I HAVE observed, sir, that you gentlemen of the cler­gy, though you differ in sentiments from one ano­ther, yet all claim to yourselves the honor of being orthodox; and the same man, tho' he differs from himself in different stages of his life, yea, and even at the same time, and in the same discourse, yet is orthodox still, and inconsistent and contrary propositions are sound doctrine. How is this to be accounted for; Does orthodoxy follow the motions of the clergy, as the shadow upon the dial does that of the fun? And when your motions are retro­gade, does orthodoxy go backward like the shadow upon the dial of Abaz?

YOU are merry upon us, sir. But we are agreed in this, that true orthodoxy is a fixed thing, and that the holy scriptures are the only true rule of faith, and standard by which doctrines of religion are to be tried, and determined to be orthodox or not. We may possibly differ in our understanding of the sense of the scriptures, in some things. So do the gentlemen, and judges of the law in their in­terpretations of the law, in some particulars. But it don't at all follow from thence, that true orthodoxy, either in law or divinity, is a wavering or uncertain thing: it only shews that men are fallible. We may possibly err in some things, in our profession, as well as the best of men in other professions; but I hope we don't willingly err from the truth in any thing.

I am glad, sir, to find your thoughts so just: But I believe it is a pretty difficult thing, for men who are teachers of others by office, and have presided in the church a num­ber of years, to be themselves, perfectly teachable.

It is indeed fo: and if we are not truly humble we shall not be so. If the defire of worldly honor and pre-eminence, and love of the praise of men prevails in us above the desire of pleasing God, and being approved by our great master, we shall become obstinate in [Page 7] defending our own unhappy mistakes, and sooner run into two popular errors than ac­knowlege one. However, we ought all of us, to sit at the feet of Jesus with as much humi­lity and meek teachableness as the least of our hearers, that we may hear and learn of him, and be corrected by him, wherein we have un­happily erred from his truth, and willingly receive his corrections of our errors, by who­soever hands they are ministred to us.

I am right well pleased with your modest and just sentiments; and wish all the gentlemen of your order, throughout the chri­stian world, had them written on their hearts.

I wish so too, and that they may be deeply engraved upon mine, and ever be attended to.

Under the influence of these tho'ts, and in your present temper of mind, I believe you will be an impartial examiner, and justly censure such errors in religion as deserve censure. I will therefore, if it be agreable to you, sir, mention to you several things which I have collected out of sundry discourses of se­veral of our clergy, which have been lately published, which appear to me very wrong, and of very evil tendency; some of which are, I think, nearly related to Sandeman's heresies, and desire your thoughts upon them.

Do as you. please, sir. As to San­domen, his books are written in a very artful manner, but are, in my opinion, the worst and most pernicious of any that ever I read, which were pretended to serve the cause of christia­nity. What the author's design was in writing them, I do not pretend to say; but the ten­dency of his scheme of doctrine, represented by him at the true gospel scheme, is to per­vert and turn the gospel into ridicule, and in the issue to serve the interest of deism. It is to me very surprising that any of our clergy should go into his sentiments, so far as some of them seem to have done. I am sure these things disserve the interest of christian truth and virtue.

I will then first mention some of the things I have collected out of two discour­ses of Dr. Whitaker, lately printed in London.

I have not the happiness of any particular acquaintance with the Dr. but have heard some things spoken of him to his honor, and wish the discourses you refer to, were calculated to do him more honor than they do. I have read them, and confess my expectations were greatly disappointed. I observed sundry particulars which I greatly dislike, and think the general plan of the discourse is wrong. But what are the things you have remarked as erroneuos?

Passing by various lesser matters, I will only mention some things which appear to me of importance. And first, the Dr. says, p, 7. ‘Man's enmity is the cause why God, became his enemy; and this enmity or anger of God is most reasonable and righteous.’

The Dr. does not do well to re­present God's holy displeasure against man for his first apostacy and rebellion, as the same with enmity. They are as different from each other as the displeasure of a gracious, com­passionate father, towards an offending child, is from the hatred of an enemy. But if God did become his enemy, whence did he love him so, as to give his own Son to save him? The Dr. shall be his own corrector. He says, p. 27. ‘The gift of Christ was the effect, not the cause of God's love.’

I believe your tho'ts are right, sir; but the Dr. says further, p. 10. ‘It is good, just and reasonable for God to be an enemy to rebellious man: It was and is infinitely just and reasonable for God to treat him as an enemy.’

How came he then to be infinitely kind to him, and love him while in his enmi­ty and rebellion? Can directly opposite affec­tions and methods of treatment towards the same person, under the same character and [Page 10] circumstances, be both infinitely reasonable? If not, then, supposing the Dr.'s assertion is true, God's good-will and kindness towards rebellious man is infinitely unreasonable.

Your answers encourage me to pro­ceed. The Dr. quoting these words of the apostle, Rom. 3.25, 26. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, thro' faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past—that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus, says, ‘From this scripture it plainly appears, that the great end for which Christ was made a sacrifice for sin, was to declare, manifest, vindicate and honor the righteousness of God,’ (that is, as he explains himself, his punishing justice) ‘not to declare his kindness, and persuade men that God is very merciful and ready to forgive them.’ And he says that ‘men are of themselves too ready to believe this without any arguments and persuations,’ and thence infers, p. 26. ‘Therefore Christ did not come into the world to declare or demonstrate that God is merciful, for it was not doubted before; but it was to manifest the truth and righteousness of God disco­vered in the law.’—What say you to these things, sir?

In the first place I say, the Dr. here [Page 11] inverts the order of the gospel, and spreads a very dishonoring cloud over the glory of this dispensation. The scripture every where re­presents the immediate and grand design of Christ's appearing and suffering in the flesh, as being to manifest God's mercy, and to minister to and accomplish the designs of his love to man. He became a sacrifice, to the honor of justice, only as an expedient to open the way, for mercy or love to do all the good pleasure of its will, in consistence with justice; as the apostle says, that God might be just, and the jus­tifier of the sinner who believes in Jesus. In this dispensation justice ministers to, and follows the lead of mercy. The Dr. acknowleges the truth in these words, ‘The love of God broke out first in the glorious act of giving Christ: to open a way for its honorable exercise in the salvation of sinners.’ p. 27.

2dly. The good Dr. has undoubtedly mis­taken the sense of the text you mention. By the righteousness of God there, he supposes his punishing justice to be intended; whereas the apostle intends his righteousness in pardon­ing sin and justifying the sinner; that righte­ousness of God by which sinners are justified, which the apostle opposes to the righteousness of obedience to the law. This, I think, is very manifest from the apostle's reasning from [Page 12] the 20th to the 28th verse of this third chapter of Romans. The apostle uses the word righ­teousness, in the same sense as it is here used in many other texts.

3dly. The Dr. is greatly mistaken in saying, God's mercy in freely pardoning and saving poor guilty sinners, was not doubted before Christ revealed it, and that men are of them­selves too prone to believe it. What he ob­serves of carnal, secure sinners easily believing the mercy of God, but not his justice, is to no purpose—they only seem to believe it: If they really believe any thing, it is that they have very little need of mercy. The true trial of their faith is taken from their being bro't under just conviction of their sin and evil desert. And now they are found more easily and ear­nestly to believe God's justice than his mercy. What a guilty world wanted was a just ground of faith concerning God's mercy and readiness to forgive the penitent, and to be shewn how this can be done consistently with justice, which the guilty do more readily believe; and this is done only by the gospel.—But if it is as the Dr. says, whence is it that our first parents before they had received any revelati­on of God's purposes of mercy to them, belie­ved his justice but not his mercy, and were afraid when they heard the voice of their Lord, [Page 13] and hid themselves among the trees? Fear or dread of divine wrath is the natural result of a sense of guilt, and what all mankind feel the impression of, and can't be effectually relieved from but by the discovery of God's mercy made by the gospel. Accordingly the apostle sparks of the Gentiles as mourning without hope, and says Jesus Christ has redeemed those who thro' fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage.

