^ K,.. / OF Tiir PRINCETON, N. J. SAMUEL AG NEW, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA q4^o Division /A, Case. I D Booh, .N» |. sec ^ AN ESSAY PLAN OF SALVATION. IN WHICH THE SEVERAL SOURCES OF EVIDENCE iir^E EXAMINED, AND APPLIED TO THE INTERESTING DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION^ IN ITS RELATION TO THE GOVERNMENT AND MORAL ATTRIBUTES OE THE DEITY. BY ASA SHINN, MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL. «^ Truth never was indebted to a lie"— Fomwi;'. « Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John viii. 32. " In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiv^- tiess of sins, according to the riches of his grace."— £p/i. i, 7i BALTIMORE: "^ PUBLISHED BY NEAL, WILLS AND COLE. Senjamin Edes, printer. 1813. DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, ss. Be it remembered, that on this fourteenth day of September, in the thirty-eighth year of the Indepen- dence of the United States of America, Asa Shinn of said district, hath deposited in this office, the title of a bookj the right whereof he claims as author, in the words and fi- gures following, to wit: "An Essay on the Plan of Salvation, in which the several sources of Evidence are examined, and applied to the interesting doctrine of Redemption, in its relation to the government and moral attri- butes of the Deity. By Asa Shinn, minister of the gospel." "Truth never was indebted to a lie." — Young. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John viii. 32. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgive- ness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." — Eph. i. 7. In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, " an act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books to the authors and proprie- tors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned;" and also to the act entitled, " an act supplementary to the act entitled, " an act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned," and extendingthe ben- efits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching histo- rical and other prints. PHILIP MOORE, Clerk of the District of Maryland. PREFACE. THE following Essay was written, and is now offered to the public, from a full and deliberate conviction that truth, rightly understood and believed, tends to the general and permanent hap- piness of mankind; — that the doctrines therein contained are true; —and that they are truths in which we are all particularly inter- ested, and which cannot be too attentively examined, or too gener- ally understood. If either of these positions be erroneous, it must be confessed that error has had an influence in giving birth to the present publication. But admitting them to be correct, they are deemed sufficient to furnish justifiable motives for publishing this book, nothwithstanding its defects, or the obscurity of its author. The general design of the Essay, as signified by the title, is to point out and ascertain, with some tolerable degree of accuracy, the rules of evidence by which alone the human mind can be suc- cessful iu the search of truth; — in order especially, to apply those rules, or to use them with attentive regularity, in the investigation of the important and great principles of Christianity, concerning the redemption of mankind, and the general plan of saving them from sin and misery, by our Lord Jesus Christ. It is entitled au Essay on the Plan of Salvation, because the design of it was, not to investigate precisely and exclusively, the doctrine of the atone- ment, but to view that interesting doctrine in its connexion with the general plan of restoring fallen creatures, and in its relation to the moral attributes and government of the great Creator. The reader will find that one whole chapter was written before the subject of atonement was introduced; and that chapter may be considered, by some, to be totally foreign from the plan of salva- tion, and to contain matter which cannot, with propriety, be in- cluded under such a title. It may be necessary, for the sake of such readers, to obviate the objection in this place, lest an unhappy prepossession should cause them to stumble at the very threshold, and to cast the book by with inditterence, before they come to the main subject to which their attention is solicited. It must be acknowledged by every reflecting mind, that a clear view of the method by which truth is to be discovered and ascer- tained, is of great advantage in the pursuit of it; and that confusion in our conceptions of the proper grounds of credence, is a very gene- ral and fatal source of error. A man is in little danger of taking his enemy for his friend, or his friend for his enemy, who has a clear and steady conception of the constituent principles of friendship and of enmity; because he can apply those principles to each parti- cular case, without much danger of being mistaken; but he who is at no pains to regulate his view of this subject, is liable to take ( PREFACE. th^t for a proof of friendship which is a proof of the contrary, and thus to expose himself to the insidious arts of intrigue and deception. In like manner, while we remain unacquainted with the rules of evidence, or have but an indistinct and obscure view of them, we are liable to take that for a sign of truth which is a sign of falsehood, and to wander in the wilderness of delusion, till our adherence to sophistical evidence will become habitual; and then surely we shall be in a fair way to fake bitter for sweety and sweet for bitter; — darkness for light, and light for darkness. It cannot therefore be justly considered amatterof inditterence, much less of censure, that in an Essay upon the great doctrines of religion and morality, on which our present and eternal happiness depends, an attempt should first be made to distinguish betweea true and false evidence; for how can truth be discovered or prov- ed, but by the use df sound and genuine rules of proof, and by carefully guarding against those which are false and delusive? And how can this be done, if we be at no pains to distinguish the one from the other? Nor can itbe justly said, that such an examination of evidence belongs not to the plan of salvation: for is it not God's method of saving sinners, to bestow his spiritual blessings upon them in eon- sequence of their embracing the truth? And how can truth be dis- covered or believed, but by means of that evidence which distin- guishes it from falsehood? AH men will agree surely, that truth cannot be embraced ivithout being distinguished from falsehood: and how can this be done, if we are indifferent to the mer/iorf by which they are to be distinguished? As the plan of saving sinners implies, therefore, our understanding, believing and obeying the truth; and as truth cannot be understood, believed, nor consequent- ly obeyed, but by means of proper evidence, this first chapter, upon the nature and rules of evidence; and the distinction between the sound and the unsound, properly belongs to an Essay on the plan of Salvation. It is true, that in illustrating this subject, notice has been taken of our intellectual or judging faculties, and some may perhaps ob- ject, that a disposition has been manifested to wander too far into the regions of philosophy; but when we consider that some philo- sophers have done more to involve the evidence of truth in confu- sion and obscurity, than almost any other men, it can hardly be thought improper to follow them in their ingenious speculations, so far at least, as to detect the stratagems, by which they have laboured to conceal the evidence of religious truth, and of moral obligation, from the human mind. Infidelity, it is well known, affects to come forth under the sanction of philosophy: It eagerly embraces the ingenious theories of some acute metaphysicians, as the ground of its opposition to Christianity; therefore we cannot disarm our unbelieving opponents, without attacking the hypothe- ses of that science, false hj so called, on which they take their stand, and by means of which they have imposed upon the understand- ings of the unwary, have made a plausible defence against the dictates of conscience and reason, and have been but too successful in the establishment of a pernicious scepticism. PREFACE. But it is yaiu to hope, that all the objections can be obviated in a preface, which will be apt to occur against the doctrines of this Essay; for it is extremely probable, not to say morally certain, that there will be some hundreds. And for this plain reason, that the author, from the beginning to the end, has been governed by acon- Tiction that he ought to follow evidence wherever it should lead, without ever suppressing or departing from any part of it, through the fear of deviating from the sentiments of any man, or any num- ber of men in the world. Hence one part of the subject may differ from one sentiment, long sanctioned by authority; another part from another; and upon the whole, every denomination of chris- tians may peradveuture find something that will be esteemed ob- JBctionabie. Indeed, there is reason to presume that some who entirely ap- prove the leading doctrines here advanced, and whose friendship the writer of these pages has long had the happiness to enjoy, will be obstructed in their progress through the Essay, by some considerable objections. Without attempting to predict what par- ticular points will be considered erroneous, it may suffice to notice objections that are more general. These may perhaps be the fol- lowing: (l.) That the subject is treated in a manner too abstruse and metaphysical, and (2.) that the peculiar boldness and novelty of several parts of it, ar» of a suspicious character, and indicate a strong presumption, that some very serious errors have been adopted. In answering the first, it may be sufficient to say, that great care and pains were used to make the subject as simple and intel- ligible as its nature would possibly admit of; and though some things have been introduced that are abstruse in their nature, be- cause it was impossible otherwise to do any justice to the subject, yet it is presumed, there are few things introduced, but such as may be understood by common minds, provided their method of reading and understanding subjects be that of attention and dili- gent thinking. And 1 hope no person would request a man to write a book that may be understood without thinking. Must it not be a very superficial and frivolous performance, that can be comprehended by a careless inattentive glance, that is hardly suf- ficient to keep the reader from falling into a profound sleep? And however intelligible, conclusive, or important a treatise may be, it will contain nothing clear, convincing or interesting, to an un- thinking mind: because his intellectual supineness renders him incapable of entering into a subject, or of properly relishing any truths it may contain. The discourses of our Saviour ajid his apostles are remarkably simple and perspicuous; yet the man who presumes he has a right understanding of them, without close and habitual meditation, is in a greater error, perhaps, than those of whom he is disposed to complain. As to the second objection, the candid and friendly reader is assured, that great solicitude occupied the mind of the writer, through the whole of this Essay, to guard against error: if the reader will devote an equal degree of attention to discover and point out erroneous opinions, that was employed to avoid them, he y/ill doubtless be entitled to a fair hearing; and whatever a,id his PREFACE. friendly strictures may afford, will be received with gratitude.^ — But as to those persons, if any such there be, who upon the tirst careless glance are entirely prepared, and think themselves fully qualified, to fix the charge of heresy upon a publication, their sovereign and masterly decision, 1 think, is beneath the attention of every reflecting mind. Their great and capable minds, it would seem, are under no necessity to submit to the drudgery of close and laborious thinking, in order to distinguish truth from falsehood; but are at once prepared, with intuitive infallibility, to judge of every book and of every subject, without the pains of ex- amination, or even almost without reading or hearing them. — AVhat is the evidence on which they decide? Such as the follow- ing: the thing is a novelty: — I never heard it before: — my father never believed it: — It is not believed by our party: — I am sure it is false. — Hoping the reader will pardon me for supposing it possi- ble, that there may be persons of this sort in the world, 1 drop the present allusion, and proceed to notice a few other particulars. It is not impossible, that some persons, into whose hands this hook may chance to fall, will be grievously offended, because so little deference appears to be given to creeds, established by the authority of divines, or to the opinions of the learned; especially to those of philosophers and doctors of law and divinity. 'Ihey may perhaps think this performance, however destitute of the grace of novelty in other particulars, affords a new species of im- pudence and self-sufficiency. It is indeed a very pleasing reflection to an enlightened mind, that there are many men of learning in the world: — men who have, a complete knowledge of the different languages, as also of sci- ence in general; — it would be a blessing if their number was in- creased ten fold;— and every friend to human improvement must consider it desirable to be possessed of their advantages: — but though a degree of deference is due to their authority, yet if any one should conclude that authority alone is a sutficient ground for all our opinions, it might not be improper to propose to him a few plain queries. 1. Are divines and philosophers the only men to whom God has given the right to think and judge for themselves.^ 2. Must all persons who have been unhappily deprived of their advantages, either hold their peace, or frame all their opinions according to the exact model furnished by their learned superiors, however the clearest evidence may seem to lead to a contrary conclusion.^ 3. Is a man incapable of reasoning or judging correctly, because he is not a critic in foreign languages, or has not become master of astronomy or navigation? 4. If any pers(»n were charged with hav- ing no independence, — -of framing all his opinions according to the fashion or authority of great men, without having any opinion of his own, — would he not consider it a reproach, and be disposed to repel the charge.^* 5. Is it not very inconsistent then, for any per- son to complain of another, for using that freedom of thought and independence, the want of which cannot be imputed to himself^ w ilhout being received as a reproach, or even as an insult.'