implant a thorn ^n his bosom, which he would find it difficult to extract.
Secondly : If the foregoing principles be true, it will follow that men in general are either obliged to perform spiritual actions, or allowed to live in sin, and perform sinful actions. In the volunta- ry actions of a rational creature, there is no medium between what is good and well pleasing, and what is evil and offensive in the sight of God. All our actions are, in some mode or other, ike expressions of love, or they are not. If they are, they are spir- itually good ; they are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, if it be done t9
Vol. IV. 10
74 ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
the glory of God, this is godliness. The actions performed may be simply naturHl, but the end to which they are directed, and which determines their quality, denominates them spiritual. On the other hand : If they are not, there is no possibility of their be- ing any other than sinful. The want of love is itself a sin ; it is a sinful defect relating to principle ; and whatever is done otherwise than as an expression of love, let it wear what face it may, it is a sinful action. We ourselves esteem nothing in a fellow-creature which is not in some mode or other the expression of love. If a wife were ever so assiduous in attend! ig to her husband, yet if he •were certoin that her heart was not with him, he would abhor her endeavours to please him, and nothing that she did would be ac- ceptable in his sight.
Instead of its being a question, whether God requires any thing of carnal men which is spiritu;dly good ; it is evident, both from scripture and the natureof things, that hereq,uires nothing but "WHAT IS so. It has been rJleged, that the obedience which God required of Israel by the Sinai covenant was merely external, and did not extend to the heart. Their government, it is said, was a theocracy : God ?xted towards them under the character of a civil governor ; and if so, it is supposed he must forbear to take cogni- zance of the heart, which is beyond the province of creatures to inspect. That God acted towards Israel as a civil governor is ad- mitted ; and that it belongs not to a civil governor, in his executive capacity, to take cognizance of the heart, is also admitted. In the bestowment of rewards and punishments, he must act from what is apparent in the lives of men, having no other medium by which to judge of the temper of their hearts : but it is not so with respect to legislation, or the formation of the laws. No civil government upon earth will allow its subjects to hate it in their hearts, provi- ded they do but carry it fair in their conduct. The spirit of all laws, in all nations, requires men to be sincere friends to their country; but as there is no medium for mortals to judge of the heart but that of an overt act, it is fit that this should be the established rule for the dispensation of rewards and punishments. It was |bus, I conceive, in the government of God over Israel. Every precept contained in the Sinai covenant required the heart, or.
ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY. "f^
which is the same thing, some genuine expression of it ; but under its administrilion punishments were not always inflicted, nor re- wards conferred, according to what men re;dly were, but what they appeared to be, or according to the judgment which would have been pronounced had a fellow-creature sat in judgment upon them. It was on this principle that Ahab'.* punishment was aver- ted on his humbling himself before God. So far was the divine Legislator from rcfjuir^ng mere external obedience by the Sinai covenant, that the grand preliminary to that covenant was this : If ye mill obey my voice in'beed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall he a peculiar tr' nxure unto me above >ili y> ople. And what is mean^^ by obeying his voice indeed, is sufficiently evident, by the subse- quent addresses of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and others ; in many of which it is observable, that thougli the blessings promised were external, yet the proviso on which the promises were made was nothing less than a heart sincerely devoted to God: If ye will hearken diligently unto my commandments, tu love the Lord YOUR God, .*nd to serve him with all your heart and with ALL YOUR SOUL, / icill give you t'te ruin of your land in his season ; the first rain and the latter rain, th it thou may(.st gather in thy corn and thy wine, and thine oil. — Take heed to yourselves, that your HEART BE NOT DECEIVED, and ye turn aside, and net vc other gods ; and then the Lord's wrath be kinaled again:,/ you, and he shut up the heaven that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit, nd lesl ye perish quickly from off the good land which the Lord giveth ynu.-Take dilig'ut heed to do the commandmtnts which Moses the servant f the Lord charged you, to love the Lord YOUR God, and to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto
HIM, and to SKRVE HI3I WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL
YOUR SOUL. — Only fear the Lord, and serve him in troth, WITH ALL YOUR HEART ; for cousidsr what great things he hath done for you. If ea;#erno/ obedience were all that God required by the Sinai covenant, why was he not satisfied with the goodly pro- fessions which they made during that solemn transaction,saying. All these things will we do ; and wherefore did he utter that cutting exclamation, O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might he well icith them and their children for ever'
76 ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
Lastly : H the foree;oing principles be just, instead of being a question whether ministers should exhort their caruRl h iditors to any thing spiritually good, it deserves to be seriou>ly considered,
WHETHEa IT BE NOT AT THEIR PERIL TO EXHORT THEM TO ANV
THING SHORT OF IT. — If all duty consists in the genuine operations at r rxpressi(iiS of the heart, it must be utterly wrong for minis- ters to compromise matters with the enemies of God, by exhort- ing them to mere external actions, or to such a kind of exercise as mijj L>e performed without the love of God. It is disloyalty to God ; betrayini>; his just authority over the heart, and admitting that in behalf of him which we should despise if ofi'ered to our- selves from a fellow-creature. Nor is it less injurious to the souls of men ; as it tends to quiet their consciences, and to cherish an opinion th it, having complied with many of the exhortations of their minister, they have done many things pleasing and acceptable to God : while, in fact, every tkought and imagination of thtir heart has been only evil continually.
It may be thought that these things bear hard upon the uncon- verted sinner, and reduce him to a t.nihie situation. But if such in fict be his situation, it will not meid the matter to daub it with the untempered mortar of palliation : on the contrary, it will ren- der it still more terrible. The truth is, there is no way for a sinner to take, in which he can tind solid rest, but that of returning home to God by Jesus Christ. And, instead of trying to render his situ' atioo easy, it ought to be our business as ministers, to drive him from every other resting place ; not for the sake of plunging him into despair, but, if it please God to bless our lal'ours. that he may be necessitated lo betake himself to the ^oorf old way, and find rest unto his soul ! We ought solemnly to assure him, that, do what else he will, he sins, and is heaping upon his head a load of guilt thKt will sink him into endless perdition. If he pray, or frequent the means of grace, his prayer is an abomination to the Lord; if he live in the omission of these things, it is worse. Whether he eat or drink, plow the soil, or gather in the harvest, (like the supposed ship's company, mentioned before, who with all theii' regularity continued in their rebellious course,) all is ini- quity. Incense is an abomination ; it is iniquity, even the solemn
ox HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 77
meeting. To die, is to be plunged into the gulf of destruction ; and to live, if he continue in ennaity to God, is worse ; as it is heapinj; up wrath, in an enlarged degree, against the day of wrath. What then, it will he nskod, can sinners do? if they go for- ward, de^tnJction is before them ; if on this hand, or on that, it is the same. Whither can they go ? and what must they do ? All the answer which the scriptures warrant us to make is included in the warnings and invitations of the gospel : — Repent, and believe the gospel. — Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out. — Believe in the Lord Jesus Chrixt. and than shalt be saved. — Deny thyself, take %tp thy cross, and follow me, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.^ If the answer be, ' We cannot comply with these things ; our hearts are too hard ; advise us to any thing else, and we will hearken ;' — if this, or something like it, I say, should be the answer, the servant of God, having warned them that what they call their incapacity is no other than a wicked aversion to God and goodness, t'^at they judge themselves unworthy of ever- lasting life, and that their blood will be upon their own heads, — must there leave them. His soul may weep in secret places for them ; but it is at his peril to compromise the matter. If, seeing they cannot find in their hearts to comply with the invitations of the gospel, he should off-r any directions which imply that their inabdity is of such o kind as to afford them any excuse ; any direc- tions which imply that it is not their immediate duty to repent and return to God by Jesus Christ ; any directions which may descend within the compass of their inclinations ; let him look to it ! They maybe pleased with his advice, and comply with it ; and, consid- ering it as about the whole of what can reasonably be expected of them in their present circumstances, they may be very easy ; and persisting in such a spirit, they may die in it, and perish for ever ;
%VT THBIR BLOOD WILL SURELY BE REQUIRED AT HIS HAND !
I am, my dear friend,
Your? very affectionately,
GAIUS,
THREE CONVERSATIONS,
OS
IMPtFTATlON, SUBSTITUTION, AND PAR- TICULAR UEDJtxViPilOJN.
CONVERSATION 1.
ON IMPUTATIOIC,
Peter and James considered each other as good men, and had for several years been in the habit of corresponding on di- vine subjects. Their respect was mutual. Their sentiments, however, though alike in the main, were not exactly the same ; and some circumstances had lately occurred, which tended rather to magnify the difference than to lessen it. Being both at the house of John, their common friend, in his company they fell into the following conversation.
I am not without painful apprehension, said Peter to John, that the views of our friend Janes on some of the doctrines of the gos- pel, are unhappily diverted fron the truth I suspect he does not believe in the proper imputation ofsin to Christ, or of Christ's right- eousness to us ; nor in his being our substitute, or representative.
John. Those are serious things ; but what are the grounds, Brother Peter, on which your suspicions rest ?
Peter. Partly what he has published, which I cannot reconcile with those doctrines ; and partly what he has said in my hearings which 1 consider as an avowal of what 1 have stated.