The Dr. says, ‘To assert that the death of Christ hath caused any reason for our reconciliation to God to exist which did not exist before, and which would not have existed had not Christ died, is to assert that it is now more reasonable to love God than it would otherwise have been. But how could the death of Christ make this more reasonable?’ p. 42.

The apostle John knew how, and so does every sensible christian: He says, We love him because he first loved us: and Paul says, The love of Christ constraineth us: Which sayings evidently suppose some new motives, and additional reasons to love God, which arise out of this dispensation of grace, and which would never have existed if this dispensation had not taken place.

The Dr. says again, p. 50. ‘All [Page 14] that makes it reasonable to love God now, would have existed if Christ had never died.’

The love of God in giving his Son to die for us, is constantly and justly represent­ed in scripture as a new, peculiar and power­ful reason, why we should love and be recon­ciled to him, see 2 Cor. 5.20, 21. Now ac­cording to the Dr. is Christ never had died, this reason would have existed in the same strength it does now; that is, if God had not so loved the world as to give his Son to die for us, yet he would still have so loved us. I know the Dr. will not admit this; and for this reason he should not have laid down the premise.

He also says, ‘The sacrifice of Christ, and the love of God, does not make it more reasonable for sinners to return,’ (that is, to God and their duty) ‘than it was before, only that it is an additional obligati­on.’ p. 50,

That is, only as it makes it more abundantly reasonable. I had rather be with­out the honor of making new discoveries in the mysteries of divinity, than to take up with such poor ones as serve to no other purpose than to set people a staring.

I am of your mind, sir. But the good Dr. has made some other discoveries, [Page 15] which possibly you may like better. I will in the next place give you some of the things he says concerning the natural enmity of the hearts of the children of Adam against God. Speak­ing of this natural enmity as an enmity to God's whole character, he says, ‘This con­trariety to God is innate and interwoven with the very frame of our hearts,’ p. 15.

Is this consistent with Mr. Ed­wards's doctrine? He says, There is not the least need of supposing any evil quality infused, implanted, or wrought into the nature of man by any positive cause or influence whatever; or of supposing that man is conceived and born with a fountain of evil in his heart, such as is any thing properly positive, in order to account for a sinful corruption of nature. ^*

The Dr. says, ‘That man, thro' the first apostacy, lost all taste for moral beauty and excellency; the perfections of the Deity became hateful in his view, the objects of his utter aversion.’

There is a moral beauty and excel­lence in equity, righteousness, veracity, faith­fulness, goodness, benignity, bountifulness, mercy, compassion, pity, placableness, readi­ness to forgive and overcome evil with good. These are the characters of that great Being, [Page 16] whose we are. There is a moral deformity, ugliness and baseness in all the contrary cha­racters, tempers and actions. Is the present frame or constitution of human nature such, so totally inverted, that God is hated as being thus excellent, and morally perfect? Are righteousness, equity, goodness, kindness, &c. in their nature hateful in our view of them, 'till we are new made? Do we hate them as being what they are in themselves? Are they the objects of our utter aversion? If so, doubt­less we naturally approve the contrary vices. They are beautiful, excellent and amiable characters in our view and taste of them. And if this is the case with man, this hatred of all moral excellence, as such, must shew itself in a proportionable hatred of it in men, as they appear to bear any resemblance to God: for nature is consistent with itself.

The Dr. acknowleges this conse­quence, saying, ‘The more resemblance any persons bear to the divine perfections, the more they are conformed to Jesus Christ, the more they are treated like their glorious head by those who hate God and his ways.’ p. 20. That is, as he must be understood, by all natural men, and on account of those virtues, by which they resemble him.

I hope it will be allowed that those [Page 17] who are followers of that which is good, are, therein, followers of God, and conformed to Jesus Christ. Now the apostle Peter says, Who is he that will harm you if ye be followers of that which is good? 1 Pet. 3.13. Implying that moral good is not naturally hateful to men, but rather approved and countenanced as good, in their esteem. But I won't insist on this now, for our new apostles have thrown the old ones quite out of the saddle. But if it is as the Dr. says, we ought to see this utter aversion to all that is morally good and Christ-like universally expressed in the life and actions of all unconverted men. But do we see them generally express such a hatred and utter a­version to equitable conduct, in cases where they are uninterested to all the expressions and actions of justice, goodness, kindness, gra­ciousness, compassion, meekness, forbearance, placableness, veracity and faithfulness? Do we see the contrary vices generally approved and commended by natural men, in instances where, they are uninterested? All the world are wit­nesses to the contrary: It would not be a more glaring contradiction to notorious fact to assert, that all men walk upon their heads with their feet stretched up into the air. — I believe it will be found, on a critical examination, that the enmity of carnal men to God's character, is an [Page 18] interested and partial affection, contrary to their own inward and natural sense of what is right and morally good and excellent; like that of a corrupt, bribed judge against the sentence of righteousness. But I don't enlarge here.—How does the Dr. account for the introduction of that horrible spirit of enmity against the perfections of God, and all moral excellence which he speaks of as the character of the hu­man heart ever since Adam's offence?

He says, ‘Whether this hatred of God or depravity arises from the withdraw­ing the aids of his Spirit, or from some po­sitive viciousness I shall not spend time to determine, tho' I believe the former.’ p. 11.

If so, he ought not to have said that this hatred is ‘innate and interwoven with the very frame of our hearts.’ But the good gentleman's faith in this particular was very short-liv'd; for by the time he came to the fourteenth page, he changed his mind, and says, ‘It is clear that this enmity arises from the viciocity of our hearts, and that it is innate and interwoven with their very frame.’ And this notion runs through the remainder of his discourse.

It does so. He says, p. 19. ‘All natural men's hearts are so contrary to all God's perfections that nothing can give them [Page 19] greater pain, or render them more miserable than a fight of them as they are in him.’

Yes, doubtless it must give a poor sinner great torment to hear God saying of himself, I am the Lord God, gracious and mer­ciful, flow to anger, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, and by no means clearing the guilty; and calling to him, saying, Wherefore, turn thou unto me and live. Or shall we say that God has drawn his own character wrong, that the Dr. may be justified?—But if the case be so as he says it is, I don't see how any discoveries of God's glory to the minds of sinners, or any sense of it impressed on their hearts, can be a means of reconciling them to him: It should seem rather calculated to inflame the disease than to cure it.

The Dr. is aware of this conse­quence and approves it, and it is one essential part of his system of orthodoxy. He says, p. 18. ‘The nature of man and the nature of God are opposite to each other.’ And p. 35. ‘God's character is so contrary to fallen men, that the more they know of him the more does their enmity stir and exert itself against him, till by the renewing of the Holy Ghost they are conformed to the divine image.’

If it be so, the manifestation of the [Page 20] glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ to the mind and heart of a sinner, is the most unsui­table means that can be used to convert and reconcile him; it is like throwing oil into fire in order to quench it: and the devil is sadly out in his politics, in endeavoring to blind the eyes of unconverted people left the light of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ should shine unto them.

Well, the Dr. also says, ‘The wonderful manifestation of his (God's) love and grace, in the gospel, with all the mov­ing and melting accents of his mercy, are not sufficient to prevail with one sinner to make up the quarrel with God.—The sa­crifice of Christ, and the love of God ma­nifested therein, is not sufficient, by way of motive, to prevail with one sinner to return to him.’ p. 44 —Again, ‘The manifesta­tion of divine glory by Christ transcends every other method in which God hath re­vealed his perfection, and unfolds more of his nature and attributes than the works of creation and providence.—But all this serves not to engage unrenewed man to love, but more sensibly to abhor God, in propor­tion to the clearer manifestation of his nature and perfections. For if there is enmity in our hearts to God, the clearer views we have [Page 21] of him, the more will it work and shew itself, till a change takes place,’ p. 50, 51. I think the Dr. is now quite perfect in his way.