* The reader, it is hoped, bearing these queries in mind, will pe- ruse the following sheets w ith some indulgence, and will not be PREFACE. fiasty in attributing that to a want of respect for great men, whieU originated only from a desire to avoid the unreasonable preposses- sions of fashion and authority. As to the manner, or execution of this work, it is not to be doubted that the judicious reader will meet with many deiiciencies; some from errors of the press, some from the inability of the au- thor, and others from the peculiar disadvantages under which he laboured. A candid and liberal indulgence is solicited; and if any harsh or uncharitable expressions have been permitted to pass, it is hoped, that, being imputed to inadvertency, more than malevo- lence, by impartial and generous minds, they will be forgiven. This book may be thought by some to copy too much after the modes of expression used by moralists, philosophers, or even So- einians; and though the sentiments may be true, yet the expres- sions may be thought not sufficiently evangelical. Instance, the frequent use of the words virtue, rectitude, morality, &c. This has been done for the sake of precision and perspicuity. Those words, though sometimes limited to external conduct only, are frequently used to signify the whole of christian righteousness, obedience and holiness. Does not the law of God enjoin perfect holi- ness? And is it uot truly denominated the moral law? Then does not the word morality, comprehend the whole of that law which enjoins the perfect love of God, and of all mankind? And why should christians, or men of reason, dispute about words, and be otfended at each other for particular modes of expression? To re- ject truth on this account, is like a person refusing to partake of the common sustenance of life, because it is not served up in that kind of table furniture which is most agreeable to his fancy. And suppose there should be a considerable deficiency of style, or even a few serious errors of opinion, if the doctrines are true in the general, and worthy of all acceptation, they surely ought not to be rejected with disgust or indiiference, because a few errors es- caped attention, and unhappily found their way into this publica- tion. To reject a treatise in this way, is to act like those persons who reject or despise a whole religious community as hypocrites, because a few of its members have been found to be deceitful. Would such an objector be willing his own character should be treated in this manner, and be unequivocally exploded as a bad character, because a few blemishes had been discovered? Reader, wilt thou slay the truth ivith the error, and that the truth should be as the error? That be Jar from thee. Shall not every candid person imitate the judge of all the earth in doing right? But if Dr. Brown be correct in his views of mankind, this will be a very unfashionable, and therefore unpopular book: "As few men have the courage" says he, "to sacrifice their interest, their pleasure, or their fame to their regard for truth and justice, the great concern is, to speak and act, not as reason and virtue dictate, but as interested views, in conforming to the opinions, humours, and manners of others, may require. For, how is tlie favour of the greater part of men to be caught, but by adulation and servile res- pect? And what so efficacious for incurring their displeasure, as that manly and generous conduct and conversation, v\hich indicate less solicitude to secure favour, than to enjoy self-esteem, a greater PREFACE. iove of mankind than respect for individuals? Hence, mostih'eB Lave an opinion for every company they frequent, and change their sentiments oftener than their dress. — Politeness is making constant demands— propriety imposing new laws — men are al- ways the slaves of custom, and seldom follow the bent of their own genius and temper. Society is a species of stage, on which the actors appear in their turns, and play their parts. He is most applauded, and bears the highest price, who appears least him- self, and personates most successfully the assumed character. " The man who presumes to think, to speak, or to act, ditierent- ly from the generality, even in matters of singular importance to the common good, is looked upon as an unsocial savage being, who, separating himself from his species, is entitled to no share of their regard and afteetjon. It is well, if he is not exposed to the severest effects of resentment and hatred." Browii's JV*atural Equality of Men, page 130 and 134. According to this bold representation, which Dr. Brown has had the assurance to make, it would appear, that an honest mau is not to expect much esteem in this world; but that, in order to be popular, a man's chief concern must be to conform himself to the fashion. Such a concern had little inftuence in producing the pre- sent Essay, and therefore, judging by the above representation, it is not difficult to foresee its fate. THE AUTHOR, Baltimoref September ±2, 1813. IISTRODUCTION. l^EAViNG the busy multitude to pursue their momentary schemes. 1 sit down, thoughtful and retired, to consider myself, my origin, my Author and my end. 1 live in the world, pos- sessed of various faculties to think, and feel, and remember, I know not how. I want to know tchat I am, zchence I am, and whither I am bound. I find I am a creature capable of being eitlier happy or mis- erable, and that happiness and misery are within my po^vcr, and, in a considerable degree, depend upon my voluntary ac- tions. There are many objects around me, some of which are calculated to hurt me, and others to minister to my wants. There are millions of creatures in the world, beside myself, some possessing similar faculties to those which 1 possess, and others of another kind. They rlso are capable of happiness or misery, and it depends upon my choice, whether I act in a way calculated to injure them, or to promote their felicity. Our nature, our feelings, and our wants are common; and the ques- tion presents itself, whether I should consider my own conve- nience alone, and gratify myself in every particular, however others may be injured; or, whether 1 ought to regaji'd the gen- eral welfare, and sacrifice some of my private gratiHcations, to promote the native liberty and enjoyments of my fellow men? The latter appearing to be self-evident, I feel bound to use my thinking 2)ow ers, that I may learn, not only the means of hap- piness and misery to myself, that I may pursue the one and avoid the other; but also what is calculated to guard others from misery, and to promote the tranquillity of universal so- ciety. _ B vi. INTRODUCTION. Happiness is the end of general knowledge; and any part of knowledge that has no tendency to this end, (if any such there be) is altogether useless and insignificant. I find that I desire liapjKness by an nneontrolable necessity in my nature: I need no increase of knowledge to stimulate me to pursue this end; but the means of it are as diversified as the works of God. and my ignorance of them is such that there is need of perpetual meditation to discover them; and I presume there would still be great room for improvements, were my life protracted for ten thousand years. As the means of happiness, when known, must be applied or reduced to practice, I conclude that in all my reflections I should have a reference to the regulation of my conduct; and 'that which shews nie immediately how to act right, is the most important of all knoM'ledge. He who pursues knowledge with- out any regard to practice, is like a man sitting by the way side, enquiring of every one, that he may learn the road to any certain place, in order to sit still and never follow the direc- tions he receives with so much apparent solicitude. In vain may he pretend that disinterested benevolence influ- ences him to acquire knowledge, that he may direct others into that path of right conduct, in which he refuses to walk him- self; for his own snpine indifference refutes this pretension and evinces to every attentive spectator, that his benevolence is so very superficial that it only recommends that which he esteems not worth pursuing. It is some selfish principle, and not a ge- nuine love of truth, which influences the empty speculations of 8ueh an individual; and it is well if he does not spend more time in learning how to excuse and justify his own indifference to virtue, than he docs in teaching others how to pursue and enjoy the benefits thereof. Believing, as his conduct proves he does, that he can be more happy in the neglect of right conduct than ill the practice of it, he will directly or indirectly recom- mend the same immorality to others, and will excuse or defend the delusion, by all the insinuating sophistry in his power. I am not only ignorant, 1 find, of many things which it con- cerns uie to know; but 1 am perpetually liable to fall into error, which is worse tlian ignorance. If I use my intellectual fa- culties as 1 ought. 1 may through Divine assistance, I conclude. INTRODUCTION. vii. acquire all that knouledgo which my Maker has made neces- sary for my present state of being, as well as to prepare me for eternal happiness hereafter; but there are many things which I cannot know, because the Almighty Jias not given rae the means and the power to know them. If I believe nothing con- eerning them, bnt live contented in a state of ignorance, in matters which God has put beyond the reach of my understand- ing, I shall continue safe and happy; but if 1 form hypothesis, and resolve to believe without evidence, I shall fall into delu- sions that may have a pernicious influence upon my virtue and tranquillity. Hence it appears necessary for me to be at due pains to dis- tinguish between those things which may be known by mankind, and those which surpass the limits of human understanding, lest 1 should spend my time in fruitless endeavors to compre- hend that which is incomprehensible. In so doing I should weary myself in vain: I should darken counsel hj words ivith- out knowledge, bewilder the understanding of others, as w ell as my own, and involve truth in the shades of impenetrable ob- scurity. I should waste and abuse the time and talents which the Parent of goodness has lent me for a season, and should remain ignorant of truths which might be known, by prepos- terously neglecting them to pursue those subjects which God has reserved for the contemplation of superior intelligences. To distinguish between things knowable by me, and those which are not so, I purpose to regulate my studies chiefly by this single rule: When a subject of apparent difficulty presents itself, if the impossibility of conceiving it more clearly do not appear self-evident, I must give it a full trial; I must avail myself of the most happy season, when my thinking faculties are in the best order, and labor to understand it with all neces- sary attention and perseverance: if in this attempt my concep- tions become more clear and distinct, I receive it as evidence that I am not out of my proper sphere; but if every attempt be fruitless — if my pains and labors serve no otlier purpose than to weary my spirit, and involve the subject in greater obscu- rity, I take for granted that tliis is a subject beyond the grasp of my understanding, and must immodiatoiy give up the pur- suit. viii. INTRODUCTION. Among the vast variety of subjects witljiii the compass of human thought, I ought to select those for my most serious and attentive iir.esiigalion, that appear to have the most essential relation to the solid and perpetual happiness of mankind. Those of secondary importance should have but a secondary dv.'gree of attention, especially as our stay in this world is so short, tliat we must necessarily remain ignorant of many par- tierlars for want of time to examine them. By the study and communication of trutli, I hope to glorify juy Creator, and to promote the welfare of my fellow creatures, as well as my own, by exhibiting those amiable and august per- fections of the Deity, which are the foundation of all felicity in every part of the universe. I hope, through the mediation of my Saviour, to, answer, in some degree, the end of a rational being, and to stand approved before Him whose vast intelli- gence scrutinizes the secret thoughts cf every creature. I hope to contribute my mite to the support of truth and righteousness among the descendants of Adam, and to assist, as I may be able, the benefactors of mankind, in defeating the dark designs of malevolence, which have appeared in all ages, and which have sometimes threatened to banish ail truth and virtue from the world, and to fill it with the intolerable darkness of super- stition, or of open atheism. But how shall I guard against splitting upon the rocks or running upon the shoals which stand threatening on either hand? How many good men have fallen into great mistakes.'' In attempting to steer our vessel upon the calm and unruffled current of reason and revelation, that we may reach our de- sired haven, much caution is needful to guard against the dan- gerous whirlpools of passion and of prejudice. Many, alas! have missed their course in a dark and a cjoudy day, and hav- ing run a ground were unable to get forward and have long stood exposed to the waves of prejudice and passion; while others to avoid a similar fate, have unhappily kept at too great a distance, and tliereby have fallen on the rocks upon the other shore. " Nothing is inore common," says Mr. Fletcher " thau for men to run into one extreme under the plausible pretence of fjtvoidjng another." Bhall I presume then, that I ^vill be able to avoid all dan- V INTRODUCTION. ix. ger, and to keep constantly on the even channel? I dare not presume so. Yet I cannot believe that all men are destined to run into dangerous errors of necessity, without charging my Maker foolishly. And "to run away" from the search of truth, on account of danger, "is but a coward's trick:" the ex- amples which history affords, of the multiplied and dangerous errors of mankind, ought indeed to make us wary; but they ought never to cause us to fold up our hands and do nothing, under the whimsical imagination, that we shall mend the mat- ter by laying an embargo upon our rational faculties. God gave us talents that we might improve, not bury themj and I must be permitted to presume that a right use of them will lead to the end intended: and unless that end was to de- ceive mankind with various delusions, 1 conclude we may avoid all dangerous mistakes, provided we move cautiously, after having taken due pains to set out right. Jf we take a wrong direction when we first set out upon a journey, the farther we advance, the more we wander out of the way. To avoid this, let us begin by examining what method God has established to lead his creatures to the knowledge of his truth. Let us labor to conceive and ascertain the proper method of distinguishing truth from falsehood, that we may trace out the causes which have led thousands so far into the wilderness. AN ESSAY FLAN OF SAJLYATIOET- CHAPTER I. WON THE METHOD ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATOR, THROUGH WHICH MANKIND ARE TO DISTINGUISH TRUTH FROM FALSE- HOOD. SECTION I. ^ general view of truth and evidence. CxoD has given us power, by means of various faculties of our nature, to conceive many things, to distinguish between them^ to compare them together, and to notice their connexion or repugnance to each other. The exercise of these faculties produces in. us an immediate belief or conviction that some things are true and others false. Of all this we are conscious, as of our own existence; and if we discredit the evidence of consciousness, we may at once abandon all farther inquiry and resign ourselves to "the great profundity obscure" of uni- versal scepticism. I know my own existence; I find by con- sciousness alone; and if I cannot have a sure knowledge of this it is certain that I can know nothing else. If I exist not, I have no faculties, and of course no capacity of knowing; otherwise knowledge is acquired and truth discovered, by the intellectual faculties of nothing. By the word truth, in its general application, I understand th«8e propositions, or decisions of the judgment, which accord 12 AN ESSAY ON THE with the real existence, properties and relations of all things.' those which do not thus accord with real existence, properties and relations, are false. The ground on which all truth rests, or the criterion by which it is to be ascertained, is called by the general name of evidence. This may appear in all possible degrees, from the slightest probability to the most absolute certainty: and that judgment which is according to truth, is regulated by the- de- gree of evidence appearing in the subject on which it decides. If I judge that to be certain which is only probable, my judg- ment is erroneous; it is equally so, if I judge that to be only probable or doubtful, which is accompanied with evidence that is certain and indubitable. A falsehood is to be known or ascertained by its repugnance or opposition to all evidence. As truth is known by its connex- ion with evidence; and as truth and falsehood are opposites, it follows that falsehood and evidence stand in contradiction to each other. A doubtful proposition or hypothesis, is known by its entire want of evidence. If evidence appear for it, it is found to be a truth; if against it, it is found to be a falsehood; and in either case it no longer remains a doubtful proposition, or hypothesis. I will suppose a proposition is advanced that there are elephants and crocodiles in the moon. Is this to be received as a truth or as a falsehood.^ It cannot be ascertained as a truth, because there IS no evidence for it; nor as a falsehood, because there is none against it: therefore to receive it for a certain truth Avere to espouse an hypothesis, and till some proof be produced either for or against it, I feel disposed to conclude that it is beneath a rational being to believe any thing concerning the matter. This conclusion must stand, or else the following one must fall, namely that it is the part of a rational being to regulate his belief by evi- dence, and by nothing else. If we deny this, we say it is right and proper for men to believe without evidence, and if so, how rediculous and vain are all our demands for testimony, argu- ments and demonstrations, before we Avill consent to receive every thing we hear as a proper object of our belief? But as all truth is to be known in this way, it appears very desirable to understand what this certain something is, which PLAN OF SALTATION. 