«0
dN IMPUTATION.
John. What say you to this, Brother James ?
James. I cannot tell whether what I have written or spoken ac- cords with Brother Peter's ideas on these subjects : indeed I sus- pect it does not : but I never thought of calling either of the doc- trines in question. Were I to relinquish the one or the other, I should be at a loss for ground on which to rest my salvation. What he says of my avowing my disbelief of them in his hearing must be a misunderstanding. I did say, I suspected that his views of impu- tation and substitution were unscriptural ; but had no intention of disowning the doctrines themselves.
Peter. Brother James, I have no desire to assume any dominion oveFyour faith ; but should be glad to know what are your ideas on these important subjects. Do you hold that sin was properly imputed to Christ, and that Christ's righteousness is properly im- puted to us or not ?
James. You are quite at liberty, Brother Peter, to ask me any questions on these subjects ; and if you will hear me patiently, I will answer you as explicitly as I am able.
John. Do so, Brother James ; and we shall bear you, not only patiently, but, 1 trust, with pleasure.
James. To impute, (at^n ; Xo/i'^o/xai ) signifies, in general, to charge, reckon, ov place to account, accordmg to the different ob- jects to which it is applied. This word, like many others, has a proper and an improper, or figurative meaning.
First : It is applied to the changing, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things, that which properly bklongs to THEM. This 1 consider as its /)ro/jer meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages : Eli thought she (Hannah) had been drunken. — Hanan and Mattaniah, the treasurers, were counted faithful. — Let a ma/i so account of us as the viinititers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. — Let such an one THINK this, that such as we are in word by letters when we are ab- sent, such will we be also indeed when we are present. — /reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us. Reckoning, or accounting, in the above instances, is no other than judging of persons and things according to what they ttre, or appear t» be. T« impute sin
ON BIPUTATIO.V. gj
in this sense is to chart^e guilt upon the guilty in a judicial way, «i« with a view to punishment. Thus Shimei besought David that his iniquity might not be imputed to him ; thus the man is pronoua- ced blej^sed to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity ; and thus Paul prayed that the sin of those who deserted him might not he laid to their charge.
In this sense the term is ordinarily used in common life. To impute treason or any other crime to a man, is the same thing als charging him with having committed it, and this with a view to hfs being punished.
Secondly : It is applied to the charging, reckoning, ot placing t* tJie aceount of persons and things, that which does not properly BELONG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DIB. This I consider as its inj.- proper, or figurative meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages : And this your heave-qff'erings shall be RECKONED unto you AS THOUGH IT WERE the corn of the threshing' jloor, and as the fulness of the wine-press. — Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and holvest me for thine enemy. — If the uncircumcision keep the righfcousncss of thf lajv, shall not his uncircumcision be COUNTED ^br circumcision. — If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee
ought, PUT THAT ON MINE ACCOUNT.
It is in this latter sense that 1 understand the term when applied to justification. Abraham believed God, and it -was counted wUq him for righteousness. — To him that worketh not, but believetk qn him that justijieth the ungodly, his faith is covaruD for righteous.- ness. The counting, or reckoning, in these instances, is not a judging of things as they are ; but as they are not as though they were. 1 do not think that faith here means the righteousness ©f the Messiah : for it is expressly called believing. It means be- lieving, however, not as a virtuous exercise of the mind which God consented to accept instead of perfect obedience ; but as hai> ing respect to the promised Messiah, and so to his righteousness tfs the ground of acceptance.* Justification is ascribed to faith, as healing frequently is in the New Testament ; not as that from
* See Calrin's Institutes, Book III. Chap. XI. { 7, Al."^ my ExprciThry Discourses on Genesis Chap. xv. 1 — 6. Vol. IV. 11
82 ON IMPUTATION.
which the virtue proceeds, but as that which receives from the Saviour's fulness.
But if it were allowed that faith in these passages really means the object believed in, still this was not Abraham's ozon righteous- ness, and could not be properly counted by him who judges of things as they are, as being so. It was reckoned uuto him as if it "were his : and the effects, or benefits, of it were actually imparted to him : but this was all. Abraham did not become meritorious, or cease to be unworthy.
*' What is it to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ," says Calvin, '' but to affirm that hereby only we are ac- cown^ec? righteous ; because the obedience of Christ is imputed to
us AS IF IT WERE OUR OWN."*
It is thus also that I understand the imputation of sin to Christ. He was accounted, in the divine administration, as if he were or had been the sinner, that those who believe in him might be ac- counted as if they were or had been righteous.
Brethren, I have done. Whether my statement be just, or not, I hope it will be allowed to be explicit.
John. That it certainly is ; and we thank you. Have you any other questions. Brother Peter, to ask upon the subject ?
Peter, How do you understand the Apostle in 2 Oor. v. 21. He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin^ that roe might he made the righteousness of God in him ?
James. Till lately I cannot say that I have thought closely upon it. 1 have understood that several of our best writers consider the word a;xap<na (s?'«,) as frequently' meaning a sin-offering. Dr. Owen so interprets it in his answer to Biddle, (p. 510.) though it seems he afterwards changed his mind. Considering the opposi- tion between the sin which Christ was made, and the righteous- ness which we are made, together with the same word being used for that which he was made, and that which he knew not, 1 am in- clined to be of the Doctor's last opinion ; namely, that the sin which Christ was made, means sin itself, and the righteousness which we are made, means righteousness itself, I doubt not but
•-" Institutes, Book, III. Chsp. XF. { 23.
ON IMPUTATION. 83
that the allusion is to the sin-offering under the law ; but not to its being made a sacrifice. Let me be a little more particular. There were two things belonging to the sin offering. First : The imputation of the sins of the people, signified by the priest's lay- ing his handg upon the head of the animal, and confessing over it their transgressions ; and which is called '• putting them upon it:" that is, it was counted, in the divine administration, as if the animal had been the sinner, and the only sinner of the nation. Secondly : Offering it in sacrifice, or " killing it before the Lord for an atone- ment." Now the phrase made sin, in 2 Cor, r. 21. appears to re- fer to the^rsf step in this process in order to the last. It is ex- pressive of what was preparatory to Christ's suffering death rath- er than of the thing itself, just as our being made righteousness ex- presses what was preparatory to God's bestowing upon us eter- nal life. But the term made is not to be taken literally ; for that would convey the idea of Christ's being really the subject of mor- al evil. It is expressive of a divine constitution^ by which our Redeemer, with his own consent, stood in the sinner's place, as though he had been himself the transgressor ; just as the sin-offer- ing under the law was, in mercy to Israel, reckoned or accounted to have the sins of the people " put upon its head :" with this dif- ference ; that was only a shadow, but this went really to take away sin.
Peter. Do you consider Christ as having been punished, really and properly punished ?
James. I sliould think 1 do not. But what do you mean by pun- ishment ?
Peter. An innocent person may suffer, but, properly speaking, he cannot be punished. Punishment necessarily supposes crim' inality.
James. Just so ; and therefore as I do not believe that Jesns was in any sense criminal, I cannot sa}' he was reallj' and proper- ly punished.
Peter. Punishment is the infliction of natural evil for the com- mission of moral evil. It is not necessary, however, that the lat- ter should have been committed by the party. Criminality is sup- posed : but it may be either personal or imputed.
g4 ON IMPUTATION.
James. This 1 cannot admit. Real and proper punishment, if 1 understand the term, is not only the infliction of natural evil for the commission of moral evil ; but the infliction of the one upon the person leho committed the other, and in displeasure against him. It not only supposes criminality, but that the party punished was literally the criminal. Criminality committed by one party, and imputed to another, is not a ground for real and proper punish- ment. If Paul had sustained the punishment due to Onesimus for having uTOBged his master, yet it would not have been real and proper punishment to Am, but 5J{^eriH^ only, as not being inflicted m displeasure against him . I am aware of what has been said on this subject, that there was a more intimate union between Christ and those for whom he died, than could ever exist between crea- tures. Bat be it so ; it is enough for me that the union was not
such as THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE ONE BECAME THOSE OF THE
OTHER. Christ, even in the act of offering himself a sacrifice, when, to speak in the language of the Jewish law, the sins of the people were put or laid upon him, gave himself, nevertheless, the
JVS'C FOR THE UNJDST.
Peter. And thus it is that you understand the words of Isaiah, "iVie Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all ?
James^. Yes, he bore the punishment due to our sins, or that which, considering the dignity of his person, was equivalent to it. The phrase " He shall bear his iniquity," which so frequently (recurs in the Old Testament, means, he shall bear the punish- ment due to his iniquity.
Peter. And yet you deny that Christ's sufferings were prop- erly penal?
James. You would not deny eternal life which is promised to believers to be properly a reward; but you would deny its being a real and proper reward to them.
Peter. And what then ?
James. If eternal life, though it be a reward, and we partake ef it, yet is really and properly the reward of Christ's obedience, and not ours ; then the sufferings of Christ, though they were a punishment, and he sustained it, yet were really and properly the ^unrsh'raent of our sins, and not his. What he bore was punish-
ON IMPUTATION. 85
ment : that is, it was the expression of divine displeasure against transgressors. So what we enjoy is reward : that is, it is the ex- pression of God's well-pleasedne.-<s in the obedience and death of his Son. But neither is the one a punishment to him, nor the other, properly speaking, a reward to na.