If the case is such, Jesus Christ expressed himself very improperly when he said, If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me; and when he makes the drawing influence of the truth the great instrument of engaging men to come to him, saying, No man can come unto me except the Father draw him. It is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God. Every one therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto me. ^* And it is to no purpose to address unconverted men in the apostle's manner, saying, We beseech you and pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God; for he hath made him sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. ^† For the hearts of men are so monstrously fra­med, that moral and gospel motives can take no hold of them, till they are first new-made, without the word; but the more gospel truth draws them, so much the more they pull back. These are no more calculated to draw such hearts, than they are to draw a cart. But I can more easily believe the Dr. has blundered into a gross and abominable error, than admit these things as true. But if it is as the Dr. says, that "the sacrifice of Christ, and the love [Page 22] and the melting mercy of God are not suffici­ent, by way of motive, to prevail with one sinner to be reconciled to him," no possible motives are sufficient, and there is an end of all reasoning with them; and ministers might as well preach to their people the doctrines of Mahomet as of CHRIST, for any good effect of them.

The Dr. acknowleges it, saying, ‘God takes much pains to persuade man to be reconciled to him, yet, alas! the enmity remains; man is still totally averse to a re­conciliation; and all the threatnings and promises, all the intreaties and arguments which can be proposed, are insufficient to overcome and bow his will and reconcile him to God. Natural men laugh at his counsels and despite his reproof; and so they will do till the arm of God's power is re­vealed to make them willing.’ p. 33, 34. I think the Dr. must be understood to intend here a different kind of power from the moral power of gospel truth and love; for this power is opposed by him to the persuasive power of the gospel: that can effect nothing; this alone can subdue the enmity and make the sinner willing. So the Dr. robs the gospel of all its moral power over the minds of sinners, and of all the glory of drawing men to God, or per­suading [Page 23] them to be reconciled to him. The gospel, in his hands, is rendered as weak as the law; whereas it was in the apostles time, the power of God. The law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, says Paul, hath made me free from the law of sin. ^*

If it is as the Dr. says, to what purpose is all this pains taken with these poor mad-hearted creatures, in reasoning with, and persuading them, when the nature of the here­ditary disease is known to be such that power alone, and not argument and moral force is adapted to cure it? If his Majesty, out of his pity to the poor, mad creatures, confined in Bedlam, should send his bishops among them from week to week, and from year to year, to preach to them, and exhort them to lay aside their wrong and wild imaginations, and be­come sober and reasonable, what high tho'ts should we entertain of his Majesty's wisdom, and great skill in curing madness? But if we knew his Majesty perfectly understood the na­ture of their disease, and knew that all this parade of preaching, reasoning and exhorting them could effect nothing, and that he could otherwise cure their disease by the exercise of mechanic power, what tho'ts should we have of his sincerity, and of his prosessed love and pity to those poor creatures? How shocking [Page 24] is the injury and disonor which is done the all-wise and most gracious God, by such infa­mous misrepresntations of him, as the doct­rine before us gives! Gentlemen who talk in this wild manner would do well to lay to heart the words of Job, whereby he reproves the partial, perverse reasonings of his friends, Will you speak wickedly for God, and talk deceitfully for him? Will you accept his person? Shall not his excellency make you afraid, and his dread fall upon you? Surely he will reprove you.

The Dr. says, ‘No moral argu­ments, except the terrors of the Lord, are adapted to influence carnal sinners to attend to their salvation.’ p. 53.

If so, Jesus Christ and his holy apostles were very injudicious preachers, and took abundance of impertinent pains to per­suade sinners; and yet no man ever persuaded them so successfully: the multitude flocked about Jesus to hear his preaching. Did he thunder and terrify them as at the mount that was covered with blackness, and burned with fire, and quaked with fear? No: They won­dered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth, and their eyes were fastened upon him.—But suppose it is as the Dr. here says, that "no moral arguments except the terrors of the Lord are adapted to influence carnal [Page 25] sinners, &c." He also says, p. 34. " They despise his reproof: and so they will do till the arm of God's power is revealed to make them willing." So you see the terrors of the Lord can have no more influence than his love. There is some edification in seeing men who contradict the truth, at the same time incon­sistent with themselves.

The Dr. says it down as a just infe­rence from what he said before concerning the nature and power of the enmity of man's heart against the nature and moral character of God, that ‘men are not converted to God by moral suasion, i. e. by any rational arguments whereby their hearts are influenced to turn from sin to God.’ p. 50. He adds, ‘The minds of men are too full of enmity to God, to be persuaded to love and be reconciled to him, by any, tho' the most powerful argu­ments, addressed to their understanding, or affections; therefore I don't think that re­generation is effected by light, i. e. by pre­senting the things of religion to their minds, or even by opening their eyes to see them; but in order to this the power of God must be exerted, and by this alone men are created anew.’ p. 53.

If the premises are true, the infe­rence is undoubtedly just. If a man has wo­ven [Page 26] ven into hit frame and constitution, a fixed, incurable aversion and detestation to all sweets, it is in vain to go about to cure this constitu­tional aversion by feeding him with sugar and honey: His constitution must be mechanically changed before he can be reconciled to them. So if the case be with man as the Dr. says it is, the very frame of his nature must be altered before he can be brought to love God: A view of his moral perfections, and gospel truths can do nothing towards working this change, but this must first be wrought by absolute power, before these truths can take any hold of the heart. This change, according to the Dr. is wrought only by the exertion of a power of the holy Spirit upon the soul of man, altoge­ther of a different kind from the power of di­vine truth and love, a power which produces its effects, not by moral exertions and means, but by a physical, forcible exertion of strength. This is the darling doctrine of the Sandemanian divines, the quinteffence of the new orthodoxy.

Well; but the Dr. speaktng of the means by which God ordinarily brings men to be reconciled to him, says, p. 48. ‘God to effects the new birth by his own almighty power, yet he makes use of means in order thereto. He deals with men as rational creatures, proposes all those motives and [Page 27] arguments to their consideration, which would be sufficient to engage their love to him, were it not for their hatred of his un­changable perfections; and these motives have a powerful influence on all those whose hearts are conformed to God in regeneration. Preaching the gospel is the ordinary means which God makes use of to reconcile sinners to himself, and it is as well calculated to work on the minds of sinners as any means can possibly be: But yet all the motives the gospel sets before sinners will be ineffectual, without the agency of divine power to renew their hearts and conform them to his glori­ous character.’

God does indeed treat men as ra­tional creatures, capable of being persuaded, or drawn to be reconciled to him by gospel mo­tives and arguments: and this is to me a de­monstration that they are so; but the Dr. says they are not; that their inwrought enmity is of such a kind that all those means can have no effect, till they are first renewed; then he al­lows they will have a powerful influence. If so, God treats man, in the gospel dispensation, as being what he is not; which is to treat him. contrary, to truth, improperly and wrong, and solemnly applies a course of means for the cure of sinners, which can have no effect till the [Page 28] cure is first wrought by a different kind of ap­plication. He that imputes folly, and such absurd conduct to his Maker, let him answer it.

I don't know how he can, other­wise than on his knees, with Job's confession in his mouth, Behold I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay my hand on my mouth. Once have I spoken, but I will not answer; yea twice, but I will proceed no further.

I will now let the Dr. rest; but have a few things collected from Mr. Hopkins, out of many, which are very faulty, which I desire your thoughts upon.—In his treatise, intitled, An Enquiry concerning the Promises of the Gospel, he says, p. 124, 125. ‘The awaken­ed, convinced sinner, who has taken a great deal of pains in the use of means, and has hereby got a great degree of instruction and knowlege, and yet remains impenitent, is, in this respect, much more guilty and vile, and a greater criminal in God's sight, than if he had never attained to this conviction and knowlege: yea, his impenitence, and all his other sins, are so aggravated by the light and conviction he obtains, that whatever particular ways of known sin he has forsaken, and how many soever external duties he attends upon, yet, on the whole, he is un­doubtedly [Page 29] a greater sinner than he was when he lived in security, and the neglect of the means of grace. So that the impenitent, unregenerate sinner does not grow better, but rather worse by all the instruction and knowlege he gets in the use of means. And awakened, convinced sinners, with whom most means are used, and who are most at­tentive to the concerns of their souls, and most in earnest in the use of means, are commonly, if not always, really more guilty & odious in God's sight than they who are secure and at ease in their sins.’—p. 127. ‘If these things be so, then the sinners who continue impenitent under the greatest convictions of consceience, and the most concern about their souls and salvation, and are consequently taking the most pains, and using unwearied endeavors, are usually the greatest sinners, really more guilty, more vicious and vile than they were when in a state of security; and lived in a great measure in the neglect of the means of grace. And if they live and die impenitent, their condemnation will be more intolerable than if they never had that conviction and knowlege, which by their attention to the gospel they have attained.’ How do you like these things, sir?

