solutely inconsistent with, the least degree of regard to our own well being. There can be in nature no such sort of regeneration as to bring the heart, under such circumstances, to exercise true love to God.'-Therefore, if these things are true,

5. It was in the nature of things impossible that Adam, before the fall, should deliberately and understandingly love that character of God which was exhibited to him in the law he was under. For it implied love to his own misery,' to love it one time as really as another, before his fall as well as afterwards. Thus when a wise and good father threatens to whip his child in case he commits some particular crime, which he warns him against; to love the character of that father exhibited in that threatening, is as really contrary to selflove before the crime is committed, as it is afterwards. For it is precisely the same thing to love a character exhibited in a threatening, as it is to love the same character exhibited in the execution of that threatening. For the character exhibited is precisely the same. But to love the same character is the same thing. And if it implies a total indifference to pleasure and pain,' to love this character at one time, it does also equally at all times. For love to it is always, at all times, and under all circumstances, precisely one and the same thing. So that, if Mr. M.'s reasoning is just, Adam came into existence with a spirit of enmity to God in his heart. Nor was it possible in the nature of things, that he should ever have had it in his heart, to love that character of God which was exhibited in the law which he was under. Nor is it possible, that we his posterity should ever be brought to love it. 'There can be in nature no such sort of regeneration.' Therefore Adam was not created in the image of God, nor are any of his posterity recovered to the image of God by the regenerating, sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit. And

make him happy for ever, and may cry out, this God is trancendently excellent and glorious; but God does not sustain this character, with respect to any impenitent sinner. It is true, many impenitent sinners have such a discovery,' but the thing discovered is a lie, and the father of lies is the author of the discovery. And yet they mistake this lie, for glory of God in the face of JesusChrist.

thus divine revelation is sapped at the very foundation. For one of the first facts revealed, is in its own nature absolutely impossible, viz. That Adam was created in the image of God. Because, for Adam to love that character of God. which was exhibited in that law which Adam was under, was 'inconsistent with the least degree of regard to his own well-being.'-Besides,

6. If it is inconsistent with that regard to our own wellbeing, which we ought to exercise, in our guilty state, to love that character of God; it is equally inconsistent with that regard to our neighbour's well-being, which we ought to exercise. For it is an agreed point, that we ought to love our neighbour as ourselves. And it is as 'contrary to the law of God' to delight in our neighbour's misery, as in our own. So that,

7. Unless a universal salvation of devils and damned takes place, it will eternally be absolutely inconsistent' with that regard which we ought to have to ourselves and to our neighbours, to love the Deity. And therefore, if Mr. M.'s reasoning is just, all holy beings in the intellectual system must join in a general revolt, unless the Deity entirely lays aside his moral character, exhibited in the moral law; and grants a general release to all the damned. And thus,

8. The doctrine of the eternity of hell torments must be given up, or God's moral character is wholly ruined. For it is as bad a piece of conduct in the Deity to damn my neighbour, as it is to damn myself. For my neighbour's welfare is worth as much as my own. And it is as 'contrary to the law' to love my neighbour's misery, as to love my own misery. It never was, therefore, if Mr. M.'s reasoning is just, any part of God's moral character, to be disposed to punish sin with everlasting punishment, as Jesus taught, Mat. xxv. 46. And so Jesus was not the Christ. Or else the Socinians are right, and we must join with them, and say, that God never did think, 1. That he was God, i. e. an infinitely glorious and amiable being, infinitely worthy of the supreme love and universal obedience of his rational creatures. Or, 2. That sin was an infinite evil. Or, 3. That sin did deserve an infinite punishment. Nor, 4. Did he ever intend to punish it

with everlasting punishment. And, 5. If sin is not an infinite evil, an infinite atonement never was needed, or made. And so, 6. Our Saviour is not God. And thus a denial of the divinity of God the Father, issues in the denial of the divinity of God the Son. And having framed in our fancy a God to suit our hearts, the Holy Ghost, as a sanctifier, becomes needless. For we can love this God, without any new principle of grace. And thus, if Mr. M.'s reasoning is just, and if we will pursue it, in its necessary consequences, we are Socinians, or infidels and the odds between Socinianism and infidelity

is not great.