13 we call evidence. If truth is known by this, and by nothing else; and if we have no power to discover evidence or to conceive any thing concerning its nature, it is plainly impossible for us to know any thing concerning what is true and what is false. But am I able to give wliat is called a logical dehnition of evidence? I think 1 am not. And shall 1 thence conclude that I have no conception of it, and that it is a word which has no meaning? If I conclude so, I find many similar conclusions will follow. No such definition can be given of existence, of time, of space, of power, of agency, thought, or intelligence. And must I therefore conclude that men have no conception of these things, and know nothing about the distinction between existence and non-existence ? If so, I must contradict my consciousness, give up my own existence, and lay by my pen and paper for the moles and the bats. Not being willing so speedily to abandon my pursuit, I repeat the enquiry, v.hat is evidence ? sliall I answer that it is testimo- ny, argument and demonstration ? This is only giving the names of ditt'erent kinds of evidence, witliout explaining what the thing is in itself, demonstration is one thing; testimony is another; but that certain thing we call evidence is common to them both. I know there is a city in England called London, and another in France called Paris; but I never saw either of them, and their existence was never demonstrated: yet I am as certain of their existence, from human testimony, as I am of any other truth by demonstration. And my belief in the existence of those cities is founded on evidence, as well as in those truths which are con- tained in Euclid's Elements. What is it in human testimony whicli we call evidence ? Will it be said we believe the testimony of men so far as their vera- city has been ascertained by experience ? I still pursue the sub- ject, and ask, what is it in our experience which we call evidence? Why must I believe a thing to be true, because it accords with my experience ? And why must I believe a thing to be LAN OF SALVATION. m kind ? I know not what he means by its being stronger, unless it be that it is naturally calculated to produce a stronger or more firm belief in a rational nature, than any other kind; and if this be his meaning I must dissent from him, or give up my consci- ousness: for the evidence I have of my existence, and the exis- tence of this paper before me, is as strong and naturally tends to produce as firm a conviction as any demonstration ever did or can do. Will he say it is a more reasonable kind of evidence than any other ? This is easily said, but what proof will he condescend to give us of its truth ? Has it ever been demonstrated that no other kind is so reasonable as this ? If not, he obtains the knowledge of this truth (if it be a truth) from some other source of evidence less reasonable than that of demonstration. And if so, is it not as unreasonable to receive this truth from that in- ferior source of knowledge, as any other ? Is he conscious that demonstration is the most reasonable kind of evidence .^' If so, consciousness has furnished him with a discovery that his boast- ed demonstration could never furnish, and he has no reason to give a preference to the latter, but what he professedly derives from the former. Will he say it is more intelligible, more clear, than the tes- timony of sense, of consciousness, or any thing else? How does he know it? Has it ever been demonstrated? If not, he is indebted to one of the less reasonable sources of knowledge, for one of his most unshaken principles of faith; namely, that our belief ought to be regulated by demonstrative reasoning, iu preference to every thing else. And just as much reason as he has to give this the preference, so much he has to admire that source of knowledge without which he would never have made the discovery. This conclusion will remain undeniable till it be demonstrated that demonstration is the most reasonable kind of evidence. It will perhaps be- said that mathematical truths are more ^lear and certain than any other kind, because they are neceS' sary, and it is impossible for them to be false. How do we know it is impossible for them to be false? In vain may it be an-» swered that they have been demonstrated; for the first princi- ples of necessary trath are takftn for granted, as well as all 16 AN ESSAY ON THE other first principles. Has it ever been demonstrated that " a part is less than the whole," and that " equal quantities added to equal quantities will make equal sums?" No: every mathe- matician knows that these principles are taken for granted without proof, and if they be denied, all demonstration is at an end. I repeat the question, how do we know that these princi- ples are true, and that their contrary is impossible.^ The only answer is, that God has given us faculties whereby we perceive their truth with immediate conviction, as I now immediately perceive this paper lying before me. In like manner, by the faculties God has giVen me, I perceive this truth, with immedi- ate conviction, that I now exist, and that it is impossible for me to exist and not exist at the same time. The first principles of mathematical truth are seen no less immediately, and in a man- ner no less unaccountable: and 1 will wait patiently to hear what reason can be given why we should discredit those faculties God has given us, in their immediate decision of what' is true, any more than in their decision of what must necessarily be so. SECTION II. Concerning the several sources of our knowledge^ and first, of those principles which are self-evident. Perhaps all the sources of human knowledge may be reduced to this general division, first, intuitive certainty, comprehend- ing all truths that are self-evident: secondly, the evidence of reasoning: and thirdly, the evidence of Revelation. I do not conclude absolutely that all evidence is comprehended in this division, or enumeration of the general sources of it; but I pre- sume there will be few exceptions found, if any, and till they appear, I must confine my remarks to the different members of this division. And first, we will consider the principles of intuitive certain- ty, that are self-evident. By their being self-evident, I metm PLAN OF SALVATION. 17 that their evidence is contained in themselves, and (he mind perceives it immediately, independent of all external proof or argument. Such principles are the foundation of all rational conclusions or deductions in every science, and we cannot begin to reason, till we first perceive some truth immediately, on which to take our stand; for all reasoning consists in inferring one truth from another, and we must be in possession of the first truth, before we can reason or draw an inference from it, otherwise the infer- ence is not drawn from truth at all; and if the premises be not true, how can the conclusion be so.'' Some first principles have been mentioned already, and ex- amples might be given in every science or branch of human knowledge. This has been done by Dr. Reid and others; and all that is necessary for our present purpose is to present a feAv examples before the reader, and appeal to the immediate dic- tates of his judgment, as well as to the common judgment of mankind. Concerning truth in general, there are some self-evident principles, that are perceived by intuitive conviction, and bor- row not their evidence from any external proof. The first principle of this kind is, that there is a distinction between truth and falsehood. This is self evident, and if it be contra- dicted, nothing in the world can be proved by any argument: for after the clearest demonstration is laid before a man; how easy is it for him to reply, " your argument proves nothing to be true, any more than the most trifling sophism; and it is im- possible it should, seeing there is no distinction between truth and falsehood." Truth and falsehood are the same thing: therefore demonstration and sophistry are both alike, for they both support something; and whatever it be, it is all falsehood and all truth, because there is no manner of difference between them. Now if I were disposed to turn sceptic, and to shelter myself in this strong hold, how in the name of reason and common sense should 1 be beaten out.^ Would you undertake to convince me by argument that there is a distinction between truth and falsehood? What is the arsrumeut by which it is to be proved r 18 AN ESSAY ON THfi Will it be said that reason, or the human faculties, perceive aorae things to be true and others false; that those faculties arc correct in their decisions; and therefore there is a ilistinction between truth and falsehood? And what is this but merely af- firming the thing to be proved, namely, that God has given us power to perceive, w ith immediate conviction, that some things are true and others false? This is taken for granted because it is self evident; and if we conclude God has given us deceitful faculties, and refuse to believe the contrary till it be proved by argument, we may remain forever in our unbelief; for no argii* ment can be given but what depends upon the exercise of those very faculties which have before been supposed to be deceitful. For us first to suppose that our faculties are deceitful, and then to prove by arguments, produced by the exercise of those very faculties, that they are not so, is like our suspecting a certain man to be a thief and a liar, and then proving by his own testi- mony that he is an honest man. The veracity of our original faculties is taken for granted in every argument we use, and in every belief we form, from the beginning to the end of life; while we refuse to credit them, we must discredit every thing in the world; and if we resolve to believe that God has stamped a lie upon the human intellects and senses till our reason is able to muster up some argument for their veracity, besides that imme- diate conviction of it that exists in every rational being, we may at once give up all our knowledge, lie down in the profound and universal ignorance of scepticism, and believe nothing that ever was presented to the human understanding, excepting this one proposition, that our faculties are deceitful. Another self-evident principle is, that truth and falsehood are opposite to each other, or in other words, that it is impoS' siblefor tico contradictory propositions both to be true. Every man possessing the human, faculties, excepting hira who is in a state of insanity, immediately perceives the truth of those principles, and a thousand metaphysical arguments Avould not make them more clear, or more evident, than they are w ith» out them. Indeed, all such principles are incapable of being proved by any direct argument; except, perhaps, where two such truths are so related that one may be inferred from the other; because PLAN OF SALVATION". le every true argument is built upon something more evident than the thing to be proved, otherwise it brings no additional evi- dence to the subject it was brought to support; and it is irra- tional to give any more credit to the principle, after the pre- tended support of such an argument, than we did before it was brought forward. And if two truths equally evident, are in- ferred the one from the other, this may serve for illustration; but no additional evidence is brought to either of them. But what principle can we find, on which to found an argument that is more evident than this, that truth and falsehood are opposite to each other, or that he who contradicts truth speaks that which is false? If we can find no other principle more evident than this, w ith which it stands connected, and from which it may be logically inferred, how is it possible for its evidence to be increased by any argument.'' Another self-evident proposition, connected with the former, is, that it is possible for truth and falsehood to be distinguished from each other by the human mind. If this be not believed upon its own evidence, it will never be believed at all: for it is impos- sible to prove it by any argument but such as will take for grant- ed the very principle itself as its foundation. For whatever the argument be, its premises must be true, before a true con- elusion can be drawn; and therefore the man takes for granted that he distinguishes truth from falsehood in the premises, be- fore he comes to his conclusion: and to say the conclusion proves the premises to be true, w hen itself has no evidence but what it derives from the premises, is to reason in a circle, and to take for granted the very thing in question. We need not here introduce the various principles belonging to the different sciences: but a few thoughts upon the subject of morals, or of right and wrong, may not be improper, because the value of truth consists chiefly in leading us to pursue that which is right, and to avoid that which is wrong. This is the more necessary, as the subject of right and wrong has been sometimes represented as being so loose and unsettled, that every man may draw the line for himself, and make right and wrong to suit his own taste, and may change them as he pleases. It has been said to depend entirely on education,and that which is right with one many or with one nation, is wrong with another; and different 20 AN ESSAY ON THE nations of men may if they please, form systems of morals direct- ly opposite to each other, and the sltimate conclusion is, that they are all right, and there is no such thing as wrong in the M'orld, only so far as men are pleased to frame such an imagi- nation to themselves. This I suspect, has long been a pleasing theme of atheism; and I think it will stand firm to the end of the world, if it be indeed true, that there are no self-evident principles of morality; but if there be such principles; moral duty has as firm a foundation as mathematics. I am far from supposing that alLmoral duties are self-evident; thousands of cases niay occur, in which we will be at a loss to decide Avhat is right, and we are liable to err in moral subjects as well as in all others: I am only disposed to contend that there are a few general principles that are self-evident, and which stand from age to age as the basis of all moral reasoning. That our first conceptions of right and wrong do not depend solely on education, is evident from the following reflections: 1st. Our fathers could not teach us a system of morality, with- ontfirst having conceptions of moral subjects themselves; other- wise you say they could commnnicate that to us, of which they, themselves were entirely ignorant. How did they come by their knowledge of right and wrong? why to be sure from their fathers and instructors. And so we may trace it back to Adam, and the question still recurs, how did the first man receive the con- ception that one kind of conduct is right and another wrong.^ He must have received it from God, either by immediate revela- tion, or by the genuine dictates of his original faculties. Both are the voice of God in man, and I confess I cannot see why we might not as well believe that he gives a deceitful revelation, as to believe the genuine and immediate dictates of our original faculties naturally tend to deceive and lead us into delusion. 2d. Adam's children must have had some conception of the distinction between right and wrong, before they could under- stand any of his instructions on the subject: otherwise you say one man can give another an original conception that is not the immediate dictate of any faculty of his nature. And ifa crea- ture can be instructed in those subjects, who has no original pow- er to oonceive of moral obligation, why do wc not educate our horses and dogs to become subjects of moral govemiBent, and PLAN OF SALVATION. 01 proper members of civil society? They cannot understanrl Our in- structions upon right ami wrong, for this reason only, that they have no original conception of justice or of right, and it is impossi- ble for us to give it to them. Of course the reason why we can instruct our children in morality, and not our domestic animals, is that they have some faculty from whence the hrst conception arises, which brute animals have not: this conception they receiv- ed, aot from us, but from brod their maker, in a manner best known to -himself. 