Not at all. 'Tis usual for enlight­ned, [Page 30] convinced sinners to complain that they grow worse: they see more of their own bad­ness than formerly, and so imagine they really grow more wicked, and are in danger of being discouraged. But it is a new thing to teach them doctrinally, that they really do so, and are more odious to God in proportion as they are more, awakened, and take more pains to become better, as Hopkins does. This is a ready way to throw them directly into the de­vil's arms. If this author was alone in these fentiments, I would not trouble myself with any attention to them; but as they are embra­ced and taught by too many, I will a little re­mark upon them.—This gentleman puts the case of a sinner who by his attention to the gospel is enlightned, has gained much christian knowlege, and is under strong convictions, and is thereby put upon using his best endeavors to obtain mercy and grace, in the use of the means of grace, and engaged to abstain from his old ways of sin, and carefully to practise outward duties. Such he supposes to be still impenitent. By which he must be understood to intend that his repentance does not spring from the highest motives or principles, a supreme love to God and holiness, and a disinterested governing hatred of sin, and so is not of the saving kind. For such a sinner as he here describes does [Page 31] repent in some fort. He has a change of mind and conduct with respect to sin and duty, with respect to God and the eternal world, which is effected by the knowlege and belief he has obtained of gospel truths. Hopkins describes him as forsaking and abstaining from his old sins, (sorry, no doubt, that he ever practised them) as reforming his life and practising the duties of religion, as far as he can, and as ear­nestly seeking God's mercy and salvation in the careful use of the appointed means of grace, and in a word, as going as far as he can under the influence of common grace, and the highest illuminations and influences of the Spirit of God, by the word, which are short of regene­rating and saving. Is he now become a grea­ter sinner than, he was before? Is he now more guilty and vile, and odious to God than he would have been if his mind and conduct was contrary to what it is? The motives he acts upon are suggested to his mind by the word and Spirit of God. If they are not the highest motives, they are true motives, gospel motives to such a conduct as he now observes; and the conduct is such as is required, though not the whole that is required. Is it then more wick­ed to act right in part, than not at all? to be influenced to do part of our duty, by some of the reasons and motives God sets before sinners [Page 32] to engage them thereto, than to be influenced by none of them, and do no part of our duty, but to despise them all? Is it a viler thing for a poor sinner to believe and fear God's wrath, and endeavor to flee from it, than to disbelieve and despise it, and run upon the point of his sword? Is it more odious to God to hear a sinner, under deep conviction, cry to him for mercy, than to hear him prophane his name and imprecate his curse upon his head? Is a thief, who being hardened in his first theft, goes presumptuously and commits a second, less guilty than he would have been, if con­vinced of his first sin, he had brought again that which he stole, and seriously asked God's forgiveness?

It is said that the awakened, con­vinced sinner acts upon selfish principles and motives in all that he does in religion, not from the love, and for the glory of God; and this is a wicked thing.

God acts with a view to his own glory, and to our true interest, subordinate thereto; and requires that we do so too. If the convinced sinner can't yet act upon the first and highest motive, yet in acting as he ought on the subordinate principle, he acts right as far as he goes, and as God wills him to do, though he does not go so far as he ought. [Page 33] His present conduct is therefore criminal in a less degree than it would be if he neither re­spected the glory of God, nor cared for his own soul and future well-being. And he who acts right now, as far as he can, may, through the grace of God, attain to act also upon the best principles: But if men will not be influenced by the lower, there is no probability that they will ever have given them the higher.

Mr. Hopkins seems to make the increased wickedness of the convinced sinner to be the result of his increased light. He says, ‘His impenitence and all his other sins are so aggravated by the light and conviction he attains that,’ &c.

When, in proportion as light in­creases, men's enmity and opposition to the truth, and obstinacy in their evil ways increase, they do indeed grow more vile and odious in God's fight, and in men's too. So it was with the incorrigible, malicious Pharisees, as our Lord observes of them, If had not done among them the works which no other man did, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin. Now they have both seen and hated both me and my father. But the case of the convinced sinner which Mr. Hopkins puts, is widely different from this. He does not drive against his convictions, and maliciously resist and rebel [Page 34] against the light which shines in his mind, but submits to its reproofs, and amends his ways, and applies himself to do his duty as he is able; is struggling against his lust, and cries out, O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me? and cries to God for mercy and deliverance. If his repentance is imperfect, so is his present light: It is proportioned to his light; if one is short of saving, so is the other. Where, or what then is the great aggravation of his pre­sent sins by the light he has obtained, above that of all his sins in his careless state of mind? I wonder gentlemen will talk so absurdly.—Indeed, if it were true as Dr. Whitaker says, "that the more natural men are enlightned the more they necessarily hate and abhor God," Hopkins's doctrine would also be true: But then the scriptures would be false; for they certainly teach a contrary doctrine to these.—This doctrine reflects great dishonor upon the holy Spirit; for it is under his influence that sinners are awakened and put upon seeking mercy in an earnest attendance on the means of religion: It also strongly tends to dishearten and discourage awakened sinners from applying themselves to the means of religion, and to make them desperately bold in wickedness.

Mr. Hopkins says (upon his princi­ples) ‘There is reason why the sinner should [Page 35] diligently attend all means of instruction and knowlege, and sufficient encouragement hereto. For without this instruction and knowlege the sinner can't be saved.’ p. 127.

A very poor encouragement is then sufficient. This thought, that let him do his best he only becomes more guilty, vicious and vile than he would be if he shut his eyes and sinned away in the dark, at all adventures, will not greatly encourage him to open them: this reflection, that he only becomes more wicked by all his endeavors and prayers to become better, and that if he fails at last, it will be much worse with him forever, than it would have been if he had never troubled his head about these matters, can never animate his heart in striving to enter in at the straight gate: And a persuasion, that by all he does, or can do, he only becomes more odious in the sight of God, than he would be if he cared for none of these things, will never convince him that such seeking as he is capable of, is a likely means for obtaining what he seeks.—These discouraging thoughts are wholly unballanced by these other thoughts, viz. "that without that knowlege and conviction which makes the sinner worse, he can't be saved; and that this knowlege can be obtained only in the use of means." If you urge a poor, guilty, con­cerned, [Page 36] low-spirited sinner to earnest, perse­vering diligence in seeking God's mercy and grace in the use of means, upon these principles, telling him that without this knowlege and application he can't be saved, he will rea­dily reply, that he has become much worse already by the pains he has taken in seeking God, and that the more he does, he shall only become the more odious and vile in his fight; and you shall never persuade him that this is a likely way to obtain his mercy; that if your principles are true, the best way is to sit still and do nothing: If God designs to save him, he shall be brought home one time or other; and if not, that he shall be less miserable in this way than in that you urge him to. Upon these principles, 'tis so far from being true that there is sufficient encouragement to a poor sinner to seek, that he has no true encouragement at all, This doctrine is a perfect snare of the fowler to poor, ignorant, perplexed souls.—Such tho'ts and reasonings, used formerly, sometimes, to be secretly suggested, and urged upon the minds of awakened, concerned sinners, by the devil, with a view to discourage them from seeking; and it has ever been the care of skilful and tender guides of souls to detect the sophistry of the deceiver, and deliver poor sinners out of these snares, craftily laid for them. But what [Page 37] a terrible advantage has the enemy gotten a­gainst us now, that his vile suggestions and en­snaring, false reasonings are mingled in with the doctrines of Jesus Christ, publicly taught and defended as doctrines of God, from the sacred desk, and by the press, by guides of the flock of God! Is this the fruit of our boasted zeal against errors, and of our refining upon orthodoxy? We seem, some of us, to have refined all the spirit and virtue of it away, and to be bringing in a system of errors, which have the most destructive influence upon the interest of virtue and genuine christianity. What have we done that God should set loose the spirit of error among us in so awful and threat­ning a manner? Are our churches so far de­parted from the faith as to approve of these things? If so, our glory is departing; if not, they ought strongly to testify their disappro­bation.