There appears to me great accuracy in the scripture language on this subject. What our Saviour underwent is almost always expressed by the term silvering. Once it is called a chas- tisement : yet there he is not said to have been chastised ; but " the chastisement of our peace wns upon Am." This is the same as saying he bore our punishment. He was made a cnrsefor us ; that is, having been reckoned, or accounted the sinner, as though he had actually been so, he was treated accordingly, as one that had deserved to be an outcast from heaven and earth, I believe that the wrath of God which was due to us was poured upon him : but I do not believe that God for one momint was angry or dis- pleased with him, or that he sniote him from any such displeas- ure.
There is a passage in Calvin's Institutes, which so fully expres- ses my mind, that I hope you will excuse me if I read it. You will find it in Book II. Chap. XVI. § 10, 11. " It behoved him that he should, as it were, hand to hand, wrestle with the armies of hell, and the horror of eternal death. The chastisement of our peace was laid upon him. He was smitten of his Father for our crimes, and bruised for our iniquities : whereby is meant that he was put in the stead of the wicked, as surety and pledge, yea, and as the very guilty person himself, to sustain and bear away all the punishments that should have been laid upon them, save only that he could not be holden of death. — Yet do we not mean that God was at any time either his enemy, or angry with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, upon whom his mind rested ? Or how coald Christ by his intercession appease his Father's wrath towards others, if full of hatred, he had been incensed against himself? But this is our meaning — that he sus- tained the weight of the divine displeasure ; inasmuch as he being stricken and tormented by the hand of God, did fkel all thG:
TOKENS OF Gon WHEN HE IS ANGRY AND PUNISHETH."
86 ON IMPUTATION.
Peter. The words of scripture are very express : He hath
MADE HIM TO BE SIK FOK US. He WUS MADE A CURSE FOR US. YoU
may, by diluting and qualifying interpretations, soften what you consider as intolerable harshness. In other words, you may choose to correct the language and sentiments of inspiration, and teach the Apostle to speak of his Lord with more decorum, lest his per- sonal purity should be impeached, and lest the odium of the cross, annexed by divine law, remain attached to his death : but if you abide by the obvious meaning of the passages, you must hold with a commutatioH of persons, the imputation of sin aiad of righteous- ness, and a vicarious ■punishment equally pregnant with execration as with death.
John. I wish Brother Peter would forbear the use of language which tends not to convince, but to irritate.
James. If there be any thing convincing in it, I confess I do not perceive it. I adinit, with Mr. Charnock, "That Christ was ' made sin' as if he had sinned all the sins of men ; and we are *■ made righteousness' as if we had not sinned at all." What more is necessary, to abide by the obvious meaning of the words ? To go farther must be to maintain that Christ's being tnade sin means that he was literally rendered wicked, and that his being made a curse is the same thing as his being punished for it according to his deserts. Brother Peter, I am sure, does not believe this shocking position : but he seems to think there is a medium be- tween his being treated as if he tcere a sinner, and his being one. If such a medium there be, I should be glad to discover it ; at present it appears to me to have no existence.
Brother Peter will not suspect me, I hope, of wishing to de- preciate his judgment, when I say, that he appears to me to be at- tached to certain terms without having sufficiently weighed their import. In most cases I should think it a privilege to learn of him ; but in some things I cannot agree with him. In order to maintain the real and proper punishment of Christ, he talks of his being " guilty by imputation." The term guilty, I am aware, is often used by theological writers for an ohligatio7i to punishment, and so applies to that voluntary obligation which Christ came un- der to sustain the punishment of our sins : but, strictly speaking,
ON IMPUTATION. y7
guilt is tlie desert of punishment ; and this can never apply but to the offender. It is the opposite of innocence. A voluntary ob- ligation to endure the punishment of anotlier is not guilt, any more than a consequent exemption from obligalion in the offender is innocence. Both guilt and innocence are transferrable in their effects, but in themselves they are untransferra'ole. To say that Chrijit was reckoned or counted iu the divine ndmini^tration as if he xverc the sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one thing : but to say he deser- ved that curse is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the insep- arable attendant of transgression, and could never therefore for one moment occupy the conscience of Christ. If Christ by im- putation became deserving of punishment, we by non-imputation cease to deserve it ; and if our demerits be literally transferred to him, bis merits must of course be the same to us : and then, in- stead of approaching God as guilty and umcorthy, we might take consequence to ourselves before him, as not only guiltless but meritorious beings.
Peter. Some who profess to hold that believers are justified by the righteousness of Christ, deny nevertheless that his obedi- ence itself \?, imputed lo them : for they maintain that the scrip- ture represents believers as receiving only the benefits, or effects of Christ's righteousness in justification, or their being pardoned and accepted for Christ's righteousness^ sake. But it is not mere- \yfor the sake of Christ, or of what he has dene, that believers are accepted of God, and treated as comjiletcly righteous 5 but it is in him as their head, representative and substitute, and by the im- putation of that very obedience which as such he performed to the divine law that they arejustified.
James. I have no doubt but that the imputation of Christ's righteousness presuppo.-es a ur;ion with him ; since (here is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another's sake where there is no uninn or relation subsisting between them. It is not such a union however as that the actions of either be- come THOSE OF the OTHER. That "the scriptures rejtresent believers an i-eceiving only tiic i)encfits or Ihe effects of Christ's righteousness in justification," is a remark of wliich I am not able
38 0N IMPUTATION.
to perceire ^the fallacy : nor does it follow that his obedience it- self is not imputed to them. Obedience itself may be and is im- puted, while its effects only are imparted, and consequently re- ceived. 1 never met with a person who held the absurd notion of imputed benf fits, or imputed punishments ; and am inclined to think there never was such a person. Be that however as it may, sin on the one hand, and righteousness on the other, are the proper objects of imputation ; but that imputation consists ia chargintj or reckoning them to the account of the party in such a way as to impart to him their evil or beneficial effects.
Peter. The doctrine for which I contend, as taught by the apostle Paul, is neither novel, nor more strongly expressed than it has formerly been by authors of eminence.
James. It may be so. We have been told of an old protes- tant writer who says, that " In Christ, and by him, every true Christian may be called afulfiller of the law :" but I see not why he might not as well have added, every true Christian may be said to have been slain, and if not to have redeemed himself by his own blood, yet to be worthy of all that blessing and honour and glory that shall be conferred upon him in the world to come. What do you think of Dr. Crisp's Sermons ? Has be not carried your principles to an extreme ?
Peter. I cordially agree with Witsiiis, as to the impropriety of calling Christ a. sinner, truly a sinner^ the greatest of sinners, &c. yet I am far from disapproving of what Dr. Crisp, and some oth- ers, meant by those exceptionable expressions.
James. If a Christian may be called a fulfiller of the law, on account of Christ's obedience being imputed to him, I see not why Christ may not be called a transgressor of the law, on account of our disobedience being imputed to him. Persons and things should be called what they are. As to the meaning of Dr. Crisp, I am very willing to think he had no ill design : but my concern is with the meaning which his words convey to his readers. He considers God, in charging our sius on Christ, and accounting his righteousness to us, as reckoning of things as they are. (p. 280.) He contends that Christ was really the sinner, or guilt could not -have been laid upon him. (p. 272.) Imputation of sin and right-
ON IMPUTATION. 09
CousnesB with him, is literally nnd actually a transfer op char- ACTEa ; and it is tlie object of his reasoning to persuade his l.e- lievini? hearers that from bencefurward Christ is the sinner, and not they. '" Hast thou been an idolater," says he, " a blasphe- mer, a despiser of God's word, a profaner of his name and ordin- ances, a thief, a liar, a drunkard— If thou hast part in Christ, all these transgressions of thmc become actitalhj the transgrcssiuns of Christ, and so cease to be thine ; and thou ceasest to be a trans- gressor from the time they icere laid upon Christ, to the last hour of thy life : so that now thou art not an itlolater, a persecutor, a thief, a liar, &c.— thou art not a sinful person. Reckon whatever sin you commit, when you have part in Christ, you are all that Christ was, and Christ is all that you were. (p. t70.)
If the meaning of this passage be true and good, I see nothing exceptionable in the expressions. All that can be said is, that the writer explicitly states his principle, and avows its legitimate consequences. I believe the principle to be false. (1.) Because neither sin nor righteousness are in themselves transferrable. The act and deed of one person may afect another in many ways, but cannot possibly become his act and deed. (2.) Because the scrip- tures uniformly declare Christ to be sinless, and believers to be sinful creatures. (3.) Because believers themselves have in all ages confessed Ihexr sins, and applied to the mere} -seat (or for- giveness. They never plead such an union as shall render their sins not theirs, but Christ's ; but merely such an one as affords ground to apply for pardon in his name or for his sake : not as worthy claimants, but as unworthy supplicants.