3d. Let it be granted, that a man's moral opinons depend very much upon his education, and that his faculties have been much assisted by it in arriving to that maturity which they have acquir- ed: what then,^ Will it follow that his conception of the firs* principles of morals was as much received by education as any •ther opinion.^ If we conclude there is no real distinction between right and wrong, merely because our moral judgments may be warped by education, we might with equal reason conclude there is no distinction between true uml false; for surely our reasoning faculties are dependent on education as well as our conscience, a,nd our belief of true and false is as much received from our fa- tilers, as our views of right and ivrong. And if the latter affords just ground to conclude that men may draw the line of justice ^vhere they please, the former affords the same ground to con- •lude that they may draw the line of truth w here they please: and thus while with one hand we give up all righteousness in favour of atheism, we give up all truth, with the other, in favour of that •'sceptical philosophy" which teaches that all things are equally doubtful, and of course, that there is no such thing as knowledge in the world. 4th. If the human soul has no original conceptions of right and ivrong, it would be as easy and natural for men to believe one doc-- trine of morality as another, and we might reasonably expect to see whole nations of them seriously believing and instructing their «hildren, that barbarity to a man's dearest friends is the most lovely virtue he could possibly practise, while every species of kindness is immoral and wicked to the last degree. Did any savage in the wilderness ever believe this, and teach it to his children ? And why not, if it be as natural for us to receive one no- tion of right and wrong as another? But while we renounce this flimsy plea of the libertine, shall we vun into another extreme, under pretence of supporting revelation, and maintain that the Bible is the only source from whence man- D 22 AN ESSAY ON THE kind have derived all their kuowledge of right and wrong? Some christians appear to think that we discredit revelation, whenever we admit of any other source of knowledge, especially the know- ledge of duty. Who can tell us what is our duty, say they, or what is the will of God concerning us but God himself? This he has done in the Holy Scriptures, and they are the only sure guide for us to follow in matters of morality. I answer, if the Bible be our only guide, I would be glad to know where it teaches the doctrine now under consideration: where is there a passage from Genesis to the Revelation, that says the Bible is the only source^ whence man derives his first concep- tions concerning right and wrong ? If this be a truth, and if they have learned it either from the Old or New Testament, I confess it is a perfectly new discovery to me; for I have never been able to find any such declaration in all the scriptures. And if they have learned it from any other source, and not from the writings of the prophets or apostles, then tliey have violated their own rule, and have gone to another standard to learn something concerning morality. It is true the Bible says. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God, and if they speak not according to this ivord it is he- cause there is no light in them: 1 Pet. iv. 11. Isa. viii. 20. And I very readily admit that if Ave hold any opinion that is not accord- ing to, or which contradicts this rule, it is an error, and is neither received by intuitive conviction, nor by the right exercise of rea- son: because God will never give one kind of evidence to contradict another. But those passages only affirm that the Bible is a true rule, and therefore that which is not according to it, is false, be- cause it is impossible for truth to contradict itself. Do tlie inspired writers set out, by teaching us first of all, that there is a difterence between right and wrong.^ It is surely neces- sary for us to know this in the first place, and then we are ready to hear what is right, and what is wrong: but there is no such passage in all the Bible: it is every where taken for grant- his nature. If MO had no other conviction of right and wrong but what we derive from the inspired writings, the precepts thereof would, to us, be perfectly arbitrary, and we should have nothing in our- selves to correspond to their fitness and rightou«.iiess; whereas one of those writers himself declared that thev addressed themselves PLAN OF SALVATION. 23 to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 2. Cor. iv. 2. The Bible itself is an address to our reason and conscience; and if we did not perceive its connexion with the genuine dictates of our rational and moral faculties, wc should have no evidence of its di- vinity. Supposing a bible had been given, containino;' ten such com- mandments as these: 1st. Thou shalt hate the Lord thy God with perfect detesta- tion and abhorrence. 2d. Thou shalt blasplieme his name perpetually, and en- courage others so to do. 3d. Thou shalt murder every upright man thou canst find in the world. 4th. Thou shalt loathe and abhor thy parents, and take every opportunity to torment them to distraction. 5th. Thou shalt steal all thy neighbour's goods, and do thy uttermost to starve him to death. 6th. Thou shalt frequently put coals of fire in thy childrens' bosom, and keep them in lingering torment, as long as there is any life in them. 7th. Thou shalt debase thy reason by drunkenness and do every thing in thy power to ruin every faculty of thy nature. 8th. Thou shalt avoid all truth as deadly poison, and establish thy soul in lying and hypocrisy as perfectly and thoroughly as pos- sible. 9th. Thou shalt encourage and regard all murderers and assist them to destroy all mankind, but themselves, from the face of the earth. 10th. Thou shalt pull out the eyes of thy horses and cattle and C5Ut pieces of flesh from their bones, till they are gradually tor- mented to death. And lastly, thou shalt cut thine own throat, with all the rage of an infuriated devil, and thus put a finishing stroke to animal existence, and to all happiness under the sun. Now let me ask any man that has a conscience, to lay his hand upon his heart, and say .if a bible containing such commandments would not be contradicted by the invincible dictates cf his na- ture, and cause his soul to shrink back with liorror! Hut if we have no conception of what is right and wrong, but what we derive from the inspired writings, it would be as perfectly natural and easy to believe these precepts to be right as any others, and uo- thing more would be necessary to convince us that we ought to practise them as our sacred duty, but to find them ia the bible. 3* An ESSAY ON THE Whereas if a bible had been given, as a book of inspiration, containing such precepts, however artfully it might have bee* brought forward, and under whatever specious appearances, I pre- sume its morality alone would couviuce every rational man that it originated from the devil. But if we had no conception of the nature of morality from any other source, if no conviction of the kind arose from the constitu- tion of our nature, one kind of morality exhibited in revelatioa* would be as readily received, and as much adapted to produce conviction as another. If no conviction, on these subjects, arises from the native dic- tates of our conscience, or moral judgment, the purity of chris- tiaii morals would afford no evidence in favour of the Gospel: for with what sense could 1 appeal to the purity of the scripture pre- cepts, as evidence to convince a man that they came from God, if there was nothing iji his soul to dictate that one kind of morality is more pure, or more \vorthy of God than another.^ The two principal sources of argument in favour of revelation, are, iirst, that it recommends itself and its credentials,-to the plain dictates of our rational faculties; and secondly, that it appeals to ev?ry m(t,n''s conscience in the sight of God. But if reason and con- science are to be laid aside, or entirely distrusted, as some would seem to insinuate, under pretence of exalting revelation; we should thereby sap the very foundation of every argument by which Chris- tianity is supported, shake hands with the sceptic, and acknow- ledge that the Gospel can be proved by no rational evidence. But while some of us are vainly supposing we do honour to revelation* by undervaluing our intellectual faculties, and almost insinuat- ing that the Gospel cannot prosper while reason or conscience is tolerated; there are others, with no such fondness for revelation, hut e<[ually willing to lampoon conscience out of the world, who maintain, under pretence of exalting reason, that all true concep- tions of morality are discovered and proved by argument. I am almost templed to suspect that such persons do not fairly understand what an argument is: for how can an argument be formed till some truth is first known as the ground or premises, from which the conclusion is inferred ? 1 presume every logician in the world will tell us that sound reasoning consists in drawing consequen- ces f)r conclusions from premises that are true. They will tell ug that if ilio premises be false, the conclusion must be equally so: and how, ] ask, did we discover that the premises were true ? Were they regularly and logically drawn from other premises ? Theji PLAN OF SALVATION. 25 Ifow did we discover that those others were true ? Thus we may trace the matter back till we come to the first link of the chain, the truth of which must have been discovered by some other means before it was possible for any argument to be formed. All our moral reasonings therefore, must rest upon some first principles of morality, discovered by the human mind, independent of such reasoning. Let us specify a few principles ofthiskind^ and examine whether they have been discovered by argument. 1st. There is one kind of conduct that is right and another kind that is wrong. 2d. Right and wrong are opposite to each other, and it is impos* sible that they should be the same. 3d. All mankind ought to do that which is right, and to avoid doing that which is wrong. 4th. That conduct which tends to promote general happiness is right, and that which tends to promote general misery is wrong. These principles are no where expressly laid down in the scrip- tures, but are every where taken for granted: and I presume they have never been proved by argument since the world was made; yet there is no point in revelation, or that has been proved by rea- soning, more evident than these, because they are the clear and immediate dictates of our moral faculty, and are discovered as in- dependently of all reasoning, as the first principles of mathema- tics. The principles just stated are so far from being discovered by argument, that they themselves are the foundation of all reason^ ings in moral subjects, and it is impossible for any point in morality to be proved without them. Let us give an example, that the mat- ter may be plainly laid before the reader. I propose to prove, by argument, that hypocritical lying is wrong: First, I take my stand on mathematical principles; A part is less than the whole; All the parts taken together are equal to the whole; Therefore hypocritical lying is wrong. If the reader receives no conviction by this argument, we will try another from astronomy: All the planets move round the sun: But this earth is one of the planets; Therefore lying is wrong: Take a third from metaphysics: All things which we perceive are ideas; But vve perceive our friends ami relations: 36 AN ESSAY ON THE Therefore lying is wrong. Another from intellectual philosophy: Whatever is perceived by the immediate dictates of our original faculties is true; but they immediately dictate that there is solid ground beneath our feet; therefore lying is wrong. All this may appear like trifling; but I presume it is far worss trifling to impose upon the souls of men, by persuading them that they or their fathers had no moral conception till it was first disco- vered by argument. Let me suppose myself in this condition in which 1 am able to reason, but at the same time have no conception of any thing belonging to morality: I must certainly begin to reason, then, from something which 1 know; and having tried four kinds of premises, 1 find their regular conclusions would leave me as pro- foundly ignorant of all moral subjects as 1 was before. Where then shall I take my stand ? I may run through every other branch of human knowledge to form my premises, with no better success, till the premises themselves are formed of moral principles: the reason is, that no sound argument can contain any thing in the conclusion but what is contained in the premises and is derived from them: therefore if the conclusion be of a moral nature, the premises must be equally so. Let us now try what success we can have, when we begin to build upon the right foundation. That conduct which injures viankind, and tendsto promote gen^ eral misenjis wrong; hut hypocritical lying has this tendencT/; there- fore hypocritical lying is wrong. Now the conclusion stands clear and can never be overturned, unless it can be made to appear that one or both of the premises are not true. If this can be made ap- pear, the conclusion must fall; for it has no evidence but what de- pends upon their truth, and upon its connexion with them. If a free-thinker should take it in his head to deny the minor preposition, and declare that lying and hypocrisy do not tend to the general mi«ery of mankind: he thereby proves himself a fool for uttering so many complaints against the dreadful evil that has been done in the world by hypocrisy and priest-craft: and if he deny the major, and insist that it is not wrong to do that which tends to general misery, he equally excuses all priests and hypo- crites, and proves himself to have less regard to morality than a barbarian. If he is forced to acknowledge that it is wrong to do that which tends to (he general misery of mankind, 1 must repeat the enquiry, how did he come by the knowledge of this truth? Has it ever been proved to him by argument .^ If so, what were the premises, PLAN OF SALVATION. 27 from which this conclusion was drawn ? They must have been as evidently true, as the principle which he says has been proved by them, otherwise it has as much evidence without their assistance as with it. And if he has deduced this conclusion from some other principle of morals, more evident than this, how did he come by the knowledge of that.^ was it inferred from principles still more evident? from what then were they inferred,^ Thus we may run him back acl infinitum, and he is absolutely forced to confess that all rational argument begins upon principles that are self- evident, or upon such as have no evidence at all. If the former, the point for which I contend is gained; if the latter, all the prin- ciples of true reasoning are contradicted, which are founded on this axiom in logic, that the conclusion can never be viore evident or more true, than the premises from which it is drawn. SECTION in. Two objections answered. It may be objected, first, that the general principles of right and wrong here laid down are not self-evident to the human mind, oth- erwise all men would agree in them: whereas many have disbe- lieved them, and Avhole nations have contradicted them in prac- tice. I answer: 1st. It is true, that all sinners contradict them in practice; but if we conclude no rule of right can be self-evident to a man while he has power to violate it in practice, we make the rule of right consist in doing what a man is forced to do of necessity. And if we suppose a man's doing wrong, is a proof that he knows no better, we suppose that all sinners perpetrate their crimes from a suspicion that they are right, and if they were fully convinced of the wrong they would not do it: whereas their acting in opposition to that conviction is the very ground of their criminality, and without it they would be no more accountable than a beast. 