I had thoughts of mentioning seve­ral particulars in a sermon of Rev. Timothy Allen, on these words, What is Truth? which are, I think, very wrong; but I fear to be tedious.

I have seen the sermon you mention. It is a very bad one, and abounds with Sande­manian errors: and the author is heretical his notions of the Trinity, and has many other [Page 38] wild imaginations. But his reputation and in­fluence are so much sunk, that there is no great danger of his doing much mischief; so we will take no further notice of him.

I had thoughts also of giving you a few extracts from some of Dr. Bellamy's wri­tings, which, I think, deserve censure; but they don't lie directly in your road; so I pass them by. I think he has not published much upon the Sandemanian errors: But it is said that in his discourse delivered at the college chapel last commencement, he advanced this notion of Dr. Whitaker's, viz. ‘That rege­neration is not effected by light, but preceeds faith, and is wrought by the absolute power n of the Spirit.’

I did not hear that discourse; but have heard several gentlemen who were present speak of it, who gave me, much the same ac­count of his doctrine as you do; and said that many of our most judicious, orthodox divines were much offended with it. However, I hope the Dr. is not gone fully into this new scheme. He is a gentleman of so much sense, that upon further reflection, I presume he will retract that erroneous notion concerning rege­neration, if he has ever at all admitted it, and approve himself sound in the faith, and thereby give joy to his brethren, whom he once made sad.

[Page 39]That scheme of errors which we have been remarking upon is bad in it's self, and worse in it's consequences; fatally destructive of christianity. These which follow are inevi­table consequences of these false notions, viz.

First, That the enmity of natural men to God is not a moral disease, but a constituti­onal, mental, mechanical madness, is such an expression may be admitted. For moral dis­eases are, from their nature, as moral, [...]able, if at all, only by moral means, and the exertion of a moral power. But this disease of our nature, according to these new notions, is cu­rable by power only, only by the exertion of a power as different from the power of divine truth and love, as a mechanic power is from a syllogism.

Another consequence is, that natural man is not a moral agent. How can he be so, if his nature is such that moral truth and motive necessarily produce effects in him contrary to their nature? as Dr. Whitaker's doctrine says they do. He is a moral monster, and mad by nature. Is such a creature a fit subject of mo­ral government?

Another necessary consequence is, that it is to no more purpose to urge gospel truths and motives on unconverted men, to persuade them to be reconciled to God, than to reason with a [Page 40] mad man, with a view to cure him of his dis­traction; and that the gospel ministry, as it respects the unconverted, is the vainest, fool­ishest, and absurdest thing in the whole world. What would you think of the conduct of a physician, who, with a shew of great compas­sion to a sick and distracted servant, should prescribe to him, and command him to take a course of medicines in order to his cure, which (though of excellent virtue in some cases) he knows are not at all adapted to his case, but will only inflame his disease and make him more raving: and because he does not mend, but grows worse under the use of these means, kindles wrath against him, and commands him to be burnt to death as a despiser and abuser of his love and care for him, saying, with tears of seeming compassion in his eyes, I would have healed you, but you would not be healed? Tears, as deceitful as Judas's kisses.

I should think him the most false, unreasonable and cruel person in the whole world: And the doctrines which imply such horrible consequences, most certainly, are not from above, but from beneath.

Doubtless they are so. We justly abhor the rack and inquisition as instruments of great cruelty. But this system of fal [...] doc­trines prepares torments for souls in tra [...]il.

[Page 41]Another consequence is, that there is no preparatory work of the Spirit, no influence of common grace which does at all prepare and predispose men to receive the kingdom of God; but that the most careless, abandoned and pro­fligate wretches are as near to the kingdom of God, and as well disposed to receive it as the most enlightned, concerned, and earnest seeker, Sandeman avows this consequence, and makes it a pillar in his building. And Dr. Whitaker and Mr. Hopkins, upon their principles must admit it, if they will be self-consistent. For one says, the more natural men see of God's character, the more their hatred to it arises; and the other says, the more they know of gos­pel truth and strive to enter in at the straight gate, the worse they grow. If these things are so, common grace is no grace. It is, not only, eventually no favor to those who never obtain special grace, through their abuse of it; but it is no grace to such, in its nature, tendency, and design: And all the common influences of the holy Spirit on them are vain triflings. They are a means that don't at all prepare the subject for the end that is professedly aimed at by them—And sinners can't, in equity, be an­swerable for not profiting by them; for they are not improvable by them to any spiritual advantage.

[Page 42]Another necessary consequence of this scheme is, that the Spirit of Christ, acting in character, as the great teacher of his truth and love, and enlightner and drawer of souls, can do no more towards converting sinners, than you or I can. We used to think and say, as our venerable fathers taught us, and the holy apostles before them, that men, and ministers of the gospel, can't convert sinners and draw them to God, because they can only speak the quickning, converting truths into their ears; but that the Spirit of Christ, by speaking it into their hearts prevails, and divinely persuades and draws them home to God in Christ. But according to our new divines, this internal teaching can do no more towards converting the soul than the merely external. The holy Spirit acting as the Spirit of truth and endearing love, upon the minds and hearts of poor sinners can effect nothing. The more clearly and strongly he represents and impresses the glorious truth upon them, the more furiously they rage in their enmity against the truth, and the foun­tain of truth. Their enmity turns the edge of his sword: "The sword of the Spirit is the word of God," with which he was girded when he was sent forth from the Father, by the Son, as his minister, to subdue the enmity of men and make them willing captives to the Savior. [Page 43] But he can effect nothing by it; the harder he strikes the head of this enmity with his sword, the stronger and more lively it grows: (for the more natural men see of God's character and glory in the face of Jesus Christ, the more does their enmity rise and exert itself; if we may believe our new teachers.) In short, he is quite defeated, in the use of his own proper weapons, by every foolish snner: And if he will conquer at last, he finds himself obliged to throw away his sword, and betake himself to a very different kind of power, which has nothing more of the moral kind in it, than the action of a watch-maker in taking out of a badly constructed watch a superfluous spring which prevents the action of the true spring. How far the doctrine which draws such hor­rible consequences, reflects impious dishonor upon the Spirit of Jesus Christ, those gentle­men would do well seriously to consider, who teach it.

If the covenant people refuse to bear their testimony against such abominable doct­rine, the stones of the street will cry out.—But by what further testimonies of scripture could you disprove this scheme?

By innumerable. I only mention, two or three. Paul says, We all with open [Page 44] face, beholding as in a glass (the gospel dispen­sation) the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image. Jesus Christ says to the un­converted Jews, If ye continue in my word, ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. The apostle James says, Of his own will begat be us, with the word of truth, of gospel truth. And Dr. Whitaker himself, after all he has said against the truth, has gi­ven full testimony to it, in these words, "A realising view and perception of the moral beauty and glory of God is that which is the motive that first prevails with the sinner to re­turn and be reconciled to him." p. 34.—In this he does indeed contradict himself, as he frequently does in these discourses. But I am glad his thoughts are sometimes right; I hope he will soon become consistently so.

I wish he may, and all the gentle­men of your cloth; for some of you, by your frequent inconsistencies and self-contradictions, perplex and consound our understandings, and give great occasion of ridicule to those who are disposed to take it.—But though you won't allow this scheme of doctrine to be apo­stolical and divine, yet I suppose you will ad­mit it as found Calvinism.