Whatever reasonings we may adopt, there are certain times in which co/isctence will bear witness, that notwithstanding the impu- tation of our sins to Christ, «Je are actually the sinners ; and I should have thought that no good man could have gravely gone about to overturn its testimony. Yet this is what Dr. Crisp has done. " Believers thinks says he, " that they find their trans, gressions in their own consciences, and they imagine that there is a sting of this poison still behind, wounding them : but beloved, if this principle be received for a t.uth, that God hath laid thine in- quities on Christ, how can thy transgressions, belonging to Christ, Vol. IV. 12
90 ON IMPUTATION.
be found in thy heart and conscience ? — Is thy conscience Christ ?"
(p. 269.)
Perhaps no man has gone further than Dr. Crisp in his attempts at consistency^ and admitting his principle, that imputation con- sists in a transfer of character, I do not see who can dispute his conclusions. To have been perfectly consistent, however, he should have proved that all the confessions and lamentations of be- lievers, recorded in scripture, arose from their being under the mistake which he labours to rectify ; that is, thinking sin did not cease to be theirs, even when under the fullest persuasion that the L< rd would not imp^-t- it to them, but would graciously cover it by the righteousness of his Son.
John. I hope, my brethren, that what has been said in this free conversation will be reconsidered with candour ; and that you will neither of you impute designs or consequences to the other which are not avowed.
CONVERSATION IT.
ON SUBSTITUTION.
John. I THINK, Brother Peter, you expressed, at the betrinning of our hist converiiation, a strong suspicion that Brother James de- nied the substitution of Christ, as well as the proper imputation of sin and ri.iihteoiisness. What has passed on the latter subject would prohabl}' tend either to confirm or remove your suspicions respecting the former.
Peter. 1 confess I was mi.-staken in some of my suspicions. I consider our friend as a good man ; but am far from being satisfied with what I still understand to be his views on this important sub- ject.
John. It gives me great pleasure to hear the honest concessions of brethren, when they feel themselves in any measure to have gone too far.
Peter. I shall be glad to hear Brother James's statement on substitution, and to know whether he considers our Lord in his undertaking as having sustained the character of a Head, or Rep- resentative ; and if so, whether the persons for whom he was a substitute were the elect only, or mankind in general.
James. 1 must acknowledge that on this subject 1 feel consider- ably at a loss. I have no consciousness of having ever called the doctrine of substitution in question. On the contrary, my hope of salvation rests upon it ; and the sum of my delight, as a minister of the gospel, consists in it. If I know anything of my own heart, I can say of my Saviour as laying down his life, for, or instead of sinners, as was said of Jerusalem by the captires ; If I forget THEE, let my right hand forget : if I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of mrj mouth !
f,2 ON SUBSTITUTION.
[James here paused, and wept ; and both John and Peter wep with him. After recovering himself a litlle, lie proceeded as fol- lows :]
I have always considered the denial of this doctrine as being the essence of Socinianism. I could not have imagined that any per- son whose hope of acceptance with God rests, not on any goodness in himself, but entirely on the righteousness of Christ, impuleci to him as if it tc re his own, would have be^n accounted to disown his substitution. But perliisps m , ie.;r brother (for such 1 feel him to be, notwithstanding our ditference';) may include in his ideas on this subject, that Christ was so our head and representative, as that what he did a«d suffered, we did and suffered in him. [To this Peter assented.] If no more were meant by this, resumed James, than that what he did and suffered is graciously accepted on our behalf av*/ it were oiirx, 1 freely, as 1 have said before, ac- quiesce in it. But I do not believe, and can hardly persuade my- self that Brother Peter believes, the obedience and sufferings of Christ to he to ours, as that we can proi-ei ly be said to have obey- ed and suiiered.
Christ was and is our head, and we are his members: the union between him and us, however, is not ;n all respects the same as that which is between the head and the members of the natural body: for that would go to explain away all distinct consciousness and accountableness on our part.
As to the term r^pr enta. ive, i{ uo more be meant bj' it than that Christ so personated us as to die in our stead, that we, be- lieving in him, should not die, I I ave nothing to object to it. But I do not believe that Christ was so our represent tive. as that what he did and suffered, we did and suffered ; and so became mer- itorious, or deserving of the divine favour. But I feel myself in a wide field, and must intreat your indulg- nee while I take up so much of the conversation.
Peier and John. Go on, and state your sentiments without apology.
Jomrs. I apprehend then, that many important mistakes have arisen from considering the inter[)Osition of Ciirist under the no- lion 0^ paying a debt. The blood of Christ is indeed the^rice o^
ON SUBSTITUTION. 93
our redemption, or that for the sake of which we are delivered from the curse of the law : but this metaphorical language, as well as that oi head and m ml>efs, may be carried too far, and may lead UP into many errors. In cases of debt and credi* among men, where a surety undertakes to represent the debtor, from the moment his undertaking is accepted, the debtor is free, and may claim his liberty, not as a matter of favour, at least on the part of the creditor, but of strict justice. Or should the undertaking be un- known to him for a time, yet as soon as he knows it, he may de- mand his discharge, and it may be, think himself hardly treated by being kept in bondage so long after his debt had been actually-paid. But who in their sober senses will imagine this to be analogous to the redemption of sinners by Jesus Christ ? Sin is a debt onl}' in a metaphorical sense : properly speaking, it is a crime, and satis- ' faction for it requires to be made, not on pecuniary, but on moral principles. U Philemon had accepted of that part of Paul's offer which respected property, and had placed so much to his account as he considered Onesimus to have " owed" him, he could not have been said to have remitted his debt ; nor would Onesimus have had to thank him for remitting it. But it is supposed of Onesimus that he might not only be in debt to his master, but have "wrong- ed" him. Perhaps he had embezzled his goods, corrupted his children, or injured his character. Now tbr Philemon to accept of that part of the offer, were very different from the other. In the one case he would have accepted of a pecuniary representa. tive, in the other of a moral one ; that is, of a mediator. The sat- isfaction in the one case would annihilate the idea of remission ; but not in the other. Wh-tever satisfaction Paul might give to Philemon respecting the wound iutlicted upon his character and honour as the head of a family, it would not supersede the necessi- ty of pardon being sought by the ollender, and freely bestowed by the offended.
The reason of this difference is easily perceived. Debts are transferrable ; but crimes are not. A third person may cancel the one ; but he can only obliterate the effects of the other ; the des- ert of the criminal remains. The debtor is accountable to his (Creditor as ^private individual, who has power t« accept of a sure-
94 » ON SUBSTITUTION.
(y, or, if be please, to remit the whole without any satisfaction. In the one case he would be just ; in the other merciful : but no place is afforded by either of them for the combination of justice and mercy in the same proceeding- The criminal on the other hand, is amenable to the magistrate, or to the head of a family, as a public person, and who, especially if the offence be capital, can- not remit the punishment without invading law and justice, nor in the ordinary discharge of his office, admit of a third person to stand in his place. In extraordinary cases, however, extraordinary ex- pedients are resorted to . A satisfaction may be made to law and justice, as to the spirit of them, while the letter is dispensed with. The well-known story of Zaleucus, the Grecian lawgiver, who consented to lose one of his eyes to spare one of his son's eyes, who by transgressing the law had subjected himself to the loss of both; is an example. Here, as far as it went, justice and mercy were combined in the same act : and had the satisfaction been much fuller than it was, so full that the au,thority of the law, instead of being weakened, should have been abundantly magnified and hon- oured, still it had been been perfectly consistent tcith free forgive- ness.
Finally: In the case of the debtor, satisfaction being once accep- ted, justice requires his complete discharge : but in that of the criminal, where satisfaction is made to the wounded honour of the law, and the authority of the lawgiver, justice, though it admits of his discharge, yet no otherwise requires it than as it may have been matter of promise to the substitute.
I do not mean to say that cases of this sort afford a competent representation of redemption by Christ. Thatis a work which not only ranks with extraordinary interpositions, but which has no parallel: it is a work of God, which leaves all the petty concerns of mortals infinitely behind it. All that comparisons can do, is to give us some idea oi {he principle on which it proceeds.
If the followins; passage of our admired .Milton were considered as the language of the law of innocence, it would be inaccurate —
ON SUBSTITUTION. ^5 Man disobeying,
He with his whole posterity must die : Die he, or justice must ; unless for him Some other, able, and as willing;, pay The rigid satialaction, death for death."
Abstractly considered, this is true ; but it is not expressive ot vvhut vv:\s the revealed law of innocence. The law made no such condition, or provision; nor was it indifferent to the lawgiver who sho\ild suffer, the sinner, or another on his behalf. The lan- guage of the law to the transgressor wa- not thou shalt die, or some one on thy behalf; but simplv thou shalt die : and had it literally taken its course, every child of man must have perished. The sufferings of Christ in our stead, therefore, are not a punishment inflicted in the ordinary course of disliihulive justice ; but an ex- traordinary interposition of infinite wisdom and love : not contra- ry to, but rather above the law, deviating from the letter, but more than preserving the spirit of it. Such, brethren, as well as I am able to explain ihem, arc my views ot' the substitution of Christ.