2d. A man's professing to disbelieve first principles is no proof against them. Many have professed to disbelieve them, and tried hard to do it, in order to quiet their consciences and rest satisfied in their inexcusable vices: and wishing to conquer their natural con- victions of justice, they are fond of professing their unbelief, and gladly eftcr what arguments they can in defence of it, that fhry 28 AN ESSAY ON THE may influence others to do so, and thus they hope to gain nnmhei^ on their side, and strengthen themselves by the soothing influence of authority. Some sceptics have professed to discredit their senses, and to be- lieve the present existence of the world is not self-evident: yet they will as cautiously avoid the fire and the water as other people. In like manner some libertines may profess to have no evidence to convince them of the first principles of morals: yet when they themselves are injured, they immediately resent it: and manifest as full a conviction of right and wrong as their neighbours. They^ may purposely stifle the dictates of conscience, respecting their own duty, and then pretend they have no evidence of what is right; and so a servant may stop his ears when his master is giving di- rections, and afterwards excuse himself by saying, "Sir, I did not hear you:"' but Be not deceived, for God is not mocked; whatsoever a man sowetli, that shall he also reap. 3d. If men labour for a long while to do violence to their nature, and at last ruin their faculties, till they are lost tcf the plainest dic- tates of common sense, is this deception produced by the genuine dictates of their faculties ^ or by the great pains they have taken to subdue them ? shall 1 put out my eyes, and suppose 1 have there- by produced a very clear argument, that the eyes God has given to mankind are not naturally calculated to enable us to see ? or that seeing is not accompanied with a self-evident conviction that the objects before our eyes do actually exist ? If 1 am now blind, ■who is to blame ? Is God to blame for not giving me better eyes, or I myself for having pulled them out ? And if a man debases his rational faculties till he is no longer able to distinguish between sense and nonsense, who will offer this as a serious argument that the reasoning powers of maiikind are naturally deceitful ? We might as well say that the case of a man, who through long and ha- bitual melancholy has been led to believe that his head is made of glass, might justly be produced as a powerful reason to convince us that the dictates of common sense are all fallacious, and that it is impossible for us to distinguish, with any certainty, between a piece of glass and a man's head. 4th. I would be glud to know w hat evidence has been produced of an instance, I will not say of whole nations, but of a single in- dividual of the human race, Jew or Gentile, savage or barbarian, that ever seriously questioned, or doubted, whether right conduct is that which tends to the general happiness, or that which tends to the general misery of mankind. PLAN OF SALVATION. S? *We hare often been referred to those persecutors whe murdered the upright and thought they were doingGod service, as instances in point; as also to tliose heathens who burnt their own children in the fire, from a conviction of its being their sacred duty. But I hope it may be made appear that these instances afford no manner of evidence against the principle which, with so much confidence, they are brought to disprove. Why did those persecu^ tors murder the upright ? was it not because they believed them to be a nuisance in the creation, and that they would render an essential service to mankind by putting them out of the way ? If so, they were so far from disbelieving the principle, that it is right to do tliat which tends to general haj)pinesst> that they acted upou it in those very actions wliich are produced to prove that it was not acknowledged by them. Their error consisted, not in taking for granted that a man ought to jjromote gemral happiness rather than misery, which is self-evident to every savage in the wilder- ness, but, in supposing that the general welfare would be promo- ted by the mm*der of those men. They were led into this wicked- ness, not by the genuine dictate of their conscience, which produ- ced a conviction of the former principle, but by the influence of their prejudice and malice, which influenced them to espouse the *atter. And why did those heathens sacrifice their own children ? Was it from a conviction that it was right, to do every thing in their power to banish all happiness from the face of the earth ? not at all: They believed, as well as we, that it is right to promote gene- ral happiness, and wrong to do the contrary; but from the phren- sy of their superstition, they were led to suppose that the sacrifice of their children was necessary to secure the general welfare, by averting the judgments of their angry Gods. In this their error consisted, and this was no dictate of their moral faculty; but they espoused it through passion and faise reasoning, which led them to multiply their deities at pleasure, as imagination should suggest, and then to attribute to them the malevolent affections of devils and wicked men. And because the heathens abused their reason, by yielding themr selves up to their wicked passions, we are disposed to apologize for them, are we? and are not for attributing any of tJieir absurdi* ties to the inexcusable indulgence of abominable passions; but the whole must be resolved into the deceitfulness or deficiency of the original faculties which God Almighty had given themi In this manner, I fear, some christians think they da God serviccj and eo AN ESSAY ON THE support the honour of revelation, by supposing the heathens have •no certain knowledge of right and wrong, and of course that they are pefectly excusable, in the midst of all their crimes! Revelation declares the contrary, in the most unequivocal terms: « For when the gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." Rom. 1. 14. And were they perfectly excusable in that superstitious idola- try which led them te burn their own children? Was it plainly impossible for them to know any better .^ It was not: "Because that which may be known of God, is manifest in them: for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, eveii his eternal power and God-head; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fooLs, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into an image made like to cor- ruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." Rom. 1. 19. &c. Thus the Apostle declares positively, that their barbarous idol- atry did not arise from any deficiency in either their reason or conscience; but from their pride — ^professing themselves to be wise: and from reasonings built upon their vain imaginations, or hypotheses. The second objection is, " that if we admit that there are first principles, which are to be taken for granted without proof, men may receive what they please for a first principle, and shelter themselves very securely ^k-om all argument, by pretending that their opinions are too evident to admit of reasoning. By what criterion are your self-evident principles to be ascertained.^ and how will you make it appear, that we are in no danger of being deceived in these matters?" I answer: 1st. If we are to conclude there are no self-evident principles, -because it is possible to receive that for self-evident M'hich is not so; the very same argument would drive all kinds of evidence out of the world. Let us try the virtue of this formidable objection, and trace its invariable applieation: PLAN OF SALVATION. ,^ Men may be mistaken, and take that for a first principle which is not so; therefore there are no principles that are self-evident. Men may be mistaken, and take that for a sound argument which is not so; therefore there is no sound argument in the world. Men may be mistaken, and take that for the true meaning of scripture which is not so; therefore the scripture has no true meaning. Men may be deceived, and take that for true christian experi- ence, er immediate inspiration from God, which is imaginary; therefore no christian experience, or inspiration from God, is de- serving any credit. Thus we have a plain and short road to scepticism, infidelity and atheism. 2d. It is a vain thing to attempt to muster up any other criterion of truth and certainty, than the plain dictates of those faculties which God has given to man; for none other can be had; and if we refuse to credit these, I presume our unbelief is more perfectly in- curable than the lunacy of any man in Bedlam. Suppose a man, being afflicted with the gout or pleurisy, tells us he is in great pain or misery: is this true or false? if true, how does he know it? not by scripture, argument, or demonstration: he knows it, because it is self-evident You ask him, by what criterion he knows that he is in a state of misery: he immediately answers, <'I know it is so, because I feel it." Now if we should wander through the wilderness of metapTiysics to eternity, I presume we should never give a better answer, or a better criterion. A witty philosopher might reply, "You say you know it is so, because you feel it; but how do you know that your feeling 'are notfallacious ? By what criterion do you determine whepihey are according to truth, and when they are not? Can yo« make it ap- pear that it is impossible that you should be deceived?" I suppose the man of common sensdpo reply: Sir if you will not allow me to believe any thing, till I can make it appear that it is impossible for me to be deceived, I must not believe you are any thing difterent from a quadruped; for it is surely as possible for me to be deceived in taking you to be a man, as it is in believing the reality of whatlfeel. This, if I have right conceptions of it, would be answering a fool according to his folly; and I leave the reader to decide which evinces the most solid reason and judgment, the philosopher's queries, or the sick man's reply. 3d. The man that rejects all first principles, because he may possibly be mistaken, and may receive something for self-evident. H2 AN ESI§AY ON THE whichis uotso, manifests almost as much wisdom as he, who having received a number of eagles or guineas, casts them all into the sea, because some of them may happen to be counterfeit, and because he may possibly be mistaken in judging some of them to be pure me- tal when they are not so. Or the wisdom of such a person may perhaps be considered to equal his, who refrains from all food un- till he starves himself to death, for fear he might partake of some- thing poisonous, or might possibly be mistaken in judging that to be wholesome food which was not wholesome. And indeed if it be true, as some philosophers appear to imagine, that our senses are very deceitful, and we never know when they are lobe trusted, we are all foolish, for supposing that we can distinguish, with any cer- tainty, between gold and iron, bread and poison: for it is by means of our senses only, that the understanding is able to judge of these matters. Permit me to suppose that two philosophers have each received a certain sum of money." one of them belongs to the old academy, and the other is a genuine disciple of Dr. Reid. They sit down, and reason together, upon the proper disposal of their treasure. They both agree, first, that more or less of their coin may be counterfeit. They agree, secondly, that it is possible for them to err, and to take a counterfeit piece to be genuine. They agree, thirdly, that it is a matter of great importance to distinguish the precious from the vile. But though there is this perfect harmony between them, con- cerning the premises, yet they differ very widely in their conclu- aions. The sceptic concludes, his wisest course is to cast his money in- into the sea, without farther ceremony, lest he should be deceived. The other concludes, the wisest course is to examine each piece by itself, in a clear light; and after comparing them together, form the best judgment he can. a any one appear evidently to be base metal, and if there remain no room for reasonable doubt concern- ing it, he consents that it may be cast into the sea; but he will not cast any away, upon the first appearance of their being suspicious, but will reserve them for farther examination. Those which he finds to be evidently good, he applies to their proper use, and resolves, tbat w here he can see no good reason to doubt, he w ill not doubt. The sceptical gentleman addresses his companion in these terms: ^ you, sir, have admitted, that there may be base metal in your possession, how little or how much you know not: you have granted also, that you may possibly be mistaken io your judgment, Mshan PLAN OF SALVATION. 33 you attempt to distinguish the precious from the vile: now you ought to consider, that your counterfeit coin, will go into circulation, and deceive others as well as yourself: therefore I counsel you to lay aside your dogmatical spirit and cast your treasure at once in- to the ocean, lest the whole should prove to be counterfeit." His friend replies, " If sir, I cast all this money indiscriminately in- io the sea, on account of the abstract possibility of my retaining 6ome peices that are counterfeit, I might as well cast all my food into the sea likewise; for it is equally possible for me to mistake its quality: and if all mankind should adopt your short method of avoiding poison, and should abstain from all kinds oi aliment till they starve and perish, would you receive it as a demonstration of their wisdom and profound philosophy ? This would indeed re- duce them to the state, in which your philosophy supposes them now to be; for, provided they had no existence after death, all things to them would be equally uncertain and unknown: but while mankind are permitted to live, and to enjoy their present faculties, I must presume, that your metaphysical refinements will never be able to shake their firm conviction in the plain dictates of common sense." Leaving the reader to judge of the logic of those minute philor sophers, I return to the objection. 4th. I am far from supposing, that all first principles so impress themselves upon the human soul, that every man is absolutely forced to perceive their evidence whether he will or no. We may hold it self-evident that mankind have eyes, by which they are enabled to see, without supposing that every man is oompelled to see by some fatal necessity. A person may shut his eyes if he be so disposed, or may put them out and remain in total darkness. A self-evident pi'inciple may long be concealed under the rub- bish of sophistry, and men have not the opportunity to see it in a clear light: remove the rubbish, bring it out of the enormous tem- ple of hypothetical metaphysics, set it before a man of common sense, «n its own native simplicity, and he will immediately per- ceive its truth with self-evident conviction. It needs no foreign argument to support it; let it only be brought to open view, where it can be properly and distinctly understood, and it m ill shine by its own native lustre, like " the powerful king of day, rejoicing in the east." First principles are like the sun, and the fixed stars of heaven; they scorn to depend upon a borrowed light; and for us to attempt to support them, by arguments drawn from some other quarter, is 34 AN ESSAY ON THE like holding a candle to the sun, under pretence, that his own rays are not enough to satisfy our profound intelligence of his existence. Some of the brightest luminaries of truth have been long concealed, and almost totally eclipsed, by the thick fogs, of metaphysical dust, that have been raised to obscure their evidence: nothing more is wanting, to restore them to their native dignity, than a removal of the hypotlieses and sophistry, which have interposed as a dark cloud, and obstructed their influence upon the human understand- ing. And shall we conclude that they are not self-evident, because it is possible for them to be obscured? We might as well believx there is no such thing as light in the world, or that its existence is not self-evident, because it is possible for men to retire into a dark cave where its beams are excluded, and where all is silent and gloomy as midnight, in the "great profundity obscure." When the woman lost her piece of silver, she immediately be- took herself to sweeping and searching the house, in order that she might find it: let us suppose that a sceptical philosopher had purposely concealed it, under some rubbish in one corner of the house: after removing the rubbish she perceives it, takes it in her hand rejoicing, calls in her neighbours, and concludes, certainly, that she has found her money that was lost. But the philosopher comes forward, hoping to deprive her of her property, by mere dint of argument. " Madam," says he, " how do you know that you have certainly found your silver.