No sir, by no means. All judici­ous Calvinist divines, who understand them­selves, [Page 45] constantly assert that conversion or re­generation is wrought by light, by the moral power of divine truth and love, as believed and realized. They indeed acknowlege the weak­ness and corruption of human nature since the fall to be such, that men neither will, nor can, so believe and realize gospel truth as to be re­newed by its influence, unless the Spirit of truth accompany the word and speak it, as it were, to the heart, (which is true): But then the power he exerts is, as they acknowlege, a moral power, i. e. the powerful energy of the Spirit, acting as the Spirit of truth, righteous­ness and love.^*

[Page 46]In Calvin's time there were some who held that regeneration and repentance go before faith. He censures this as error, confutes their reasonings in support of this notion, and maintains that repentance springs from faith as fruit out of a tree; and says, that re­generation is included in repentance. See his In­stitutions, b. 3. ch. 3, to which he gives this title, That we be regenerate by faith; and his discourse answers the title.

Well, be that as it will, it little concerns me. My care is to know what is the [Page 47] doctrine that Jesus Christ, and his holy apos­tles taught, and to believe and practice accor­dingly. You have censured the Dr's wrong notions of the enmity of man's heart against God. But is there no such thing as a spirit of enmity against God working in the carnal heart?

Doubtless there is. The apostle says, the carnal mind is enmity against God; and sinners find it so in their own experience of the workings of their own hearts.

And the apostle says, this carnal mind cannot be subject to the law of God.

And for this reason this carnal temper must be mortified, and a better and holy temper introduced into the mind or heart. The apostle does not say this happy change of mind and heart can't be effected by the influ­ence and power of gospel truth and love, but the contrary. God graciously subdues the en­mity, changes and reconciles the soul by letting in the light, and a sweet, attractive sense of his holy truth and love. The new divines indeed are so bold as to say all this is not sufficient to convert and reconcile one soul. But there are more than ten thousand times ten thousand holy, happy saints, whose experience condem is them, and who are prepared to bear their joy­ful testimony to the quickning, converting power of the gospel.

I highly approve your sentiments, sir, and thank you for the free communication of them. But I should be well pleased to know a little more of your thoughts concern­ing this monstrous passion of enmity to God's moral character.

If it will please you, you shall — But to set that subject in a clear light, and guard the truth against misrepresentations now, would too much interrupt us: If you please therefore we will reserve this subject for another day's conversation. This is a subject of great importance: for on the wrong defining of this enmity, has been founded a whole system of destructive errors; and by a right stating and explaining of it, they fall to the ground.

I gladly accept your proposal.—The doctrines which have been above remark­ed upon, are some of the doctrines which be­long to the new scheme of orthodoxy which is spreading among us. Do you think the churches may safely hold their peace, and suffer them to be taught in them?

NO, sir, unless they may safely suf­fer the gospel to be perverted, and betrayed into the hands of the deists. This new scheme of divinity is called the orthodox heresy, and very justly; for it contains a monstrous medly of great truths, and great errors, utterly incon­sistent [Page 49] with them. The errors are of such a nature and tendency that they devour the truths, as Pharaoh's seven lean kine did the seven well-favored and fat-fleshed kine: and they are also like them, poor, very ill-favored, and lean-fleshed, such as were never seen in all the land for badness.—These are the fore-run­ners of infidelity and all impiety, on one hand; and on the other, they prepare the ignorant, superstitious and enthusiastical, to become to­tally subverted in their understanding, and an easy prey to the first plausible invader.— This new system, or rather chaos of divinity, is a hard­hearted, arbitrary, cruel tyrant, a tormentor of souls; it scandalously misrepre­sents the character and conduct of God, and implicitly blasphemes the dispensation of his his grace to a sinful world; it offers as great affront to reason, common sense and experience, as the doctrines of Rome; and the highest pos­sible abuse and insult to human nature. Dr. Whitaker says, "Man is turned devil;" and before he gets out of his hands he makes him look worse than a devil.—It is greatly to be wished that all who have the office of teachers of religion to others, would themselves learn of Jesus Christ, to give a honoring representa­tion of his Father's more than paternal kind­ness and love towards man, and breath Jesus's [Page 50] compassionate tenderness towards poor perish­ing sinners, in their doctrine.

Well sir, I wish the happy time may soon come. But you acknowlege there is some truth retained in this new scheme, that may perhaps correct the noxious qualities of the errors, and render the whole a safe medi­cine for souls.

The truth has the misfortune and dishonor to be very unequally yoked. I wish they were kept apart. The truth would do much more good, and the errors much less hurt; I believe none at all, but only serve as a foil to set off to advantage the excellence and glory of the truth. But this blundering mix­ture of new orthodoxy with the old, only serves to spoil both; it is, in one respect, like putting new wine into old bottles: and I think no man, in his right mind, having drank of the old wine, straightway desireth the new, for he faith the old is better.

YOU remember, sir, that yesterday you gave me leave to hope that at another time you would cominunicate your [Page 51] tho'ts on the subject of man's natural enmity against God. If the present is agreable to you, I will now expect that favor.

I am at your service, sir.

Dr. Whitaker says, as I observed yesterday, that "the quarrel is against God as cloathed with his true character; that the whole character of God, every tittle of it, is the object of the sinner's hatred; that this enmity is innate and interwoven with the very frame of the heart; and that the more God's charac­ter is known, the more it will be hated by all natural men."—I think, sir, you don't ap­prove of this doctrine.

It appears to me that the Dr's tho'ts on this subject are indigested, superficial, and not exactly just. Perhaps you will think mine more so: however, I will let you know them. Suffer me to make several observati­ons; as,

First, That the general passions of love and hatred are indeed "innate, and interwoven with the very frame of our hearts," and con­stitute part of their natural character—That good is the natural and right object of the passi­on of love, and evil of hatred—Good may be distinguished into two general kinds, natu­ral and moral: so may evil. A spirit of equity and benignity is morally good: Unrighteous­ness, [Page 52] partiality, fraud, malignity, and cruelty are morally evil.

Observe also, There is in man a natural fa­culty whereby he is rendered capable of dis­cerning and distinguishing between moral good and evil, as well as natural, and readily per­ceives the one to be right, amiable, and worthy of esteem and honor, the other wrong, hateful and blame [...]rthy immediately, as soon as these object are seen by the mind in their true light, or as being what they really are, with­out any further reasoning about them. This faculty is "innate," an essential part of the na­tural constitution of all intelligent and moral beings, as such; and is found in experience, actually existing both in righteous and wicked men. On this is founded the principle and power of natural conscience. Beasts want this faculty of moral discernment, and therefore are naturally incapable of moral government; take, it out of our nature, or suppose it destroyed or inverted in man, and he is as unfit a subject of such a government as they.

From hence it necessarily follows, that act­ions and characters which are morally good, when viewed by the mind in their true light, or as being what they really are, can't but ap­pear good, amiable, and worthy of esteem and honor, considered absolutely in themselves [Page 53] and they are in fact so regarded by all men, in this view of them, and cannot be hated for their own sakes; and, on the contrary, actions and characters morally evil, viewed as above, appear to the mind evil, are disapproved as objects of moral hatred. To suppose the con­trary is inconsistent with the existence and exercise of the above-mentioned faculty of discerning and distinguishing between moral good and evil; or otherwise, is to suppose the same object, in the same view of it, to appear both good and evil, at the same time, and for the same reason; which is absurd and impos­sible. We do in fact see things in real life, as this reasoning shews them to be. Nothing is more common than to hear vicious men con­demn the vices in others, which they allow in themselves, when circumstances are so varied that they don't see themselves in them; and on the other hand, approve and commend those virtues in others which they refuse to practise: and what is more, in their calm and serious intervals, they do, and can't but secretly dis­approve their own evil conduct and blame themselves for it, (and would cease from it too if particular lusts did not draw them on) accor­ding to that ancient acknowlegement of the heathen philosopher, "I see and approve those things which are good, but practise those that are [Page 54] evil." Which is a demonstration that virtue is not hated as virtue, nor vice loved as vice. Vicious men do indeed too often call evil good, and good evil; but this is 'always effected by misrepresenting them to themselves, and cloath­ing them with unnatural circumstances, where­by they make them appear to their minds with a different face from the true.

What you say, sir, seems to carry a great strength of evidence with it; but will it not hence follow, that carnal men have and can have no enmity to God, contrary to what you acknowleged yesterday?

