« ZurückWeiter »
pany, which was entered into, as appears, before Dr. M. wrote fris introduction; let them lay aside their periodical publications, and they could, free from the embarrasiment Dr. H. tells of, print fortwo, three, or more such geniuses as Voltaire, with all their affiftants. But, the Doctor comes forward, with great swelling words of vanity, and asserts that he could fo“ swell the volume,
as to embarrass any printer in this country, for want of proper ' types, and practice.! Mr. Thomas, before the year 1780, bad Hebrew and Greek types, for the original languages of the sacred oracles. But the true meaning is, Dr. H. would have the world believe, that he was able to study and write, equal to two, three, or more of Voltaire, with their numerous attendants. It is grant. ed, we have the same reason to credit this, as we have the reft of his book.
The chief thing to be remarked, in this place, Dr. H. says be has done all this, he thinks, with a single eye, and ardent desire * to know the truth, and to avoid all falle reasoning, and every • groundless conclufion. He unreservedly declares, I have no • interest but in the truth,' He has used the pronoun I, or spo. ken in the first person, nearly 400 times in 331 pages; and gen. erally with an air of great authority, as appears from the quotations already made. And his own assertions are more frequent than rexis of fcripture, or arguments drawn from the scripiures. For the truth of these things, there need only be an appeal made to his book. Therefore, to say nothing of that almost unbounded knowledge he would assume to himself; when we compare that goodness of heart he professes to have, in such an eminent degree as to give weight and authority throughout his writings; to that vileness of heart he has afcribed to his opponents, and that diminitive or only negative goodness he has ascribed to all believers ; when we compare these things together, we have the true spirit and genits of the author. He has charged his opponents with monopolizing, with limiting, and their partial and much lim. •ited covenant of redemption,' as he is pleased to call it. How much ihe Doctor has monopolized aud limited to his own
deat Selj, the public will judge.
It is granted, when a man writes his own diary, or memoirs for limselt ; fo in many other cafes, it is convenient and necessary to fpeak in the first person. But when a point of do&trine is to be feled, where scripture evidence alone can decide, for a man to spcak in the first person, evidently wishing to recommend hii fcheine by his own authority, this betrays either the weakness of his scheme, or his ignorance of the holy Scriptures
. But the
latter cannot be charged on the Doctor. Therefore, his frequent use of egotisms, or of the pronoun I in the room of scripture evidence, only exposes the weakness and fallacy of his own scheme.
Thinking to prove that believers have only negative virtue, or that they are only lefs wicked, Dr. H. has recourse to what Job, David, and Paul say concernning their remaining sin. But what they say.on this article proves against him. Job says, ' I • abhor myself; and repent in duft and ashes.'* This was to hate fin in himself : turn from it, reject it, or put it away. Every believer has this principle of hatred to fin, though not to so great a de. gree as Job had, at this time. But the lowest degree of this haired to lin is right opposite to every moral exercise of the unbe. liever's heart. There cannot be a greater difference and oppofition, in the nature of things, than there is between hating sin and ftriving to be free from it, and, on the contrary, loving of it, and holding of it faft, with one's whole strength. There cannot be a greater difference, as to the nature of the case, than there is between dying daily unto fin and living unto righteousness, and on the other hand, living in sin, making fin one's element and life, and increasing in it. What greater odds in the nature of things, than between dying and living ? Therefore, David and Paul say, and right against the Doctor, — My wounds stink, and are cor
rupt : because of my foolishness.'+ • O wretched man that I I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?'Intead of sin being loathsome and deadly to the impenitent sinner, it is the very thing his soul lusteth after. He never had the least poflible perception that sin, in its own nature, was loathsome; but in every appearance of it, it is to him an amiable object; and more so the longer he lives in it.
We have also the words of Christ, directly to this point. • No man can serve two masters : for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammoni's The difference, there. fore, between the servants of God and the servants of mammon, is, the former love God and the latter love mammon. The love also in both these cases stands opposed, one to the other; and Christ here shows that it cannot be otherwise. Not as Dr. H. says, that one has a lefs degree of love to mammon, fo a lefs degree of hatred to God, than the other. But one has love to God and ha. fred to mammon, while the other has love to mammon and ha. tred to God. And Christ plainly teaches that no man can be his disciple, unless he can freely give up all out of love to him ; and even lay down his own life for Christ's sake. But, of una
belivers *Job 42. 6. + Plal. 38. 5. I Roar. 7. 24.
$Matt. 6. 24.
believers Christ says, . They have both seen and hated both me
and my Father.'* So the apostle decides this difference, by showing charity to be the only thing which is morally excellent. Without charity there is nothing, nothing morally good. Here we again find a positive difference. To say no more, the unbeliever, and every unbeliever is totally deftitute of moral goodness. So his moral state materially differs from the believer's. Bale metal or drofs that has not one particle of gold in it, materially differs from gold, though this gold be mixed with drofs. So the belie. ver, though some sin remains in him, has something the unbeliever has not; he has charity, the only moral excellency in the universe. Hence, these two characters differ, as light differs from darkness. This is not all. The apostle shows the unbeliever to be wholly selfish, or to have a carnal mind which is enmity against God. This enmity, or this selfishness is direct. ly opposed to that charity which seeketh not her own, but feek, eth the glory of God and the belt good of his kingdom. As every unbeliever is governed by this selfishness, and every believer by this charity, we of course have the difference between them; as great, in the nature of things, as can be imagined.