^" "Ihold it now in my hand," says she, "and see it before my eyes." But you ought to consider (he rejoins) that it is but a very little while since this money was con- cealed from you, and you could not perceive it: therefore your pre- sent perception of it is not self-evident, because nothing isself-evi- dent,but what is immediately present to the mind from the cradle to the grave: nothing can be self-evident but an innate idea, and as there is no such thing, nothing can be certainly known to be frue in this way: tlicrefore you ought not to believe that you have found your silver, till it be proved by argument. Your senses are very deceitful, and though you seem to see this money, very plain- ly, and to feel it in your hand, yet you ouglit not to receive such fal- lacious representations, or you will expose yourself to perpetual delusion. And besides, it is impossible for you to perceive any thing but an idea, and therefore the piece of silver you so much rejoice over, is nothing but an idea, ami that, itself, is not contained in your hand, but in your brains. I therefore counsel you to drop this vulgar notion, and go again in pursuit of your lost treasure," PLAN OF SALVATION. 33 Qrtery. — Would the neighbours conclude, that this gentleman was seriously employed, in striving to benefit the woman, by instructing her in the knowledge of truth, or that he had a secret design to wheedle her out of her money ? 5th. Although self-evident truths, need only be seen, to be be- lieved; yet several things are necessary to their being properly seen: First, our faculties must have arrived to some degree of matu- rity; because, in a state of infancy, we are incapable of exercising that voluntary attention, which is necessary to the conception of some of the plainest and most evident truths. But if no truth is to be admitted as self-evident, because it is not perceived to be so by an infant, then no argument can be a sound one, because it is not perceived to be so by an infant. It is an easy thing to suppose (1st.) that a self-evident truth and an innate idea are the same thing, and (2d.) that man has no innate ideas: the conclusion then very evid,ently follows, tliat man perceives nothing that is self-evident. I confess it is beyond my power to comprehend whether men have innate ideas or not; for I cannot understand what an idea is, if it be any thing different from a thought: and I hope nobody Mill say, it cannot be self-evident to a man that he thinks, because he is unable to prove that any of his thoughts are innate. I know thati now think, andthati do not receive this truth by reasoning, but by self-evident conviction: if you could prove, by ten thousand argu- ments, that I have innate ideas, this truth, that I now think, would be no more evident to me than it now is; and if you prove by as many more, that I have them not, you will make it no less evi- dent. I know it is impossible for me to be in Europe and America at same time. How do you prove that says a philosophier.^ I answer I cannot prove it at all, because it is self-evident. But if it be self- evident, says he, then it must be an innate idea; but an infant has no such idea, therefore it cannot be innate: consequently you do not know any such thin^, and ought not to believe it, till it be proved to you by some argument. Thus am I brought to a point at once, and what shall I now do ? I must appeal to the good sense of mankind to decide which would be the more reasonable course for me to take. To go in search of some argument to prove that I cannot Jive in FiUrope and America at the same time? Or to attempt to make it appear that the philoso- pher's dbctriue coacermng ideas is a jmers fiction, invented to ac- Sd' AIS ESSAY ON THE count for our perception of external objects, and which contradict* the plainest dictates of the human faculties, and ends in universal gcepticisni? The latter has been done eftectually, by Dr. Reid, Dr. Beatty,Dr. Campbell, and others: and 1 suspect that those who Still adhere to the old jargon, concerning ideas in the brain, have either never heard of those authors, or dare not read them, for fear of being convinced; or else they are very indifferent about the matter, and are willing to be content with any system, provided it have a sufficient number of votaries on its side. Secondly, our faculties must be in a sound state, in order to judge of self-evident principles. A crazy man may hold it very doubtful whether there be any truth in the testimony o^ his senses: and, as a proof that he does really distrust tliem, may wplk carelessly into the fire; but when we ex- amine the genuine dictates of the human faculties, I hope yve will not go to Bedlam to draw our conclusions. If a physician should chance to find a man with a disorder in his eyes, which made him pur-blind, and should thence infer, that the human eye cannot disr tinguish objects, at the distance of fifty yards, would he not be just- ly suspected of insincerity, or of being more disordered in his un- derstanding than the poor man was in his eyes? Thirdly, The plainest truths may be unnoticed and undiscover- ed, merely for want of that attention and habitual thinking which is necessary to a clear conception of them. We have no immedi- ate conviction of their truth at present, not for want of argument, but for want of such explanations as shall set them in a clear light before us, separated from that confusion in which our own obscure thoughts, or the sophistry of others, had involved them. Sophis- try is often more disconcerted by such clear statements and fa- miliar illustrations, as serve to take of every veil, and to set the truth in a fair light before the mind, than she is by direct argu- ment: because, if self-evident truths be kept out of view, or the at- tention be diverted from them; and if her darling hypothesis can be kept from too close a scrutiny, she can put on the appearance of the most clear and conclusive reasoning. One conclusion is built on another, in the most exact order, until they grow into a system. The world is invited to behold the beautiful fabric: op- ponents are challenged to show any defect in the reasoning: and all is safe, so long as it can carefully be kept out of view, that a secret hypothesis is the chief corner stone of the building, and sup- ports the sbining castle in the air. An hypothesis too, which is not only destitute of any evidence, but which, if properly examin- PLAN OF SALVATION^. ^ ed, will be found to be an absurdity, shocking to the coramoa sense of mankind, and perhaps subversive of all human know- ledge. The longer this is kept out of sight, the greater numbers will be led into the delusion, till at last the mighty fabric becomes s& venerable by age, and has received such support from authority, and at the same time has so many respectable names and authors to plead in its favour, who have been unhappily drawn into the snare, for want of due care and attention to distinguish between first principles and hypotheses, that it becomes a kind of heresy^ presumption, or dogmatism, for a man even to suspect the founda- tion of this vast building, which has been reared by such able and in- genious hands. If you affirm that there are some first principles which are self-evident, and ought to be believed very confidently, you are branded with being dogmatical; but if you indulge the least doubt or suspicion concerning the hypothesis, which has been taken for granted without proof, and which has only numbers and author- ity to plead in its favour, you are entirely too sceptical. These are very ingenious stratagems, but I am a little inclined to think, that truth can do very well without them. Fourthly, another thing es- sentially necessary to the clear conception of first principles, is, that sincere love of truth, that candid honesty of mind, which will give every subject a fair and dispassionate hearing. "Pi'ejudice is blind," says Mr. Fletcher, and I persume it will never be any thing better than a blind guide to the end of the world. Its influence on our minds is so pernicious, that instead of leading us to pursue truth by the pure light of evidence, it leads us to resist conviction, when the evidence almost overpowers us. By doing so for a long time, it becomes formed into a habit, the judgment becomes warp- ed and enfeebled, the most evident truths are rejected with in- diflference, or perhaps with detestation, till we seem almost inca- pable of judging by any other rule, than that of our passions, our interest, or the opinions of our party. We are all prone to this great weakness, to say no worse of it; and if each one of us would spend that time in examining its influ- ence on himself, which is spent in casting the reproach on others, how would the shades of error fly before truth's illuminating rays! If every one would spend that time in cultivating a spirit of can? dor, which he spends in search of sophisms, or of something worse, to support the opinions of his party, or his pride, which he is resolved to defend at every hazard, how delightfully would . truth and happiness flow in upon mankind! F d« AN ESSAY ON THE ' But without pretending to decide who is most guilty of* this evil, christian or deist, jew or gentile, another man or myself, I only 'nention it here, as it is a chief cause of our being often blind to the clearest evidence, wheth r that evidence be contained in an argument, or in a first principle, as the fouiidation of it. f3th. Lastly, if there be a doubt concerning any principle, whe- ther it be self-evident or not, there are several tests by which it can be tried. First, if it be self-evident, every man of common understand- ing, and in his right mind, is capable of judging of it; and needs only a clear statement of it, to perceive that there is something ia it tending to produce conviction that it is a truth: of course there will be a general agreement among men concerning it, so far as they understand it, and are unbiassed by partiality. Who can doubt that men generally agree in such truths as these; — There is a m.aterial world of earth and water, on which we live — There are men in this world, and other living creatures — these are living creatures, have power to walk, and some of them to fly — Men have power to think, and to make known their thoughts to each other. Many of them that once lived, are now dead — There, is a difference between a dead man, and a man that is alive. Does any person want arguments to prove the truth of these things.'* No: it is more likely that many will almost suspect me of a partial derau'gement, for gravely laying such things before them. But they ought to be informed, that some of those very propositions have been denied by several of our philo- sophers or wise men, Avhile others have been seriously employed in search of arguments to prove them. Secondly, when a proposition appears at the first view to be a truth, and yet we cannot prove it by any argument, but such as will take for granted the very thing in question, this is an evident mark of a first principle. Several examples of this kind have been given, to which we may add the following: I lay this down as a first principle: a sound argument always contains evidence of truth. Now if I refuse to take this for grant- ed, how will I prove it? Let me offer what argument I will in its support, I take for granted the very thing in question; otherwise 1 suppose my argument, whatever it is, to have no evidence, though a sound one; and, therefore, the principle is left just as destitute of evidence as it was before I produced my argument. Thus all^mcn are forced to admit first principles, and take them PLAN OF SALVATION. ^S ibr granted, or their boasted reasoning itself, falls lifeless to the ground. Tliirdly, though self-evident truths cannot be proved by direct reasoning, yet they may be supported by argume»ts ad ubsurdimi: I mean, that we may suppose the contrary to be true, and shew its consequences to ije a cliain of manifest absurdities. This method of reasoning is often used by mathematicians, and it may be ap- plied with equal force to any other subject, when self-evident prin- ciples are contradicted, which, alasl is but too common. For an example, we will propose this as a first principle: Jl de- gree of credit is due to human testimony. Now if this be denied, we can suppose the contrary to be true, and trace its consequen- ces, which the objector is forced to take along with him, or give up reason as well as common sense. If no regard is due to human testimony, then it is unreasonable to believe the testimony of any man in the world, otherwise you say it is reasonable to believe that which is incredible. It fol- lows, also, that no man in the right exercise of his reason, will believe any thing he reads in history concerning Alexander, Sir Isaac Newton, General Washington, or any other man. He will not believe in the existence of any nation, country or city, until he sees it himself, nor even then, if his senses are not to be ti'usted. When he is informed of immediate danger from savages, or oth- er hostilfi enemies, he will not believe it, so much as to move from his seat, until he sees them with his own eyes, and thus he will become an easy prey to their barbarity. Children, to act reasonably, should never believe the testimony of their parents, or of any others; that there is danger in poisonous drugs, or any thing else, till they make the trial by experience, and thus would the race of men soon perish from the earth. These and such like absurdities, are insepariible fi'om the prin- ciple, that it is unreasonable to give any credit to human testimony: and hence the opposite is self-evidently true. I shall frequently have. occasion to use this method of reason- ing, perhaps, through the present essay, because I may find it necessary to rescue some of the most interesting truths from the sophisms under which they have been concealed. For a farther account of these matters I refer to Reid's Essays on the Intellectual and Active Powers of Man. I might support the sentiments here advanced, by many quotations from his works, but I M ill close the present section by the following quotation Irom Dr. Watts. 4a AN ESSAY UN THE « Intelligence relates chiefly to tliose abstracted propositions which carry their own evidence with them, and admit no doubt about them. Our perception of this self-evidence in any proposi tion is called intelligence. It is our knowledge of those first princi- ples of truth, which are, as it were, wrought into the very nature and make of our minds: they are so evident in themselves to every man who attends to them, that tliey need no proof. It is the pre- rogative and peculiar excellence of these propositions that they can scarce either be proved or denied: they cannot easily be pro- ved, because there is nothing supposed to be more clear and cer- tain, from which an argument may be drawn to prove them. They eannot well be denied, because their own evidence is so bright and convincing, that as soon as the terms are understood, the mind necessarily assents; such are these, whatsoever acteth hath a be- ing; Nothing has no properties; a part is less than the whole; nothing can be the cause of itself." " These propositions are called axioms, or maxims, or first principles; these are the very foundations of all improved know- ledge and reasonings, and on that account these have been thought to be intimate propositions, or truths born with us," <^ Some suppose that a great part of the knowledge of angels and human souls, in the separate state, is obtained in this manner, namely, by such an immediate view of things in their own nature, whieh is called intuition." Logic: or the right use of reason, page 162. SECTION IV. Of the evidence of reasoning. Having spoken of reasoning in the preceediug section, to show jts connection with first principles, there is the less occasion to dwell largely on it in the present. All true reasoning consists sinjply in tracing the connexion of one truth with another, by direct argument; or in tracing the con- nexion of one falsehood witli another, not to establish errors, but to exhibit their absurdity, and thereby tp establish t]\e opposite truth. All direct reasoning must stand or fall with these two proposi- tions: (1st.) that the premises of every true conclusion arc either PLAN OF SALVATION. it self-evident, or may be regularly deduced from principles that are so. (2d.) That every regular and sound argument contains evidence of truth. All indirect reasonings, or arguments ad absurdum, must stand or fall with this principle, that truth and falsehood are necessa- rily opposite to each other: for if this be denied, it is vain for us to attempt to support any thing as a truth, by shewing that its op- posite leads to an evident absurdity, because the whole force of the reasoning rests upon the axiom, that truth and falsehood stand in necessary and invariable opposition to each other. That a true conclusion