« PreviousContinue »
was the same thing as to delight in his own misery ;' which is inconsistent with that self-love which is essential to moral agency. Therefore, (p. 10.) • Adam by becoming guilty, was totally depraved;' being totally deprived of his moral agency, and wholly incapacitated for moral conduct. His depravity, however, was not of a criminal nature. For, (p. 12.) this inconsistency of love to God, with the natural principle of self-love, was the true reason, and the only reason, why Adam could not love God after the fall.' For, (p. 44.) 'could he bave seen, after he had sinned, that he had still the same, or as much ground of confidence toward God as he had before, he would have continued still to exercise the same delight in the divine perfections, as he had done before.' So that he was as well disposed to love God after the fall as he was before, had he been in as good external circumstances. His different affections were entirely owing to his different external circumstances. For God was his friend before the fall. But now, (p. 9.)'in every view it must appear to him, that God could deal no otherwise with him, but to execute the curse, unless he should act contrary to his own perfections. And therefore, as soon as God's readiness to forgive sin was mani, fested, there was nothing in his heart to prevent his loving God as much as ever. And so it is with us, (p. 44.) There is all the reason why our hearts should return to the love of God, and confidence in him through Christ, as, why Adam should love God in his primitive state. There is nothing in our fallen circumstances to prevent it.' (p. 47, 48.) Without any new principle of grace. For this being the true state of things, (p. 43.) regeneration may be wrought by light.' For as soon as we believe God's readiness to be reconciled to us, we shall love bim of course. But before faith and regeneration, we are in the same state of total depravity that Adam was before the revelation of a Mediator. (p: 18.) Manz. kind at this day, antecedent to their exercising faith in Christ, are in much the same condition as Adam was after he had sinned.? Particularly, (p. 20.)' we are under the same inability of loving God that Adam was.' And therefore, as it was not Adam’s duty to love God after the fall; so the unregenerate are not bound in duty to love that character of God which
was exhibited in the moral law given to Adam; for to do so is the same thing as to love their own misery. Which to do is inconsistent with moral agency, and contrary to the law of God,' which requires us to love ourselves. (p. 41, 42, 43.) And the Gospel does not require us to love that character of God which is exhibited in the moral law. (p. 43.) For the love of God which the Gospel teacheth, is love of that divine character which is exhibited to us in a Mediator, and no other. But this character the unbeliever hath no idea of, and so cannot love it. (p. 43.) To suppose that the soul sees, and loves this character, before a believing view of Christ takes place in the heart, is to suppose the soul to see and not to see at the same time.' And as we are not moral agents with respect to law or Gospel, while unregenerate and unenlightened, nor bound in duty at present to love God, believe, or repent; so the external covenant, which requires unregenerate endeavours, and promises the strivings of the Holy Spirit to render external means effectual to salvation, comes in here to our relief. And our total depravity,' and our enmity against God,' not being of a criminal nature, are no bar in the way of our admission to sealing ordinances. And therefore, although a man who steals but a shilling, and justifies himself in it, must be debarred ; yet he who is totally depraved, and an enemy to God, and justifies himself in it, inay be admitted. This is the sum of Mr. M.'s scheine.Now that we, while unregenerate, are moral agents, Jas been already proved. And the nature of that enmity against God, which is in the carnal mind, is to be considered in this section, which may be done in answer to the questions proposed; and then the way will be prepared to consider the pature of that reconciliation to God, to which the Gospel calls us, which is to be the subject of the next section. Now, therefore, let us attend to the questions.
Question I. Are we, as fallen creatures, enemies to God, merely as conceiving God to be our enemy?
Answer. As likeliness of nature lays the foundation for liking ; so contrariety of nature is the original ground of dislike; or that in which enmity radically consists. And there
There are some sinners who do not know enough about God, sensibly to love
fore, our enmity to God does not arise merely from conceiving God to be our enemy. Here let these things be considered :
1. If our enmity against God arises merely from conceiving him to be our enemy, if we have no contrariety of heart to God, but what arises inerely from conceiving that he dislikes us ; then God's dislike to us must have taken place while we were perfectly holy. Or our belief that God is our eneiny, is a groundless sentiment, originally injected into the human mind by the devil, the father of lies, as Mr. Sandeman supposes; but for which, we should naturally love God, be perfectly pleased with his character, and from our childhood grow up truly friendly to him. And if either of these be true, then,
2. In order to our reconciliation to God, we need not to be born again; we need no change of nature ; we only need to believe that God is become our friend ; and so we may be reconciled to God by this belief. For it is an old maxim, remove the cause and the effect will cease. And in this view the old Antinomian scheme, relative to total depravity and regeneration, is consistent. This faith, therefore, is the first act. And by this faith we are regenerated : that is, a belief of God's
him or hate him, or to have any exercise of heart relative to him. God is not in all their thoughts. They never hated him in their lives, they will tell you ; nor did they ever feel any love to him, or delight in him. The divine charac. ter, as yet, never came near enough to their view to give them pleasure or pain. The fool saith in his heart, there is no God. They wonder, therefore, what can be meant by the apostle's words, The carnal mind is enmity against God. Sure. ly, say they, he does not mean, that every natural man hates God, for I never hated him in my life. For let our sinful nature be ever so contrary to God's holy nature, yet the contrariety will not be felt until the true and real character of the Holy One of Israel begins to come into clear view. For without the law sin was dead: but when the commandment came, sin revived. This contrariety which is between our sinful nature and God's holy nature, is the thing chiefly intended in the text. And the sense is, “ The carnal mind is contrariety to the holy nature of God, as appears from this, that it is not subject to that law, which is a transcript of God's moral character, neither indeed can be, which proves the contrariety to be total, and fixed. And as the tree, such is the fruit; so then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God. For God cannot be pleas. ed with what is contrary to his own holy nature. And therefore, upon the whole, to be carnally minded, is death." Which was the point to be proved. Sec Rom. vül. 6, 7, 8, 9.