Peter. The objection of our so stating the substitution of Christ, as to leave no room for the free partion of sin, has been often made by those who avowedly reject his satisfaction ; but for any who really consider his death as an atonement for sin, and as essential to the ground of a sinner's hope, to employ the objection against us, is very extraordinary, and must, I presume, proceed from in- advertency.
James. If it be so, 1 do not perceive it. The grounds of the objection have been stated as clearly and as fully as I am able to state them.
John. What are your ideas. Brother James, with respect to the persons for whom Christ died as a subsutute ? Do you consider them as the elect only, or mankind in general ?
James. Were I asked concerning the gospel when it is introdu- ced into a country, For whom zvas it sent i^ if I had respect only to the revealed will ofGod, I should answer, It is sent for men, not as elect, or non-elect, but as sinners. It is written and preached
96 ON SUBSTITUTION,
•'-that they might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 6od, and that believing they might have life through his name." But if I had respect to the appointment of God, with regard to its ap- plication, I should say, If the divine conduct in this instance ac- cord witkwhat it has been in other instances, he hath visited that country, to ^' take out of (hem a people for his name/'
In like manner, concerning the death of Christ, if I speak of it irrespective of the purpose of the Father and the Son as to the ob- jects who should be saved by it ; referring merely to what it is in itself sufficient for, and declared in the gospel to be adapted to, I should think I answered the question in a scriptural way in saying, It was for sinners ns sinners. But if I have respect to the purpose of the Father in giving his Son to die, and to the design of Christ in laying down his life, I should answer, It was for his elect only.
In the^rsi of these views, I find the aposlles and primitive min- isters (leaving the consideration of God's secret purpose as a mat- ter belonging to himself, not to them,) addressing themselves to sinners without distinction, and holding forth the sacrifice of Christ as a ground of faith to all men. On this principle, the servants sent forth to bid guests to the marriage-supper, were directed to invite them, saying, Come for all things are ready. On this prin- ciple the ambassadors of Christ besought sinners to be reconciled (o God ; For, said they, he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
In the last view, I find the apostles ascribing to the purpose and discriminating grace of God all their success : as many as were or- dained to eternal life believed ; teaching believers also to ascribe every thing that they were, or hoped to be, to the same cause ; addressing them as having been before th*' foundation of the world beloved and chosen of God ; the children or so7is, whom it was the design of Christ, in becoming incarnate, to bring to glory ; the efewrcft of God, which he purchased with his own blood, and for which he gave himself, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to kimself a glorious church, not having spot er wrinkle; or any such thing.
ON 9UBST1TUTI0X. 97
"If'the substitntion of Christ consist in his dying for or instead of others, that they should not die, this, as comprehending the de- signed end to be answered by his death, is strictly applicable to none but the elect : for, whatever ground there is for sinners, as sinners, to believe and be saved, it never was the purpose or de- sign of Christ to inpirt fiilh to any other than those who were given him of the Father. He therefore did not die with the in- tent thai any others should not die.
Whether I can p rfcctly reconcile these statements with each other, or not, I embrjce them as being both plainly taught in the scri[)tures. I confess, however, I do not at present perceive their inconsistency. If I be not greatly mistaken, what apparent con- tradiction may attend them arises cliiefly from that which has been already mentioned ; namely, the considering of Clirist's substitu- tion as an affair between a creditor and a debtor, or carrying the metaphor to an extreme. In that view, the suffering? of Christ would require to be exactly proportioned to the nature and num- ber of the sins which were laid upon him ; and if more sinners had been saved, or those who are saved had been greater sinners than they are, he must have borne a proportionable increase ol suffering. To correspond with pecuniary satisfactions this must undoubtedly be the case. 1 do not know that any writer has so stated things; but am persuaded that s- cli ideas are at the founda- tion of a large part of the reasonings 00 that side of the subject.
In atonement, or satisfiction for rn'me, things do not proceed on this calculating principle. It is true there was a designation of the sacrifices offered up by Hezeki in : they were offered, not on- ly for Jtidah.but for those that remained of the ten tribes : for so the Icing commanded, that the burnt-offering and the sin-offering should be mu'ie for all Israel. But the sacrifices themselves were the same for both, as they would have been for one, and re- quired to be the same tor one, as they wore for both. It was their designation only that made the difference.
Thus I conceive it is in respect of the sacrifice of Christ. If
tewer had been saved ;han are saved, to be consistent with justice
it required to be by the same perfect atonement ; and if more had
been saved than arc, even the whole human race, there neederl
Vol. IV. 13
98 ON SUBSTITUTION.
no other. But if the satisfaction of Christ was in itself sa&'^'ieBt for the whole world, there is no farther propriety in asking, ♦' Whose sins were imputed to Christ ? or, For whom did he die as a substitute ?" than as it is thereby inquired, Who were the persons whom he intended finally to save ?
That which is equally necessary for few as for many, must, in it« own nature, be equally suflicient for many as forfevv ; and could not proceed upon the principle of the sins of some being laid on Christ rather than on others, any otherwise than a* it was the de* «gn of the Father and the Son, through one all-sufficient medium, to pardon the elect, while the rest are, notwithstanding, left to per- ish in their sins.
It seems to me as consonant with truth to say that a certain nural ber of Christ's acts of obedience become ours, as that a certain number of our sins become his. In the former case his one undi-^ vided obedience, stamped as it is with divinity, afTords aground of justification to any number of believers : in the latter, his one atonement, stamped also as it is with divinity is sufficient for the pardon of any number of sins, or sinners. Yet as Christ laiil not his life down hut by covenant; as the elect were given him to be the purchase of his blood, or the fruit of the travail of his soul, he had respect, in all he did and suffered, to this recompense of re- ward. Their salvation was the joy that was set before him. It was for the covering oi" their transgressions that he became obedi- ent unto death. To them his substitution was the same in effect as if their sins had by number and measure been literally imparted to him.
I am not aware that any principle which I imbibe is inconsistent with Christ's la^'ingdovvn his life by covenant, or with his being the Surety of that covenant, pledging himself for ihe certain accom- plishment of whatever he undertook ; as that all that were given him should come to him, should not be lost, but raised up at the last day, and be presented without spot, and blameless. All this I consider as included in the design of the Father and the Son, with respect to the application of the atonement.
John. 1 have heard it objected to your views of the sufficiency •f the atonement, to this effect — " How does this principle afford
ON SUBSTITUTION. 9$
a ground for general invitations, if the design was confined to his elect people ? If the benefits of his death were nevet intended for the non-elect, is it not just as inconsistent to invite them to par- take of them, as if there were a want of stifficiency ? This ex- pLmatioD therefore seems only to be shifting the difliculty."
James. Pharoah was exhorted to let Israel go ; and had he 4ompliei!, he had saved his own life, andtliatofa great number of his people ; yet, all things considered, it was not God's intention to save Pharoah's life, nor that of the E.i;y})tians. And is there no difference between this, and liis being exhorted under a promise ill which the object promised had no existence ?
It is a fact that the scriptures rest the general invitations of th« gospel upon the atonement of Christ.* But if there were not a suf- ficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners without di«- tinction, how could the ambassadors of Christ beseech them to be reconciled to God, and that from the consideration of his having been made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him ? What would you think of the fallen angels being invited to be reconciled to God, from the considera- tion of an atonement having been made for fallen men? You would say, It is inviting them to partake of a benefit which has no txistence, the obtaining of which, therefore, is naturally impossible. Upon the supposition oS the atonement being insufficient for the salvation of any more than are actually saved by it, the non-elect, tvith respect to a being reconC'fted to God through it, are in the same state as the fallen angels ; that is, the thing is not only norally. but naturally impossible. But if there be an objective ful- ness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in him ; there is no other impossibility in the way of any man's salvation to whom the gospel comes, at least, than what arises from the state of his own mind. The intention of God not to remove this impossibility, and so not to save him, is a purpose to withhold not only that which he was not obliged to be- stow, but th it which is never represented in the scriptures a sneces- i?ary to the consistency of exhortations or invitations.
* 2 Cor. r. 19—21. Matt, xxii, 4. John iiii 1$.
jQO ON SUBSTITUTION.
I do not deny that there is difficulty in these statements ; but it belongs to the general subject of reconciling the purposes of God with the agency of man : whereas in the other case, God is repre- sented as inviting sinners to partake of what has no existence, and which, theiefoie, is | hysically impossible. The one, while it as- cribes the salvation of the believer in every stage of it to mere grace, renders the unbeliever inexcusjtble : which the other, 1 conceive does not. In short, we must either acknowledge an objective ful- ness in Christ's atonement, sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in him ; or, in opposition to scrijiture and common sen<e, confine our invitations to believe, to such jersons as have l)eiieved already.
J(jhn. May I ask you. Brother Peter, whether, on a review of what has passed, you consider Brother James as denying the doc- trines ot imuutiu^on and suhsfii'itti'/n, or either of them ?
Peter. Though " 1 consider Brother .Taney's statements as con- taining various mistakes ; and though I am exceedingly averse from the necessary consequences of certain tenets, which, if I right- ly understand him, are avowed in them ; 3 et I am now convinced that respecting those doctrines, he did not intend what 1 supposed he did. It behoves me, therefore, frankly to acknowledge, that I have unintentionally misrepresented his sentiments respecting them, for which 1 am truly sorry.