No, sir: Please to have a little pa­tience, and keep up a calm, unjealous attenti­on; I trust things will come out right present­ly, to the honor of God, advantage of religion, and your own satisfaction. Suffer me to ob­serve further,

Actions, and agents or characters morally good, may be considered in a twofold view; either first, simply, or absolutely as they are in themselves: in which view of them, I have said, and I believe proved, that they can't be hated, can't but be approved as right and good by the mind of man, and by all moral beings: —Or secondly, they may be considered relatively, or as they respect us. In this relative view of them, they may possibly be hated, and [Page 55] in fact they too often are, because they militate against some particular lust of our's, or are in­consistent with some private interest we have much at heart. Thus a man who is guilty of treason, seeing the equity of the judge's sen­tence against another person, as a cruel mur­derer, who he has no interest in, will very readily approve the judgment, because he sees the righteousness and equity of it: but let him be arraigned, and upon a fair trial, condemned for his treason, and his heart may very possibly rise in enmity against his judge, against the law, and against the king; and perhaps he will push his enmity so far, if he can, as to dethrone his rightful sovereign. But what is his enmity levelled against? Is it against the condemning sentence simply as righteous? Not at all: It is against it only as militating against his life. His love to his life is stronger than his regard to righteousness, and suppresses the acting of that. However, we often see the sense of righteousness so strong, even in unsanctified minds, under condemnation for their crimes, as to prevent the risings of this unjust enmity, and bring them to yield them­selves to the hands of justice. And all con­vinced sinners are bro't to ascribe righteousness to the great God, and submit at his foot, be­fore they receive his renewing and pardoning [Page 56] mercy; (and this Dr. Whitaker owns, and even carries the matter too far) which they ne­ver could be bro't to till they are new made, if the enmity was against righteousness for it's own sake, or as righteous, and innate, and a part of the present frame of the human heart, as he represents the matter: and so he some­times says.^*

Observe further, The character of the bles­sed God is the first, the highest, the most ex­cellent of all moral characters. All moral perfections are united in him, and in the high­est possible degree; and the natural perfections as united with, and exerted for the purpose of displaying and exercising the moral, are, in this view of them, amiable as well as awful. God is therefore in himself absolutely and in­finitely [Page 57] amiable. He can't then be the object of hatred to any moral being, considered simply in himself; or in other words, his character can't be hated for its own sake, or as appear­ing to the mind wrong and worthy of disappro­bation in its own nature. If any do hate it, as wicked men in some sense do, it is only as relatively considered, and from interested views.

It may be as you say, for ought that I know to the contrary; but Dr. Whitaker says, p. 13. ‘Is it not very absurd to suppose that our native enmity to God arises only from the apprehension of his anger against us? If this were true, it would follow that men would have no enmity against God or his law, till they come to believe he is angry with them. But is there not a manifest contrariety to God in the hearts of men, apart from all considerations of him as an avenger.’

Doubtless there is such a prevail­ing contrariety to God and his laws in the hearts of men, so far as lusts of sin rule in them. But then, in this they are contrary to themselves, as well as to God. If they have light in their understanding, they disapprove what they al­low in practise, and approve the law as just and good, at the same time that, for their lusts sake, they bear partial enmity to it, as contra­ry [Page 58] to them. And if they thus hate the law, they at the same time blame and condemn themselves as acting wrong in acting contrary to it; which is a justificasion of God and his law, and a demonstration that this enmity to God is an interested and unnatural passion, and does violence to the moral sense planted in the mind by the hand of the Creator: and herein lies the great malignity of wilful sin.

From what has been observed on this sub­ject, it follows, that it is not enough to engage a sinner to love God with a supreme practical regard, to shew him the character of God, as amiable in itself; he must also be shewn how it is consistent with his happiness, and has a benign aspect upon him, and how his life and happiness are connected with his duty to God. 'Tis the great design of the gospel to do both these. And when the holy Spirit gives this double view to the mind of a poor sinner, by the word of the gospel, and srongly impresses this sense upon the heart, there needs no more; his enmity dies, slain by the moral power of this glorious light of the truth and love of God; his heart is reconciled, and flows out in ad­miring love and praise, and dissolves in genu­ine repentance: he is a new creature, in the moral sense. This agrees both with the doc­trine and experience of the holy apostles. Paul [Page 59] says, We all with open (unveiled) face, behold­ing, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, are changed into the self same image. And again, God hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowlege of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. And John says, We love God, because he first loved us.

Dr. Whitaker, mentioning these words of John, says to this purpose, ‘God's love to us is not the moral cause of our loves to him, but the efficient cause of it.’ p. 41.

I suppose he goes into this forced and unjust interpretation, of the text, from hard necessity: for in the obvious sense of the apos­tle's words, they oppose and overthrow his new scheme of doctrine. But I think it is much saser, much better, and more honorable for men to remove their own wrong notions put of the way of the holy apostle's, than to compel them to give the way to their upstart errors. But I return to the subject.

Another consequence is, that the enmity of man's heart against God is not, properly speak­ing, one of the "innate," or natural passions, "interwoven with the frame of our hearts," as Dr. Whitaker says it is; or in other words, it is not one of the primary passions of human nature in the present slate of it, but is a secondary passion only, a consequence and result of par­ticular [Page 60] wrong affections, indulged in opposition to the law and will of God. Any particular sinful affection, whether of the sensual, covet­ous, or ambitious kind, (of which we have the seeds of more than enough in us ever since the fall) thus indulged, is practical opposition, or enmity, if you please, to the law of God. And these persisted in against light, will draw after them a higher and more malignant kind of enmity againt God, as standing in the way of such indulged lusts. And in this case, if the sense of God's righteousness in opposing and condemning the sinner in his evil way is weak, (as it too commonly is) and the sense of his own faultiness low and cull, this enmity may flame out dreadfully, and work up to blasphe­my and cursing: This is the present state of devils, and in a sad degree the case of some men. But it is a great mistake to suppose and teach that things will remain in this horrid confusion in wicked minds forever, as too many do.—When God comes near to judgment he will reveal his righteousness from heaven, and im­press upon all wicked souls both of men and devils, such a clear, convincing, strong sense of the equity and fairness, and real kindness of his dispensations towards them in their former state of trial, of the heinousness of their offen­ces, and of the justice and moral necessity of [Page 61] his present sentence of condemnation, (which impression will never be suffered to wear off any more) as will so far over ballance their na­tural self-love, as to oblige them to justify God's character, conduct, and judgment, in word and mind ; and forever silence all murmurings, injurious reflections, and hard speeches against him, and all blasphemy and cursings of their Maker: Their rage will then turn inward against themselves, as the flame of a reverbera­ting furnace falls with all its force upon the melting metal. This is the view which he who knew gives us of the final condition of lost souls: There shall be weeping, and wailing, and grashing of teeth, he tells us; but not a word of blasphemous rage against God. No: Hell will at last, in this respect, be as silent as the grave.

I observed above, that the enmity of sinful souls against God's true character is directed against it only as relatively considered, and is a secondary passion, which arises in the heart in consequence of men's indulgence of particular lusts, which first lead them into a practical op­position to the law and righteous will of God. When the light of truth manifests their deeds to be evil and reproves them, and kindly calls them back into the right way, if they submit to the reproof, and obey the merciful call, their [Page 62] opposition to God ceases, no higher enmity can rise in their hearts ; their enmity is turned against their own lusts; But if they refuse to receive reproof, and persist in their sins against light, the light becomes offensive, and they hate it, as reproving them; The scorner hateth him that reproveth him. But still, even in spite of themselves, they do, and can't but secretly approve God's character as right and good, whenever they are brought to view it in it's true light; such is the natural and unchangable frame or constitution of their souls, as intelli­gent and moral beings. God has placed in every man's breast, and will forever maintain there, a true witness for himself, and against their own wickedness ; which will speak, and can't but he regarded as "reproving with equi­ty," whenever the light pf God breaks in upon the mind.^*

[Page 63]The Pharisees, in, our Saviour's time, car­ried their enmity against God and all that is morally good, as far as most men have done; and yet they are practical witnesses to the truth of what I have laid. Our Lord represented their own wicked character to them, in his parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen, in such a manner as to give them a clear and just view of it, and at the same time to conceal from them their concern in it; and then asked them, saying, When therefore the lord of the vineyard cometh, what will he do to those husbandmen? They say unto him he will miserably destroy those wicked men, Mat. 21.40, 41.—They readily saw the moral badness of their character, and hated and condemned it; they saw what justice required to be done in the case, and readily approved it as good and fit. The Lord then applied the parable to them; and they seeing their own face in the glass, cry out, God forbid; and sought to lay hold on [Page 64] him, and would have immediately slain and cast him out of the vineyard, but they feared the people. This is a full testimony, and deci­sive witness to the truth of my account of the spring and nature of the enmity of wicked hearts against God, given to us by the human heart, by human nature itself; (and innume­rable more might be produced.) One such witness is of more weight than ten thousand confident assertions of speculative men, in contradiction thereto.