Thus the difficulty is stated. And the answer to it is as follows:

This must be admitted, as a self-evident maxim, that that regard to the welfare of ourselves and of our neighbours, which is inconsistent with the love of God's moral character, is of the nature of opposition to God. But opposition to the moral character of God is not a duty, but a sin. That selflove, therefore, which is absolutely inconsistent with the love of God,' is criminal. And therefore it was so far from being essential to moral agency' in innocent Adam, that it did not belong to, but was inconsistent with his character. He loved happiness, but he placed his chief happiness in God's glory : of whom, and by whom, and to whom, are all things; to whom be glory for ever. Nor had he any separate interest of his own, independent of God, and in opposition to his honour and glory, nor the least degree of a selfish spirit. For himself, his soul and body, his all, was offered up as a living sacrifice to God, without reserve. And it was no more inconsistent with Adam's love of happiness to love God for saying, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; than it was inconsistent with God's goodness, for God to love his own character exhibited in this threatening. It is in its own nature, and by the consent of all mankind, perfectly consistent, to give up and sacrifice a lesser good to a greater, if the greater can be secured in no other way: while yet at the same time, the lesser good, which is given up, is valued according to its worth. If God acted a consistent part in exercising a greater regard to his own honour than to Adam's welfare, in giving

out that threatening, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, then it was equally consistent in Adam to be affected as his Maker was. If the Deity was consistent with himself, then Adam, who was created in his image, was consistent also. If the holiness and justice of the divine nature, exhibited in that threatening, were perfect in beauty, without a blemish in the eyes of infinite goodness, they must likewise appear so in Adam's eyes, while he had no other kind of regard for his own welfare, than had his Creator. That is, so long as he continued to be in the image of God. And if love to God and to his own happiness were originally consistent in Adam, when in the image of God, they may be equally consistent in any of Adam's sons, who are anew restored to that image of God which Adam lost. And the holiness and justice of the divine nature, as exhibited in the divine law, may appear to be perfect in beauty, with application to ourselves; and God appear to be infinitely lovely, in his disposition to punish sin according to its deserts; and yet our own eternal welfare be at the same time prized according to its worth, and the salvation of the Gospel appear infinitely precious, and the fruit of grace infinitely great and absolutely free; and the Gospel way of salvation worthy of God. But were not the divine character exhibited in the divine law perfect in beauty, without a blemish, it ought to have been laid aside in disgrace, and not honoured with the highest honours on the cross. If to love God is the same thing as to love misery,' if to love God is contrary to the law of God,' then that law which requires this, is an absurd, inconsistent, tyrannical law, not worthy of God, nor worthy to be honoured by the blood of his own Son. For a more large and particular view of this subject the reader is referred to my Essay on the Gospel. sect. vi.

Mr. M.'s reasoning implies, that in Adam before the fall, there was really no principle of holiness,' no disinterested regard to the Deity: and that his whole soul was under the government of self-love, even the same principle of selflove' which governed him after the fall. And therefore, as soon as God's favour was lost, and he exposed to destruction, this favourite principle of self-love became 'inconsistent with

the love of God,' and continues to be so, until God appears to be our friend again. And so Adam had no principle of holiness' to lose, nor is there any such thing for us to expect. Mr. M. says, p. 48. But when we inquire of them what they mean by this new principle which is implanted in the soul by regeneration, they can give no account about it.' Yes, we can give as distinct an account about it, as we can of a principle of self-love.' It is that image of God in which Adam was created, restored anew. It is true, that in Adam this holy principle was not a confirmed habit, but liable to be lost by the first sin; but in believers who are united to the second Adam, the principle of grace' is a confirmed habit, and shall never be lost. It becomes confirmed in consequence of the first act of saving faith. Eph. i. 13, 14b. But

As Adam was created in the image of God to prepare him for holy acts and exercises of heart; so the same image of God is restored in regeneration to prepare us for the first holy act. As there was a holy principle in Adam before the first holy act; so there is a holy principle in the regenerate sinner before the first holy act. And, as Adam's holy principle was not a confirmed habit in its first existence, but was to have been confirmed on his acting up to the covenant he was under; so the holy principle given in regeneration is not a confirmed habit in its first existence, but immediately becomes confirmed as soon as the regenerate sinner complies with the covenant of grace in the first act of saving faith. And thus, as Adam would have been entitled to eternal life on his compliance with the covenant of works; so the regenerate sinner is entitled to eternal life on his compliance with the covenant of grace. For a confirmed habit of grace is eternal life, i. e. life never to end; life everlasting. John v. 24. He that believeth hath everlasting life. Hence the promises of the Gospel are not made to the holy principle, passively considered, but to its acts and exercises; even as the blessings of the first covenant were not promised to that image of God, in which Adam began to exist, but to his active compliance with that cove. nant. And thus, that faith, by which we are married to Christ, is not an unregenerate, sinful act; but as our catechism expresses it, a saving grace.' But if faith is before regeneration, the act of a sinner, dead in sin, ' totally depraved,' it is not a saving GRACE;' but a saving SIN. Or else it is not an act, but a mere passive thing, and implies no consent of will.

Question. But here it may be doubted, and objected against this position, If we cannot believe till we are quickened with spiritual life, as you say, and cannot be justified till we believe, as all say, then it will follow, that a regenerate soul may be in a state of condemnation for a time, and consequently perish, if death should befall him in that juncture.' Thus Mr. Flavel states the objection, and thus he answers it.

Solution. To this I return; that when we speak of the priority of this quickening work of the spirit to our actual believing, we rather understand it ef