love to us, removes the grounds of our enmity to him, and begets love, repentance, and every Christian grace.
Mr. Sandeman's scheme, which is nothing else than the old Antinomian scheme refined, and dressed up in a new attire, teaches, that the truth to be believed in justifying faith, is, • that there is forgiveness with God through the atonement for impeniteni sinners.' A belief of this begets hope, and love, and repentance, and every Christian grace. For on his scheme, forgiveness takes place before repentance, as it does necessarily on the Antinomian scheme, whatever shape it 'assumes. For on this scheme, as our enmity against God arises from conceiving God to be our enemy; so our love arises from conceiving God to be our friend. And therefore we must first of all conceive God to be our friend, before love can exist ; and so before repentance can exist. And so justification must necessarily take place before repentance. This is a difficulty which neither the more ancient nor the later Antinomian writers know how to get rid of.
And thus faith, even that faith by which we are justified, takes place, in order of nature, before regeneration. For it is the cause of it. But the cause, in order of nature, is always before the effect. But if faith takes place before regeneration, it is in its own nature not a holy, but a graceless, unregenerate act. For it is the act of a graceless unregenerate heart. And so faith is not a saving grace, but a saving sin. But can we be married to a holy Saviour by an unholy act? By an act in its own nature, perfectly opposite to his mediatorial character ? Can we receive Christ by an act of rejection? Can we be united to Christ by an act of disunion? Can we become one with Christ by an act of sin ?-Perhaps it may be thought that Mr. Sandeman gets rid of this difficulty, by teaching that faith is not an act ; that there is no volition, or exercise of heart implied in it. But nothing is gained, if; while we avoid one difficulty, we run upon another as great.
Tor, if it is not un act ; if no volition or exercise of heart is implied in it, then we are married to Christ, without our consent;' just as Mr. Mather supposes that the Israelites, on the plains of Moab, were taken into covenant,' without their consent.' But this is inconsistent with the very notion of
marriage; which is a transaction which implies the mutual consent of both parties. And therefore, on this scheme, the marriage union, as it takes place among mankind, could not be used, with any propriety, to represent our union to Christ by faith. For if the soul is married to Christ at all, the consent of our hearts must be implied. Or to use Mr. Stoddard's words, when the soul marries to Christ, he doth it with a spirit of love ; this act of faith doth include all other graces. It is virtually all grace.' Nature of conversion, p. 19–24. See Rom. vii. 4. 2 Cor. xi. 2. Eph. v. 19. SO. John xvi. 27. But can we be married to Christ by an act of sin ? But if justifying faith is the act of an unregenerate heart, dead in siu, totally depraved, then it is an act of sin. For as is the tree, such is the fruit; as is the fountain, such are the streams; as is the heart, such are its acts. Besides,
If justifying faith is the act of an unregenerate sinner, then it is the act of an impenitent sinner. And then pardon is, in order of nature, before repentance. And so it is not necessary, that we repent of our sins, in order to our being forgiven. Which is contrary to the whole tenour of Scripture, and to the plainest and most express declarations of Almighty God. Pray reader, stop a minute, take your bible, and turn to; and read, Lev. xxvi. 40, 41, 42. 1 Kings viii. 47-50. Ps. xxxii. 3, 4, 5. Prov. xxviii. 13. Isai. lv. 7. Jer. iv. 4. Ezek. xviii. 30, 31, 32. Luke iii. 3. and v. 31, 32. and xiii. 5. and xxiv. 47. Acts ii. 37, 38, and iii. 19. and v. 31. and X. 21.
And then lay your hand on your heart, and say, does God offer to pardon impenitent sinners while such? Did the Son of God die that pardon might be granted to impenitent sinners, as such? Or can God, consistent with the Gospel, forgive the impenitent, while such, and as such, any more than if Christ never had died? If any doctrine tends to delude sinners, it is this, that they may expect pardon without repentance. They have no heart to repent; they wisha to escape punishment; they hope they shall escape: if they can believe that they shall escape, it will give them joy. This doctrine is suited to give joy, to an impenitent heart. But to teach impenitent sinners, :hat they may expect pardon, without repentance toward God, is as contrary to Scripture,