There is no need of dwelling on this point. The difference between saints and finners, is one of the most plain and import. ant doctrines, throughout the sacred pages. It is one of the firt duties enjoined on God's ministers, under the ancient as well as the new covenant, to teach his people, the difference be. *tween the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between • the unclean and the clean :'t that is, between the righteous and the wicked. In many places in his book, the Doctor allows this difference, just as it is taught in the bible, He says, Where • this faith is, there certainly will be a bitter hatred and aversion • to all ungodliness. The very discovery of God which I am * speaking of, necessarily involves in it a perception and sense of • infinite amiableness, beauty and glory. The infinite loveliness • of God, and salvation by grace through Jesus Chrift, are the • essential objects of the faith I maintain. This wholly agrees • with the old calvinistic doctrine of saving faith. No acquaint•ance with God or divine truth, without a feeling impression of
the divine loveliness on our souls, was ever thought to be fav. *ing faith by Calvin, Owen, or any eminent promoters of the • proteftant cause. Their object of faith is exactly the same which • I contend for; and the manner of communication and opera. 'tion is the faine, as wrought by the power of God, working by ' love, and purifying the heart, even as God is pure.'t We do
not P. 134, 135
* John 15. 24.
+ Ezek. 44. 23.
• not consider assurance of our salvation to be of the essence of
saving faith; but merely consequential, even as hath been usual with proteftants. The faith we contend for has nothing imme. diately and dire&ly to do with ourselves, but with the object of our faith. When this faith is wrought in us, by the power ' and grace of God, and proper fruits ensue ; thence we argue
our safe estate by way of consequence, and so make our calling . and election sure. We unite with the orthodox in all ages,
in ' faying, that hatred to all sin is the fruit of faith ; or that saving knowledge and supreme love of God are through faith.'*
It seems impossible but what Dr. H. should know how he contradits himself. The faith of such as hold to endless punishment, he has said again and again, is wholly opposed to free grace, and all the offers of grace; and that no man can be justified by grace, on their plan. So to make out his own scheme of faith, he has made our own certain knowledge, that we shall be saved, necessary, in order to have a proper warrant to believe in Christ for sal.. vation. This we have seen in Letters I. II. V. But here he says, • We do not consider assurance of our salvation to be of the essence 'of saving faith ; but merely consequential, even as hath been usual with protestants. The faith we contend for has nothing immediately and directly to do with ourselves, but with the objeä of our faith, We unite with the orthodox in all ages,'&c. &c.
But his uniting with the orthodox, in making true faith con. fift in a bitter hatred and averfion to all ungodliness,'and. fupreme * love of God;" so making the widest difference between believe ers and unbelievers, then again denying this difference by reducing of it to nothing, is the same as denying of it throughout. He therefore falls into this aggravated crime of putting no difference between the holy and profane. And this argues the weakness as well as baseness of his cause.
I am, &c.
Mr. Relly's Scheme of Union, examined.
ly's. The Doctor has taken his from Mr. Relly's. It will of course facilitate matters to see the Doctor's first, as things are in readiness to bring his into view at once. Speaking
Speaking of election Dr. H. says, “As it respects mankind,
As * after death, it centers in one head, Christ the Son of God, thre • Son of man, the only mediator between God and man; and all • human kind, as his kindred body. This head is in a like na *tural and faderal connection with the whole body of human .nature.'* God has one eleet head and no more ; and onę 'eleet body and no more. The elect head is the Son of man, in • equal connection with all human nature. The eleet body is all human nature.'t He says many other things to show how Christ is in one and the same union with all men : whether be. lievers or unbelievers, he makes no difference. Believers come into the enjoyment of the blessing, he supposes, by their believa ing. But their relation to Christ was the fame before their believ, ing as afterwards. All mankind being one with Christ as the body is one wịh the head, from which the Doctor concludes the falvation of all men. The thing is for him to establish his prem. ises, before he makes his favorite conclusion.
But we have only to compare his scheme of union with itself, or with his leading fentiments and arguments. And, as we have feen, his scheme huts up the kingdom of heaven against men so long as they remain in this world. He can exhort no one sing ner to repent and believe in Chrift, until such finner is indeed dead ; unless he 'exhorts him to make God a liar in believing : He makes the outward privileges of the gospel to be of no bene, fit to men, while in this life: He makes the light of the gospel to be of no benefit in preparing men for happiness, in the life to come: His scheme considers all the judgments sent on men, in this world, to be of no service whatever, whether here or hereafter: His scheme faves not one of the human race from the curse of the law, or from the pains of hell; but every one suffers the full desert of his sins, as fast as his desert arises. What then is the amount of the Doctor's union ?-On his plan, not one of our race can be saved by grace; if any are saved it is by their own works, or by their own merit : His scheme considers the state of the redeemed, after death, to be nothing more than a myftical heaven; and may as well be called a place of misery as a place of happiness : He makes no essential difference, neither in this nor the next ftate, between the righteous and the wicked : His way of arguing proves Christ to be the Destroyer of all men, as fully as it proves him to be the Saviour of all men. His boalt, ed scheme of union is of course a scheme of confusion and der struction; it completely destroys itlelf.
This shows the iffue of Mr. Relly's. His has all the leading things as the Doctor's has; the latter being taken from the former,
* P. 82.
+ P. 81.