John. I hope, Brother James, you are satisfied with this ac' linowledgment.
James. Perfectly so ; and shall be happy to hear Brother Pe>-- ter's remarks on those particalars in which he may still consider rae as in the wrong.
CONVERSATION III.
• N PARTICULAR REDEMFTION
Peter. Notwithstanding what our Brother James has stated, I am i'ii (Vom heiiivsnti-fiet1 with his views as they affect the doc- trine of Par//ru/((r /?e(ie./i^fiVm. If I understand him, his senti- ment imy be exj'ressed in this position : the pari icularity of
THF. *T0NE\;ENT CON-ISTS in the bOVEREIGjr PLEASURE OF GoD WITH REGAKD TC ITS APPLICATION.
James, I ihooM rather say, the particularity op redemption
•ONSISTS IN THE SOVEREIGN Pi.EASURE OF GoD WITH REGARD TO
THE APPLic ATioN F THE ATONEMENT ; that IS, With regard to THE
JPERSONS TO WHOM IT SHALL BE APPLIED.
John It is to be understood then, I presume, that you both he- lieve the doctrine of particular redemption, and that the only question between you is, wherein it consists ?
James. So I understand it.
Peter. I consider the afore-mentioned position as merely a re- ooncilina expedient, or compromise between principles which can never be reconciled.
James. I am not conscious of embracing it for any such purpose — but let me hear your objections against it.
Pefer It places the parlicularity of redemption in application. I understand, indeed, that by a[)plication you include, not only what the New Testament denominate? receiving ike atonement — the isprinkling f>f the blood of Jesus Christ — and/tuM in his blood ; but also the absolute intention of Christ in his death to save all those who shall he fi ;allv happy. Bui, notwithstanding the unau- thonaed latitude of meaning which, to render the position more
'fOS ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
plausible, is here claimed for a particular term, various and cogent reasons may be urged against it. Among others it confounds the atonement itself, with its application to the pinner. Whereas, though the former completely ascertain the latter, yet, not being the same fruit of divine favour, they must not be identified. The term application always supposes the existence of whatever is ap- plied. The atonement, therefore, must be considered as existing, either actually, or in a divine decree, before it can be applied to the sinner. The application of a thing to any person, or for any purpose, ought not to be confounded with the thing itself Hence, in former times, hardly any distinction was more common among theological writers, than that between what they denominated the impetration snd the application of redemption. To represent the intention of Christ in his death to save Paul, for instance, and not Judas, under the notion of apph/ing the atonement to the one and not to the other, is to me, at least, a perfectly novel sense of the word application, and was, I presume, adopted to meet the neces- sities of this hypothesis.
James. The whole of what you have said rests upon a mistake at the outset. You say, the position in question "places the par- ticularity of redemption in application." Whereas, if you re- collect yoursel', you will find that it places it in the sovereight PLEASURE OF GoD WITH REGARD TO APPLICATION. The difference between this and the other is as great as that between election and vocation. Instead of my confounding redemption or atonement, therefore, with application, I have just cause to complain of you fbr having confounded application with the sovereign pleasure of God respecting it, and for having loaded me with the conse- <juences.
Peter. But have you never made use of the term application, so as to include the divine intention ?
James. I am not aware of having done so ; but whether I have «r not, you were not animadverting on what I may have said at other times, but on the position which you yourself had stated, which position affirms the very opposite of what you allege. Al- lowing you to animadvert, however, ©n ather words than those
ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. 103
€»ntained in the position, and admitting that I may hare spoken or written in the manner you allege, still it has been merely to dis- tinguish what the death of Christ i* in itself sufficient for, from. what it was tlic design of the Father and the Son actunlti/ to accom- plish by it. This distinction is neither novel nor liable to the ob- jection of confoundins^ the impetration of redemption with its ap- plication. I have no other meaning, that I am aware of, than that of Dr. Owen in the following passage : '' Sutficient, we say, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world. This sufficiency of his sacrifice hath a two-fold rise. First : The dignity of the person that did ofTer, and was ofiered. Secondly : The greatness of the pain he endured, by which he was able to bear, and did undergo the whole curse of the law, and wrath of God due to sin. And this sets fortli the innate, real, true worth and value of the hlood-shcdding nf Jesus Christ. This is its oun true internal perfection and sufficiency. That it should be applie* unto any, made a price for them, and become beneficial to them, according to the worth that is in it, is external to it, doth not arise from it, but merely depends upon the intention and will of God."
Peter. Intention enters into the nature of atonement. Christ was voluntary in his siitTerings, and his being so, was essential to his death as a sacritice and an atonement. His death, detached from these considerations, would be merely that of a martyr. It was the effect of the highest degree of love, and of the kind- est possible intention respecting the objects beloved ; for other- wise it might well be demanded, To what purpose this waste of love ?
James. Intention of some kind doubtless does enter into the es- sence of Christ's laying down his life a sacrifice : but that it should be beneficial to this person, rather than to that, appears to me, as L)r. Owen expresses it, '• external to it,, and to depend entirely on the %vill of God." And as to a waste of love, we might as well at- tribute a waste of goodness to the divine providence in its water- ing rocks and seas, as well as fruitful valleys, with the showers of heaven ; ©r t* ear Lord for his Gommissioning his apostles te
IQ^ ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
preach the gospel to every creature, while he never expected any- others to believe and be saved by it than those who were ordained to eternal life. It accords with the general conduct of God to impart his favours with a kind of profusion, which to the naind of man, that sees only one o; two ends to be answered by them, may have the appearance of waste : but when all things are brought to their intended issue, it will be found that God has done nothing in vain.
John> Placing the particularity of redemption, as you do, in the sovereign pleasure of God with regard to the application of the atonement, or the persons to whom it shall be applied ; where- in is the difference betvveen that doctrine and the doctrine of elec- tion ?
James. I do not consider particular redemption as being se much a doctrine of itself, as a branch of the great doctrine of election, which runs through all God's works of grace. If this branch of election had not been more opposed than others, I reckon we should no more have thought of applying the term par- ticuhtr to it, than to vocation, justifica'.ion, or gloritication. The idea applies to these as well as to the other. Whom he did fore- know he did predestinate : whom he did predestinate, he cal- led : whom he called, he justified ; and whom he justified, he glo- rified.
John. This would seem to agree with the Apostle's account of spiritual blessings in his Epistle to the Ephesians : He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.
ACCORDI-VG AS HE HATfl CHOSEN US IN HIM BEFOUE THK FOUN- DATION OF THE WORLD.
Peter. I have some questions which I wish to put to Brother James on the diflference which he appears to make betvveen atoae-_^ ment and redemption. If 1 understand him, he considers the lat- ter as the effect of the former.
James. There are £ew terms, whether in the scriptures or elsewhere, that are always used in the same sense. Reconcilia- tion sometimes means abeing actualli/ in friendship with God, through faith in the blood of Christ : but when used synonymously with atonement it denotes the satisfaction of justice only, or the
ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. jQfj
opening of a way by which mercy may be exercised consistently with righteousness. In both these senses the word occurs in Rom. V, 10. For if when we were enemies we were reconcilkd to God by the death of his Son ; much more bein'g rkconciled, we shall be saved by his life. On this p.issage Dr. Guyse very properly remarks, " Reconciled to God by the death of his Son, in the first clause seems to relate to Ctirist's having ivorked out our reconciliation, or completed all in a way of merit by his Heath that was necessary to appease the wrath of God, and make way for the riches of his grace to be communicated to us in full consistence with the honour of all his perfections, and of his law and government, which the Apostle had called (verse 6. and 8,) dying for the ungodly, and dying f>r us : but being reconciled, in the last clause, seems to relate to the reconciliation's taking e^ feet upon us, or, to our being brought into a state of actual recon- ciliation and peace with God, through faith in Christ's blood, which the Apostle had spoken of in verse l,and9, and which, in the verse after this, is called receiving the atonement." — Thus also the term redemption is sometimes put for the price by whicli we are redeemed ; namely the blood-shedding of Christ. In this sense it appears to be used by the Apostle in Kom. iii. 24. BuingjuS' lifted freely by his grace, through //je redemption that is in Jesus Christ. To be justified through his redemption is the same thing, I should think, as being just if ed by his blood. But the term prop- erly and ordinarily signifies, not that for the sake of which we are delivered from the curse of the law, but the deliverance itself. Viewing reconciliation, or atonement, as a satisfaction to divine justice, and redemption as the deliverance of the sinner, the latter appears to me to be an effect of the former.
Peter. I am far from being convinced that redemption is an ef- fect of atonement, any more than that atonement is an effect of re- demption : both are the immediate effects of Christ's death, view- ed in different points of light.