This doctrine concerning the enmity of carnal men against God, is further confirmed by this observation, which holds universally true in fact, viz. Men who hate God, his ways, and righteous servants, always misrepre­sent their characters to themselves, paint them in false and odious colours, and place them in such a wrong view as to make them appear either contemptible, or morally evil: This is the method they always take to justify to them­seves, well as toothers, their enmity to them; which they would not do if moral rectitude, wisdom, righteousness and goodness, were, in themselves, objects of their natural hatred; but their hatred would point itself directly against them, as being what they really are; as in the case of natural aversions to some particular kinds of food. This hatred of wicked men [Page 65] against God is then an interested and partial affection, taken up in aid and support of some carnal lusts and interests they are devoted to.

Jesus Christ, who knows all the secret springs of human passions and actions, points out to us the true root and spring of this wicked enmity, in such a clear manner as, I think, ought to be decisive, when he says, speaking of the wicked who shall be condemned, Men loved darkness rather than light, (whence this absurd and monstrous preference of darkness to light?) because their deeds are evil. Particular wrong affections and sinfill passions, first draw men away to do evil, (these passions, in human na­ture, in its present state, will act wrong and be springs of evil works, till the truth and grace of God rectify their disorders, and take them under their lead) and then for their lusts sake, and with a view to justify and quiet themselves in their evil ways, they love darkness rather than light. For every one that doeth evil (with habitual wilfulness) hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be repro­ved, or discovered to himself to be what they really are, in their nature and tendency. For then he must be strongly self-condemned, and filled with fear; which wicked men will avoid as long as they can They therefore hate the light, just as every judge, who has taken a bribe, [Page 66] hateth the light of righteousness, and him that discovers and reproves him for his bribery and corruption. Ahab expressed the very soul of this wicked, interested enmity when he said to the King of Judah, speaking of Michajah, I hate him, for he doth not prophesy good con­cerning me, but evil. Had we Michajah's cha­racter, as drawn by Ahab, doubtless it would be a very bad one. The wilful misrepresenta­tions which wicked men make to themselves of God's character and works, their evil speak­ings and blasphemies of him, are a full evidence that their enmity against him is initerested, not such as Dr. Whitaker and some others repre­sent it. No man ever did speak evil of God's ways, viewing them as they truly are, as equi­table and good, but as placing them in a wrong light to themselves. When they are obliged to see them as they are, they are reduced to si­lence, can object nothing to them, but justify and approve them as right, and condemn them­selves. These are not idle and arbitrary specu­lations, but observations grounded upon facts and experience of the workings of the human heart in real life.

Our Lord directs his disciples saying, Let your light shine before men, that they seeing your good works, may glorify your Father who is in heaven. Now, according to the notion under [Page 67] censure, the more clearly the light shines and is seen by men, the more furiously does their enmity flame and rage against God and those that bear his image. This is a way of glorify­ing God which Jesus Christ never advised his disciples to stir men up to.

The evidence is full, the opposite scale kicks the beam. All reasonable and ho­nest men, I think, can beat at no loss to determine on which side the truth lies. The notion which Dr. Whitaker and many others teach, viz. That enmity to the true character of God, for its own sake, is an innate principle, and inter­woven with the very frame of the human heart, is manifestly false, and I wish it may soon perish, for it is the grand foundation of the Sandema­nian scheme of doctrine, which is one of the worst schemes that was ever invented.

You grow zealous, sir; but we ought to consider that it is extreme difficult even for honest minds, to break thro' the power of old habits of wrong thinking, and to make great I allowances for their unhappy entanglements, and forbear them in love; blessing God, with all humility, that he has saved or rescued us from such dangerous snares. But your closing remark is just. The new doctrines which are propagating among us, are built entirely on this false notion of man's innate, implacable enmi­ty [Page 68] against the true and whole character of God; and are supported, if this is admitted: But if the true notion and scriptural account of this enmity, (which experience and observation confirm) is received, this system of errors falls at once, as a castle built in the air.

I esteem it such a castle.

Since we are upon the melancholy subject of the enmity of poor sinners against God, I will just mention one thing more.

Many very honest and good people bave of­ten complained of the workings of a secret en­mity and hard thoughts of God, and quarrel­lings against him; which does not, like that we have been discoursing upon, arise out of the wickedness of the heart, but is wholly occasi­oned by misrepresentations of the character and ways of God to the mind, and false and wrong views of him, which have unhappily gotten possession of the mind, and are supposed, thro' ignorance and wrong instruction, to be the true and genuine views of his character and works. In the light wherein they view them, they appear morally evil, wrong, and objects of just hatred. The enmity which the mind conceives against them, viewed in this wrong light, is, in a proper sense, a natural enmity; that is, it arises from the moral frame of the mind, and the innate sense of the hatefulness [Page 69] of actions and characters morally, evil and wrong. And if the heart is gracious, this sense is greatly heightened. This kind of enmity is, in no true construction, a hatred of God's true character, which may be heartily approved and loved at the same time; but only of a really bad character, falsely ascribed to him, merely thro' ignorance, mistake and misinformation. This may be illustrated by the case of a child educated abroad, who has instilled into his mind, perhaps by the foolish tattle of his nurse or schoolmaster, very wrong and injurious no­tions of his father's character, and temper, and designs towards him; representing of him as very unreasonable, arbitrary and cruel, or false and hypocritical towards him; whereas, in truth, he is quite the revsrse. This wrong view raises in the child disiffection, and hard and blaming tho'ts. His father, who knows the case, pities him, considering it as ignorance and error, not malice against his true fa­ther.—The true and effectual cure of this kind of enmity, is accomplished by correcting these unhappy misapprehensions, and giving the mind a just view of the true character of God, and setting his actions and dispensations in that true light wherein he himself has placed them.

If so, gentlemen of your cloth ought to take all possible care to be themselves well [Page 70] instructed in the character and dispensations of that great and glorious God and Saviour, who you are, by the duty of your office, to make known to others. I don't know how honest men can easily forgive you, if by your ignorant and presumptuous misrepresentations of the great Lord and Father of the universe, you minister to them the occasion of hard and injurious tho'ts of him, whom they ought to adore and bless continually, with all humility and joyfulness.

What you now observe if worthy is four most serious consideration. But our hearers ought not to receive implicitly, with a lazy credulity, all that their teachers say, with­out examination, but to study the word of God with humility and prayer; where they may hear God himself teaching the good knowlege of himself. But I am very apprehensive, that after all our care and study, we all, both teach­ers and hearers, shall still need to have great allowances made by the heavenly father, for our weaknesses and misapprehensions concern­ing him, and his dispensations towards man, in too many instances; and be in some mea­sure liable to the rebuke God himself gave to Job's friends, Ye have not spoken the thing that is right concerning me. Yet, if we have not spoken and reasoned wrong, carelessly, pre­sumptuously, [Page 71] and in the pride of our hearts, or as seeking to please men and gain their ap­plause, or to shelter ourselves from their dis­pleafure, or through covetousness, or any biasing lust; but in simplicity, through weakness, and pitiable mistake; this is the support of our hope, that one greater than Job is appoin­ted to pray for us.