will never follow from false premises, is not only so evident in itself, that the contrary is ridiculous to any man of common understanding; but it is a matter in which all logi- cians have agreed, from the days of Aristotle to the present time; and if all treatises on logic w ould distinctly exliibit the simple rules of reasoning, and separate them from the obscure and un- meaning jargon of the schools, I presume the art of logic, or the right method of reasoning, would become an art of great respec- tability among mankind. If the arts and sciences are disgraced and filled with perplexity, by those who delight to darken counsel by words without know- ledge, truth and reason are not to blame; for simplicity and per- spicuity are the strong hold of both; while error and sophistry gladly retire from the light, and derive great advantage from the most inpenetrable and profound obscurity. A few short quotations from Dr. Watts, who is acknowledged to stand among tli Reid says he is right, and that this had been taken for granted as a first principle of philosophy, for more than a thousand years. And it appears that Mr. Locke, though a man of a most amiable, candid, and penetrating mind, unhappily received the same theory, and took it for granted without examination. When speaking of the word, idea, he says, " I have used it to express whatever is meant by fantasm, notion, species, or whatever it is which the mind can be employed about in thinking, and I could not avoid frequently u?ing it. " But what shall be here the criterion ^ How shall the mind, when it perceives nothing but its own ideas, know that they agree- 4» AN ESSAY ON THE with things thcmselvps? This, though it seems not to want difii- culty, yet 1 think there are two sorts of ideas that we may be as- sured agree with things." See the introduction to Locke'^s Essay on Huma n Under st a nding. Thus is Mr. Hume right when he informs us what philosophy teaches, and his position, '^ That nothing can ever be present to the mind but an image or perception," is explained by Mr. Locke, Mhen he says '^ The mind perceives nothing but its own ideas." Let the question stand clear of every embarrassment, as truth delights to stand. I am now sitting on this chair, with the paper before me; on my Hght hand I see a number of books of different sizes; Now 1 want to know, whether I really perceive this chair and paper, that table and those books, or not. Answer: " Nothing can ever be present to the mind but an image or perception." I do not ask whether the books be present to my mind, but whether I now perceive them, and am now thinking about them? Answer; the word idea signifies " whatever it is which the mind can be employed about in thinking. The mind perceives nothing but its own ideas." While I hold this book in my hand, then, and look at it, am I to suppose that I perceivq the book and the idea at the same time, and am thinking about them both.? If it be granted, that I really perceive the book, and am now tliinking of it, this is all I ask: the thing which I now see and feel I perceive to be a real book, con- taining the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God, composed of solid paper, leather, and printed letters variously arranged. — Grant me this, and I find no occasion for the idea of a book, to enable me to see it; and could I perceive the idea as clearly as I now perceive the book, I would not ask for arguments to prove its existence. And if it be said that the idea is the instrument or medium through which, or by means of which, I perceive what I /now hold in my hand, this I feel willing to concede, provided it be granted that it is really the book which I now perceive, and about which my mind is now employed in thinking. The idea may gerve as an instrument or medium of perception, as well as 1 he eye and car, or any other organ of sensation; and no harm is done, so long as I am permitted really to perceive and behold this exter- nal universe which God has created; but if i4leas should usurp the place of other things, and obstruct my sight, so that 1 can perceive nothing but themselves; my soul! come not thou into their secret, but be pontent to walk the old beaten path of common sense. Bot suppose we ^ndergtapd thq philosophers really and literal- VLAS OF SALTATION. 4^ iy to ntean, that the mind perceives nothing but its own ideas, aad that every thing is an idea and nothing else, about which it ever can be employed in thinking: are we permitted to take the conse- quences along with us ? or must we sacrifice our reason to the god- dess of philosophy, and espouse a number of palpable contradic- tions? If I perceive nothing but ideas, it is plain that this pen, which I perceive, is an idea; held by the idea of a hand, belonging to the idea of myself, and making the idea of writing, upon the idea of paper, in order to form the idea of a book. But I am told that I form the idea of a book, whenever I think about it: strange then, that after studying and writing so long, I only form the same idea which can be formed in a moment. I am now thinking of Mr. Hume's, history of England: is that history nothing but an idea.-* If so, why did not Mr. Hume form the idea by thinking of the English history for a few moments, without so much ex- pense of thought and labour, to bring forth this great work, that the ideas of men might read it, after the idea of death should take him to the idea of eternity. I do not mention these things to east any unfair reproach upon the subject, but because I cannot understand it in any other way; and I hope philosophers will not blame me for speaking about va- rious kinds of ideas, since they declare it is impossible for me to think about any thing else. "What more does philosophy teach us.'' Answer: " That the senses are only the inlets through which these images are receiv- ed." But what are the senses themselves? and what is it thqft receives the images throHgh them? Are they all ideas? One idea receives another, through another; and I do not see why Ihey might not as well have continued asunder, and wandered through the glooms of chaos, with the atheistic atoms, which have long wandered through the fathomless abyss, till they luckily met together to form the idea of a world. And if images come not through the inlets of the senses, from whence come they? from the "external universe." It seems then that they had a separate existence before they came through those inlets, unless yoij say, that which has no existence can move from one place to another, through certain channels, till it seats itself in the human brains. And if ideas had a separate existence before they came through the channel of our senses, millions of them might have floated about the atmosphere, or some where else, if no living creature had been ever made. ',f* The Bouses arc only the inlets through M'hich these injages 06 AN ESSAY ON THE are received, without ever being able to produce any immediate intercourse between the mind and the object." Is Mr. Hume right in this last conclusion, or is it an unjust in- ference which he drew from the doctrine of ideas? I think his conclusion is perfectly correct; for if "The mind perceives no- thing but its own ideas," and if the word idea is to stand for <« whatever it is which the mind can be employed about in think- ing," it is plain that the mind cannot perceive or think about any object but its own ideas: and what immediate intercourse is there between my mind, and an object, which I can neither perceive nor think about? I see a candle standing before me: but the thing which I per- ceive and think about, is not a candle, you say, but the idea of a candle. The idea, it is said, came from the caudle, through the inlet of my senses; but how do I know this? did I perceive it com- ing from the candle? if so, I perceived the candle as well as the idea, otherwise I could not see the one coming from the other.— And if I perceived the candle, as the idea was leaving it, I no lon- ger stood in need of the idea, to enable me to perceive it. But if I perceived nothing but the idea, how do I know that there is in fact any thing else? did the idea bear witness that it came from a real candle, of which itself was the image? if so, it enabled me to think about a real candle, otherwise you say it brought me this tes- timony, and yet did not enable me to think about it, and of course, I was left as much in the dark as ever. When an object is before me, and I look at it, I am told that I perceive nothing but an idea; and when it is absent, and I think about it, it is not the object itself that I think about, but its idea, or image in my mind: consequently, it is impossible for me to have any manner of evidence for the existence of any thing else but ideas, otherwise 1 may have clear evidence for the existence of what I can neither perceive nor think about. If I may be permitted to trust my senses and consciousness, I never perceive an object double: when my friend stands before me, I see him very clearly to be one and undivided; and if philosophy should teach me, that I, at the same time, perceive two objects, one being the real body of my friend, and the other his image, in my brain, this is a new discovery, and a secret for which I can find no evidence in nature, but the ipse dixit of my learned instructor. When my friend is absent, I distinctly remember how he ap- peared when present, and can recollect even the features of his countenance: here also the object of my thought is one and no PLAN OF SALVATION. 51 move. I am not thinking of two objects, precisely of tlie same figure and appearance, one of which is really my friend, and the other his image; and if the single object of which I am now think- ing, be nothing but an image or idea, it is plainly impossible for me to think of the man at all. When he was present, I perceived him standing before me; the object I now conceive or think about, is the very same I then perceived by means of my senses; and if it M as nothing but an idea I then perceived, it is nothing but an idea I now remember, and of course, my knowledge of what is pre- sent, and of what is past, consists in the perception of ideas, and in nothing else. I do really perceive my friends, when they are present, and think about them, Avhcn they are absent, or I do not; if I do, the world .stands firm against the encroachments of metaphysics; if I do not, then ideas and images are all the friends I ever had — at least alJ I have ever seen or thought about, since the first moment of my ex- istence. And unless you can prove the existence of that to me, a single thought of which cannot possibly enter into my mind, I re- main solitary and alone, in this imaginary universe, with only ideas for my companions, from the beginning to the end of life Thus are we handsomely conducted to universal scepticism, by a chain of consequences, clearly deduced — from what.' — from a hy- pothetical fiction, that denies the plainest dictates of commoa sense, and overturns all human knowledge. " Mr. Locke had taught us," says Dr. Reid, "that all the im- mediate objects of human knowledge, are ideas in the mind:" Bi- shop Berkeley, proceeding upon this foundation, demonstrated very easily, that there is no material world. And he thought, that^ /or the purposes, both of philosophy and religion, we should find uo loss, but great benefit in the w ant of it. But the Bishop, as be- came his order, was unwilling to give up the world of spirits. He saw very well, that ideas are as unfit to represent spirits, as they are to represent bodies. Perhaps he saw, that if we perceive on- ly the ideas of spirits, we shall find the same difficulty in infer- ring their real existence from the existence of their ideas, as we find in inferring the existence of matter from the idea of it; and Therefore, while he gives up the material world, in favor of the system of ideas, he gives up one half of that system in favor of the world of spirits: and maintains, that we can, without ideas, think, and speak, and reason, intelligibly about spirits, and what belongs to them. •• Mr, Hume shows no such partiality ia j'avaur of the world of 55 AN ES8AY ON THE spirits. He adopts the theory of ideas in its full extent: and, in Consequence, shows that there is neither matter nor aiiud in the universe; nothing but impressions and ideas. What we call a body, is only a bundle of sensations; and what we call the mind, is only a bundle of thoughts, passions, and emotions, without any subject. " Some ages lience, it will perhaps be looked upon as a curioui anecdote, that two philosophers of the 18th century, of very dis- tinguisli£d rank, were led by a philosophical hypothesis; one, t« disbelieve the existence of matter; and the other, to disbelieve the existence both of matter and of mind. Such an anecdote, may not be uninstructive, if it prove a warning to philosophers to beware of hypotheses, especially when they lead to conclusions which contradict the principles, upon which all men of common sense must act in common life." — Essay II. Chap. XII. p. 191. When I consider that these are the natural productions of hy- pothetical reasoning, I no longer wonder that men of common un- derstanding, are suspicious of that thing called philosophy. I am no more surprised that the term, metaphysics, is a word which carries something gloomy to the human mind; or that men in gen- eral should be reluctant to enter into a fantastical wilderness, where they will be in such imminent danger of losing body and soul together, in a fog of species, fantasms, ideas, images and chimerical impressions. This, together with the fantasms of Popery, has given birth to that reproach, which has sometimes been cast upon "the noble faculty," as Mr. Fletcher terms it, "which chiefly distinguishes us from brutes." This has caused many to undervalue the noble gift of reason, and to discourage the regular and diligent improve* ment of our intellectual powers. But let it be remembered, that those ideal conjectures, and atheistic conclusions, are as opposite to true reasoning, as darkness is opposite to light, and truth to hy- potheses and absurdity. " When we find philosophers maintaining," says Dr Reid, " That there is no heat in the fire, nor colour in the rainbow: when we find the gravest philosophers,/rojnl>es Cartes down to Bishop Berkeley, mustering up arguments to prove the existence of a ma- terial world, and unable to find any that will bear examination: wheu we find Bishop Berkeley and Mr. Hume, the acutest metaphysicians of the age, maintaining that there is no such thing as matter in the universe; that sun, moon, and stars, the earth uhich we inhabit, our own bodies, and those of our friends, are PLAN OF SALVATION. ^ dniy ideas in our minds, and have no existence but in thought: when we find the last maintaining that there is neither body nor Blind; nothing in nature but ideas and impressions, without any substance on which they are impressed; that there is no certainty, iior indeed probability, in mathematical axioms; T say, when we consider such extravagances of many of the most acute writers on this subject, we may be apt to think the whole to be only a dream of fanciful men, who have entangled themselves in cobwebs spun out of their own brain. But we ought to consider, that the more elosely and ingeniously men reason from false principles, the more absurdities they will be led into; and when such absurdities help to bring to light the false principles from which they are drawn, they may be the more easily forgiven." Essay 1. chap. vi. page 73. If all lovers of truth would consider the matter according to this just and candid representation, they would find no cause to in- dulge that misplaced indignity which has sometimes been cast upon the exercise of our reason, in the pursuit of truth, merely because our rational faculties may be abused or misapplied. We should hear no more complaints of the great uncertainty there is in all subjects relating to the mind, and its intellectual powers. What subject will not be uncertain, if men suffer themselves to beat the air with wild and fanciful conjectures, that are repugn nant to truths the most evident that can be presented to the hu- man understanding ? The theory of ideas, has not only proved metaphysical subjects to be very uncertain; but it has proved every branch of human knowledge to be equally so, "mathematical axioms" not except- ed; and if we are to judge by this rule, we must conclude that re- ligious doctrines themselves, are as uncertain as any others; for where shall we find a greater jargon of nonsense and contradic- tion, than has been passed upon the world, under the name of Christianity. The truth is, there will never be any regularity or consistency in our systems till we agree to lay the foundation in first princi- ples, carefully examined, before we raise our superstructure. All probable reasoning, as well as any other, is founded on principles that have a self-evident probability. This matter has been fully explained by the author last quoted, and we may have occasion to notice it more particularly in a subsequent section. H M AN ESSAY ON THE SECTION V. Of the evidence of Revelation. By the term, revelatioii,"we understand certain truths made known to the human mind, by the supernatural influence of the Divine Spirit, with a clear conviction, not only that the matters thus made known are true, but that the knowledge of them is im- mediately from God. They are accompanied with self-evident conviction, as first principles are, with this difference only, that intuitive principles are immediately known to be true, and those which are revealed, are not only known certainly to be true, but are also known to be immediately from God, by a supernatural communication. Let us consider Paul on his passage to Rome: he had certain evidence of the truth of these two propositions: 1st, Tliat they were then driven and tossed upon the rolling billows, by a dreadful storm. 