James. I freely admit that both are effects of Christ's death j but in such order as that one is the consequence of the other. I can conceive of the deliverance of the criminal arising from the
Vol IV. 14
V ?#'
nvt
i"^ir '!im:iVmii;i<i;M(>?:.?j*nH;;iJ>S;!>,ii»
W'f^r-
m
104
ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
preach the gospel to every creature, while he never expected any others to believe and be saved by it than those who were ordained to eternal life. It accord? with the general conduct of God to impart his favours with a kind of profusion, which to the mind of man, that sees only one o; two ends to be answered by them, may have the appearance of waste : but wlien all things are brought to their intended issue, it will be found that God has done nothing in vain.
John, Placing the particularity of redemption, as yon do, in the sovereign pleasure of God with regard to the application of the atonement, or the persons to whom it shall be applied ; where- in is the difference between that doctrine and the doctrine of elec- tion ?
James. I do not consider particular redemption as being se much a doctrine of itself, as a branch of the great doctrine of election, which runs through all God's works of grace. If this branch of election had not been more opposed than others, 1 reckon we should no more have thou'jjht of applying the term par- ticular to it, than to vocation, justificaiion, or gloritication. The idea applies to these as well as to the other. Whom he did fore- know he did predestinate : whom he did predestinate, he cal- led : whom he called, he justified ; and whom he justified, he glo- rified.
John. This would seem to agree with the Apostle's account of spiritual blessings in his Epistle to the Ephesians : He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christy
ACCORDING AS HE HATK CHOSEN US IN HIM BEFORE THE FOUN- DATION OF THE W0R1.D.
Peter. I have some questions which I wish to put to Brother James on the difference which he appears to make between atooe-,^ ment and redemp*ion. If 1 understand him, he considers the lat- ter as the effect of the former.
James. Tliere are few terms, whether in the scriptures or elsewhere, that are always used in the same sense. Reconcilia' tion sometimes means abeing actuaUij in friendship with God, through faith in thebhod of Christ : but when used synonymously with atonement it denotes the satisfaction of justice only, or the
1 I
■■"ixciedaiij
••^w of God to ■■■*"» the iiiioii of
'^'■"'^lioDenolliiiij ^— ^"^MjODllo, in
f'luieipplicataof
':iniie o(
■sere, I :.ii par- n, The
iia«kj«ti&ed,heglo- , i^it .^'^ 3<^<^'""''
„ 0 inott TB£ m-
^Igg^topottoBroib
Lggijiiif vliGuii
ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
105
openinc; of a way by which mercy may be exercised consistently with righteousness. In both these senses the word occuis in Rom. V, 10. For if when we were enemies we were rkconcilkd to God hy the death of his Sun ; much more bein'g reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. On this passaije Dr. Guyse very properly remarks, " Reconciled to God by the death of his Son, in the first clause seems to relate to Christ's having tvorked out our reconciliation, or completed all in a way of merit by his death that was necessary to appease the wrath of God, and make way for the riches of his grace to be communicated to us in full consistence with the honour of all his perfections, and of his law and government, which the Apostle had called (verse 6, and 8,) dying for the ungodly, and dying f)r us : but being reconciled, ia the last clause, seems to relate to the reconciliation's taking ef- fect upon us, or, to our being brought into a state of actual recon- ciliation and peace with God, through faith in Christ's blood, which the Apostle had spoken of in verse l,and9, and which, in the verse after this, is called receiving the atonement.^'' — Thus also the term redemption is sometimes put for the price by which we are redeemed j namely the blood-shedding of Christ. In this sens© it appears to be used by the Apostle in Rom. iii. 24. Being jus- tified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. To be justified through Ms redemption is the same thing, I should think, as he\ng justified by his blood. But the term prop- erly and ordinarily signifies, not that for the sake of which we are delivered from the curse of the law, but the deliverance itself. Viewing reconciliation, or atonement, as a satisfaction to divine justice, and redemption as the deliverance of the sinner, the latter appears to me to be an effect of the former.
Peter. I am far from being convinced that redemption is an ef- fect of atonement, any more than that atortement is an effect of re- demption : both are the immediate effects of Christ's death, view- ed in different points of light.
James. 1 freely admit that both are effects of Christ's death ; but in such order as that one is the consequence of the other. I can conceive of the deliverance of the criminal arising from the
Vol, IV. 14
lOB <5N PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
satisfaction made to the judge ; but not of satisfaction to the judge arising from the deliverance of the criminal.
Peter. To view the atonement as merely a satisfaction to di- vine justice, or i\s i\ medium by which mercy may be exercised consieiently with the divine perfections, without considering sin- ners as actually reconciled to God by it, is to retain little if any thing more than the name of atonement.
James. 1 see no ground for calling that which was wrought for us while we were yet enemies ac/wa/ reconciliation. Actual re- conciliation appears to me. as it did to Dr. Gu\se, to r onsist in that which is accomplished through faith, or as receiving the atonement. The reconciluition which is synonymous with atonement is ex- pressed in 2 Cor. v. 18. All thingn are of God, who hath re- C0NC4LED us TO HiMsfeLF hy Jcsus Ckrist. But this is not suppo- sed by the Apostle, important as it was, to have brought sinners into a state of actual friendship with God : for if so, there had been no occasion for " the ministry of reconciliation," and for *' beseeching sinners to be reconciled io him." Nor do I see how a state of actual reconciliation could consist with the uniform lan- guage of the New Testament concerning unbelievers, whether elect, or non-elect, that they are under condemnation. I never understood that you held with justification before believing: but actual reconciliation seems to amount to this. Neither have I understood that you have ever attempted to explain away the du- ty of ministers to beseech sinners to be reconciled to God. On the contrary. If 1 mistake not, you have pleaded for it. I am sur- prised, therefore, at your speaking of them as being actually re- conciled to God while they are yet enemies.
John. What are your ideas brother James, of that reconcil- iation which was effected while we were yet enemies.
James. I conceive it to be that satisfaction to the divine justice by virtue of which nothing pertaining to the moral government of God hinders any sinner from returning to him ; and that it is up- on this ground that sinners are indefinitely invited so to do. Herein I conceive is the great difference at present between their state and that of the fallen angels. To them God is absolutely in- accessible ; no invitations whatever being addressed to them, nor
ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. 107
the gospel preached to them : but it is not so with fallen men. Besides this, as Christ gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar peoplCy 1 consider 'he actual reconciliation of the elect in the fulness of time as hereby ascertained. It was promised him, as the reward of his sulTerings, that he should see of the travail of his sotil, and be satisfied.
Peter, Is there any thing in the atonement, or promised to it, which infallibly ascertains its application to all those for whom it was made ?
James. If by this you mean all for whose salvation it was suf- ficient, I answer, There is not. But if you mean all for whose salvation it was intended, 1 answer, There is.
Peter. You consider the principal design of our Lord's atone- ment to be the manifestation of God's hatred to sin, in order to render the exercise of mercy consistent with justice : but, though this idea is supposed, yet it is far from being the first, the most prominent, the characteristic idea of our Lord's death : the grand idea suggested to an enlightened mind by the atonement of Christ is not God's hatred to sin but his love to sinners.
James. I hope we shall none of us pretend to be more enlight- ened than the apostle Paul, and I am mistaken if he does not sug- gest the idea against which you militate, lie represents God as setting forth his Son as a propitiation to declare, or demonstratk
HIS RIGHTEOUSXESS IN THE REMISSION OF SINS. It IS marvelloUS
to me that 1 should be suspected of holding up God's hatred of sin to the disparagement of his love to sinners, when the former is supposed to have been manifested to prepare the way for the latter. Were I to say, The principal design of David in restoring Absa- lom at the instance of Joab, rather than by sending for him him- self, was that even in pardoning the young man he might show some displeasure against his sin, and save his own honour as the head of a family and of a nation, I should not be far from the truth. Yet I might be told, The grand, the prominent, the characteristic idea suggested by the king's consent was loce ; for his soul longed tti go forth to Msalom. Love to Absalom doubtless accounts fop
j08 ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
David's desiring his return : but love to righteousness accounts for his desiring it in that particular manner. So if the question were, Why did God give his Son to die for sinners, rather than leave them to perish in their sins!' the answer would be. Because he loved them. But if the question be, Why did he give his Son to be an atonement for sinners, rather than save them without one 1 the answer would be, Because he loved righteousness, and hated iniquity.
Peter. On the principle I oppose, the love of God in apply- ing the atonement is much greater thar) in giving his Son to be an atonement, since the latter is mere general benevolence ; but the former is particular and effectual.
James. You should rather have said, The love of God is great- er in giving his Son to be a sacrifice in respect of those for whose salvation it was his pleasure to make it effectual, than in merely giving him, as he is said to have done, to some who never receiv- ed him.* If there was a particularity of design in the gift of Christ, it cannot be ascribed merely to general benevolence. And so far as it is so, we have no right to depreciate it on account of its not issuing in the salvation of sinners in general. It was no diminution to the love of God to Israel in bringing them out of Egypt, that the great body of them transgressed and perished in the wilderness : nor could it be truly said that the bringing of Ca- leb and Joshua into the land of promise was a greater expression of love than that which had been bestowed upon them, and the whole body of their cotemporaries, in liberating them from the Egyptian yoke. And let me intreat 3'ou to consider whether your principles would not furnish an apology for the unbelieving Israel- ites.— There was little or no love in God's delivering us, unless he intended withal to prevent our sinning against him, and actually to bring us to the good land : but there was no good land for us — Would to God we had died in Egypt !' To this, however, an apostle would answer, Thei/ could not enter in becnuse of unbelief . And as this language was written for the warning of professing Christians, whose inclination to relinguish the gospel resembled
* Johnvi. 3ii. 1!.
ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. IQ^
(bat of their fathers to return into Egypt, we are warranted to con- clude from it, that though tlie salvation of the saved be entirely of grace, yet the failure of others will be ascribed to themselves. They shall not have the consolation to say, ' Our salvation was a natural impossibility :' or, it they were to utter such language;, they would be repelled by scripture and conscience, which unite in declaring They could not enter in because of unbelief.
Peter. 1 remember an old nonconformist minister says, " If any man be bound to believe Christ's satisfaction sufficient to justify him for whom it was never paid, he is bound to believe aQ untruth. God will never make it any man's duty to rest for sal- vation on that blood that was never shed for him, or that satisfac- tion that was never made for him."
James. This reasonining of the old nonconformist may, for ought I know, be just on his principles ; but it is not so on mine. If satisfaction was made on the principle of debtor and creditor, and that which was paid was just of sufficient value to liquidate a given number of sins and to redeem a given number of sinners, and no more; it should seem that it could not be the duty of any but the elect, nor theirs till it was revealed to them that they were of the elect, to rely upon it: for "wherefore should we set our eyes on that Tchich is not ? But if there be such a fulness in the satisfaction of Christ as is sufficient lor the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in him ; and if the particularity of redemption lie only in the purpose or sovereign pleasure of God to render it efTectual t© some rather than to others, no such consequence will follow : or if it do, it will also follow, that divine predestination and human accountableness are utterly inconsistent, and therefore that we roust either relinquish the former in favour of Arminianism, or give up the latter to theAntinomians. But though the ideas of my much respected brother, on the subject of redemption, cannot be very different from those of his old nonconformist, yet I should not have supposed he would have adopted his re.nsoningas bis own.
Peter. Why not ?
James. Because it is your avowed persuasion that sinners as SINNERS are invited to believe in Christ for salvation. Thus you
HO ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
have iuterpreted the invitations in Isa. Iv. 1 — 7. and various others; carefully and justly guarding against the notion of their being addressed to renewed, or as some call them, sensible sin- ners. Thus also you interpret 2 Cor. v. 20. of God's beseeching sinners by the ministry of the word to be reconciled to htm. But your old friend would tell you, that God will never invite a sinner to rest for salvation on that blood that was never shed for him, or on that satisfaction that was never made for him. I should have thought loo, after all that you have said of the warrant which sinners as sinners have to believe in Christ, you would not have denied it to be their duty, nor have adopt- ed a mode of reasoning which, if followed up to its legitimate consequences, will compel you to maintain either the possibility of knowing our election before we believe in Christ, or that in our first reliance on his righteousness for acceptance with God we are guilty of presumption.
John. I conceive, my dear brethren, that you have each said as much on these subjects as is likely to be for edification. Permit me, after having heard and candidly attended to all that has passed between you, to assure you both of my esteem, and to declare that in my opinion the difference between you ought not to prevent your feeling towards and treating each other as brethren. You are agreed in all the greet doctrines of the gos- pel ; as the necessity of an atonement, the ground of accept- ance with God, salvation by grace only, &c. &c. and with re- spect to particular redemption, you both admit the thing, and I would hope both hold it in a way consistent with the practice «f the primitive ministers; or if it be not altogether so, that you will reconsider the subject when you are by yourselves. The greater part of those things wherein you seem to diifer, may be owing either to a difference in the manner of expressing your- selves, or to the affixing of consequences to a principle which yet are unperceived by him that holds it. I do not accuse either of you with doing so intentionally : but principles and their con- sequences are so suddenly associated in the mind, that when we hear a person avow the former, we can scarcely forbear imme- Jiately attributing to hira the latter. If a principle be proposed
ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. m
lo us for acceptance, it is right to weigh the consequences : but whoi) forming our judgment of the person who holHs it, we should attach nothing to him but what he perceives and avows. If by an exchange of ideas you can come to a better understanding, it will afford me pleasure : meanwhile it is some satisfaction that your visit to me has not tended to widen but considerably to diminish your differences. Brethren, there are many adversa- ries of the gospel around yon, who would rejoice to see you at variance : let there be no strife between you. You are both er- ring mortals ; but both, 1 trust, the sincere friends of the Lord Jesue. Love one another!
ANSWER TO THREE QUERIEgi
PROPOSED TO THE AUTHOR.
«' 1. SINCE, on the present constitution of things, men nev^t had a disposition to love and serve God, nor can it be produced by any circumstances in \fhich they can be pl-iced ; hove can they be accountable for what they never had, aad without divine influence never can have ?
" 2. If it be said, that man is accountable from his powers and constitution, and therefore that God requires of him perfect obe* ilience and love as the result of his possessing a moral nature ; still how is it consistent with the goodness of God, to produce ac- countable beings in circumstances wherein their rebellion is cer- tain, and then punish them for it ?
" 3. If the reply to these difficulties be founded on the princi- ple, that from what we see, we cannot conceive of a constitution, which hath not either equal or greater difficulties in it ; is it not a confession, that we cannot meet the objections and answer them in the direct way, but arc obliged to acknowledge that the gov- ernment of God is too imperfectly uaderstood by us, to know the principles on which it proceeds ?
" The above queries are not the effect of any unbelief of the great leading doctrines of the gospel ; but as every thinking man has his own way of settling such moral difficulties, you will confer a favour on me if you will state how you meet and answer them in your own mind."
ANSWER.
If the querist imagines that we profess to have embraced a sys- tem which answers all difficulties, he should be reminded that we Vol. IV. lb
114 ANSWER TO THREE QUERIES.
profess no such tliiiis;. If it answer all sober and modest ohjeclions, tl ai iji as much a> ought to he expected. The querist would do well to consider whether he be not off Christian ground ; and •whethi-r he mi!.';ht not as well inquire as follows : How could it consist with the <roo(hiess of God, knowing as he did the part that men and angels would act, to create them ? Or, if he had brought them into being, yet when they had transgressed, why did he not blot them out of existence ? Or, if they who had sinned must needs exist .t.kI be punished, yet why was it not confined to them? Why must the human race be brought into being under such cir- cumstances 1
I remember, wlien a boy of about ten years old, I was bathing uith a number of other boys near a niill-dani, and the hat of one of mv conipaiiinns fdling into the stream, I had the hardihood, witiiout being ablc^ to swim, to attemj't to recover it. I went so d .ep tSiat the v.a e!> began to rtm into my mouth, and to heave my feet 'Vom the g'ound. At (iiat instant the millers seeing my danger, t-et up a loud cry, ''Get back! get back I get back ! I did so, and that was all. — 'Vhat the millers said to me, modesty sobriety, and right rea^•on, say to all such objectors as the above, * Get back ! get back ! get back! You are beyond your depth ! It is enough for you to know that God hath created men and angels, and this notwithstanding he knew what would be the re- sult ; that he ha ra not blotted them out of existence ; and that he HATH >OT prevented the propagation of the human race in their fallen state. These being facts which cannot be disputed, you ought to'take it for granted, whether you can understand it or not, that I hey are consistent with righteousness ; for the contrary is no other than ri- plying against God.'
Whatever objections may be alleged against an hypothesis, or the meaning of a text of scripture, on the ground of its inconsis- tency with the divine perfections ; yet in matters of acknowledged Jact, ihcy are inadmissible. If God hath done thus and thus, it is not for us to object that it is inconsistent v. ith his character; but to su- pect our own uui'eretiMidiiig, and conclude that if we knew the whole, we shonh! see it !o be right. I^aul invariably takes it for grant- ed that ichatecer GudUutii is right : nor will he dispute with any man
ANSWER TO THrr.F. QUERIES. 115
on n contr.irv principle, htit cnt« him «hort in thn mannor : h there nnn^hfenmrtefis r.^ith God? Gorlforhid! It nn. onou-h for 1.1m that God hnth snid to Mo^es, / •uill have merry on whom I will ' ave mercy. This, as if he should «ny- <= t'^e fact : fi>^ hath uiercyfm, u>hnm he trill have mercy, and whom he xsill he HART>ENEtH;" ifc knrwwhnt would he the hcurtrisin-s of tho Infidel— TAoj/'tiff/^ say then uuto me. Why doth he yet fi7.d fault? for ziho hath resvit- ed his trill? But does he attempt to answer (his objection ? No ; he repels it as Job did : He that rrpruvcth God, let hiu answer it- Nay bt/t. O man, who art thou that ni;PLiF.ST acmnst God ? Shall
THE THI\G FORMED SAY TO HIM THAT FOllMFD IT, WhY IIAST THoU aiADE ME THVS ?
Let the Querist consider whether his objections he not of the same family as those which were made to the Apostle, and whctii- er they do not admit of the same answer. Is it not fact, that thouaih sinners " never had a disposition to love and serve God, and no circnm-^tance in which they can be placed will