2d, That the ship would be destroyed, but that the men would all escape with their lives, to the shore of a certain island. His knowledge of both these truths was immedi- ate and self-evident; it was impossible for him to be more certain of the latter than the former, though the latter was received by immediate revelation, and the other was a truth discovered in a natural way, and was as well known by every man on board as by himself. God was as truly the author of his knowledge of the former, as of the latter: he gave him a natural conviction of the one, by means of his senses; he gave him a supernatural conviction of the other, by means of a divine influence upon his consciousness; and the only difference of the cases consisted in this, that in the latter case he received his knowledge by an immediate communication from his Maker; in the former, by that constitution of his mind, which God Lad established in his original formation. And had Paul believed that God stamped a lie upon his original csnstitution, on purpose to deceive him, he might with equal reason have recei\ ed the pre- sent i-evelation as a lie that ought not to be regarded; for its truth was so essentially connected with the veracity of his senses, that a denial of the latter would be an equal contradiction of the for- mer. If it was not true that they were then tossed upon the ocean, it could not be true, that th\^ would be directly removed from the PLAN OF SALVATIO^fj 65 ocean to a certain island. So that the man who discredits his senses and other natural faculties, gives the lie to God, as immedi- ately as the prophets and apostles would have done, had they re- fused to believe the truth of those revelations which they received. The ridiculous objection of scepticism will hold good in both cases alike; for in neither case can the absolute impossibility of being mistaken be made appear, in any other way than by taking for granted the truth of the very faculties in question. And for us to refuse to give them any credit, until other faculties are given by which to judge of their veracity, and of the abstract impossi- bility of their being fallacious, is nothing more nor less, than to say to Almighty God, " our profound and ingenious philosophy refu- ses to give thee any credit, till thou shalt give us other faculties whereby we may sit in judgment upon those which we now pos- sess: and as there will still be an abstract possibility that those others may also be fallacious, we shall require another set, where- by we may judge of them: and as the third set may also be falla- cious, we must require a fourth and so on ad injinitum.^^ Such whim- sical and inveterate unbelief, is not only a ridiculous insult to all reason, but it is a principle of deep and hateful immorality, and is, I presume, amain pillar of all the wickedness that ever prevailed in either earth or hell. That God is able to make such a supernatural communication to any human mind, is acknowledged even by Thomas Pain, and the fact of his having done so, is not absolutely denied by him; nay, it is admitted, for the sake of a case, that such revelations have been given; but the evidence of it, he says, can never be com- municated from one man to another. His words are these: " But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is re- velation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be revelation to all those; it is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently, they are not obliged to believe it." Jlge of reason., part, i.page 8. That it is immediate revelation to the first person only, is grant. ed; and it can never become such a revelation to any other mind, till a similar communication from God sliall give him a similar conviction of its truth, and not of its truth only, but of the divine influence by which it was revealed. But the question is, whether a true revelation made to one man, tvill become faJse by hifs declaring it to another; and whether no 56 AN ESSAY ON THE evidence ought to convince the other, but anew revelation to him- self, to prove the reality of the one attested by his neighbour? That mere hearsay is not sufficient evidence, we freely acknow- ledge; and 1 presume our adversaries will acknowledge as freely, that a truth communicated from God to a certain person will not become a falsehood, Avhen he declares it to another; of course, the only question which remains, is, whether sufficient evidence can he given to one man, that a revelation has been made to another^ without his having it confirmed by another revelation exactly si- milar? To answer this in the negative, as Mr. Paine has done, is to contradict, 1st, all the evidence of common sense; 2d, the evidence of reasoning; and 3d, the evidence of revelation itself. 1st. The evidence of common sense. From the signs of power, wisdom, and goodness, in the eflect, we may infer with certainty that those attributes exist in the cause which produced it. This is a first principle, self evident to every rational being. Deny it, and all evidence is gone, of the power, wisdom, and goodness of the creator, as exhibited in the grand and intelligent arrange- ments of the works of creation. Deny it, and all evidence is gone, of there being an intelligent creature upon the face of the earth, excepting the consciousness a man has of his own intelligence: for it is impossible for me to see another man's soul, or to know any thing concerning his power, wisdom or goodness, but what I learn from the signs of those qualities that I perceive in the effects which he produces. I read the works of Milton, and sir Isaac Newton, and infer with certainty that the authors were men of uncommon penetration: but I never saw the bodies of those in- genious men, much less their spirits, and if the axioms above stated, be denied, there is no evidence left that the authors of those works were wise men, or even that they had any author. The letters might have jumbled themselves together by chance, and formed the beautiful poem called Paradise Lost, and the same mysterious goddess might have made all the philosophical disco- veries attributed to sir Isaac Newton! The same may be said of a friend standing before me: I per- ceive the signs of intelligence in his countenance, actions, or lan- guage, and infer with certainty that the cause of this peculiar cast of countenance, action, or language, is an intelligent being. I cannot see that intelligence, but by the signs of it in the eft'ectg ■ produced; these signs I perceive m ith intuitive conviction; and if I resist this conviction, till i can see my neighbour's soul, inde- PLAN OF SALVATION. gy pendent of these signs, or till the qualities of his mind be proved by some other argument, I may live and die in the persuasion that there is not a being in the world possessed of intelligence be- side myself: and such a persuasion, I presume, would prove that I possess but a very scanty share of it. Now unless it can be made appear, that God is not able to ex- hibit signs of power, wisdom and goodness, in proof of an imme- diate revelation given to some of his creatures, for the general benefit of all, equal to those which appear in the visible creation, nothing can set aside the conclusion, that such a revelation given to one man, may be proved to another, but a denial of the axiom above mentioned: and a denial of that, saps the foundation of all human knowledge, and at once precipitates us into the dark chaos, «mong the atoms and blind goddesses of atheism. 2d. The evidence of reasoning is equally abolished by our au- thor's logic: for as first principles are the foundation of all sound reasoning, if they be denied, the superstructure must of necessity fall in ruins to the ground. All our reasonings conceniiug the wisdom or folly, the virtue or vice, of this or any former genera- tion, are sophistical delusions, if the axiom be not true, that the $igns of such qualities appearing in the effect, affords certain evi- dence of their existence in the cause. When the Lord Jesus calmed the roaring elements, by saying, peace, be still, and evinced by other immediate acts of power, that the laws of nature were at his command, in proof of that revela- tion which he brought from Heaven, this, according to our au- thor's philosophy, would afford no evidence of divine power, and therefore no proof of a revelation. Then the creation and preser- vation of the world affords no such evidence; and the building of houses, and other common effects produced among mankind, af- ford no evidence of human power. Sd. As the original dictates of our faculties are thus denied, our author, it seems, would be as far from conviction as ever, if an immediate revelation were given, to prove the truth of our scrip- tures; the kind of evidence which he professes to believe alone sufficient: for, as a sceptic can say, how do I know it to be impos- sible for my senses to deceive me? how do I know but the world sprang into being by chance.^" So might Thomas Paine have said of such a revelation: how do I know it to be impossible for me to he deceived in this matter } Does God address himself to my senses, by declaring with a voice from Heaven, that the Bible is trne.^ but I mnst remember that mv senses are deceitful, and are 58 AN ESSAY ON THE not to be trusted. Does he address himself to my consciousness, and produce a supernatural conviction, that the Bible is true? but is it not possible for this to be enthusiasm? And suppose it is not, by what argument can 1 prove that my consciousness is not falla- cious. And suppose it is not, hovv can i prove it impossible that Ood should communicate a falsehood to me? And besides, if Christ could calm the boisterous ocean, either by imposing upon the people's senses, or by the agency of devils, how do I know but this immediate communication to my mind is from some devil that intends to deceive me? Thus it is evident, that a new revelation itself, would be insuf- ficient to convince those who are resolved to reject every other kind of evidence, and our boasted champion of reason, in his i^Jge of Reason,^^ has contradicted reason, and boldly defied every kind of evidence by which truth is communicated to the human mind. Such pitiful unbelief is perfectly incurable, and if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the dead. The next question is, whether God has in fact exhibited suffi- cient evidence for the truth of revelation? It is an easy thing, 1 know, for a person to affirm that he has not; and so it is for an atheist to affirm that the earth and starry Heavens aflFord no proof of a Deity; or for David Hume, esq. to affirm that "the slightest philosophy will soon destroy the uni- versal and primary notion of all men, that there is an external universe:" but as those philosophers affect to be so very unwil- ling that any thing should be taken for granted without support of argument, I hope they will excuse us from taking their asser- tions for granted. The arguments in support of Christianity are various and abun- dant: so much so, that my present plan will not admit of a full enumeration of them; but, as I have made the assertion, I must mention some of the grounds on which those arguments are built. The doctrines of Christianity exhibit the wisdom of God; its precepts exhibit his holiness; the benevolence of its design and tendency exhibits his goodness; and the miracles wrought by our Saviour and his apostles, displays his power and authority, as the fulfilment of his promises and prophecies does his veracity and infinite knowledge. For the two first classes of evidence, we must appeal the Bible its«>lf. especially the New Testament, where alone the doctrines PLAN OF SALVATION. 69 and precepts of Christianity are to be found, and not in conclaves, creeds, or confessions of faith. For the third, we must appeal to the nature of man, and to the nature of those motives, enjoyments and prospects, which the re- ligion of Jesus proposes, to guard him against misery, to subdue his vices, to sweeten his earthly comforts, to console him in cala- mity, to disarm the king of terrors, and to ensure him a happy ex- istence forever. For the fourth, we must appeal to human testimony, and for the fiftli to the Bible, in conjunction with the general history of the world. As the premises of every argument must first be known to con- tain evidence, either as axioms or as regular deductions therefrom, before they can give any strength to the conclusion; so revela- tion must be known to be true, by its correspondence with the human faculties, before it can be consistently received as a ground of evidence to support any other truth whatever. Several revelations have been proposed to mankind, as being inspired from Heaven; but that contained in the Bible is the only one, that has been able to stand the test of a candid and rational examination. It has been examined by Jews and Gentiles, by friends and enemies, by priests aud infidels, by the learned and the unlearned, by rustics and philosophers, by fools and wise men. Its evidence shines forth as it goes through the crucible, and it has carried conviction to a Bacon, Boyle, Newton, Hale, Addison, Locke, Littleton, Reid, Beatty, Campbell, Watts, Wesley, Fletch- er, and an innumerable company besides, of the wisest and best of men. Mean time it has been contradicted by a Hobbes, Bolingbroke, Gibbon, Hume, Voltaire, Paine, Palmer, and other metaphysicians, who would give us to understand, that, however this priestly re- velation may carry away the vulgar, it has not been able to stand the test of philosophy. And no wonder, since earth and sea, ani- mals and vegetables, the bodies and souls of men, and the very heavens themselves, have been unable to stand this test. We must have a revelation made up of nothing but ideas and impres- sions, before it will stand the test of the metaphysical philoso- But let self-evident principles resume their native dignity: let reason be delivered from the shackles of hypothesis and me- taphysical sophistry; let conscience retain her authority in the human bosom; let prejudice, pride and malice be laid aside; let 60 AN ESSAY ON THE every man think for himself, without being biased by priestly iti* fallibility on the one hand, or philosophical authority on the other: then let liis mind be regulated by the calm influence of humility; reflection and candour, and Christianity has nothing to fear. As the diligence of his enquiry increases, the beauties of revela- tion will shine around him, like stars iu the expanded concave of heaven. Let him compare the doctrine of man's apostaey, with matter of fact, and daily observation; let him compare the doc- trine of redemption with the responsibility of man, and with the Batureand moral government of God; let him compare the digni- fied simplicity of the Lord Jesus and his apostles, with the nature of truth, reason, siiicerity and moral goodness; let him compare the common objections of infidels to the objections urged by athe- ists against the wisdom of God in the creation; let him compare the great prospects held forth in the bible, with his native desire and need of an immortal life to come; finally, let him compare the pure morality of the gospel, to his own consciousness of obli- gation to God and man; and if this holy religion, as it has been sometimes scoftingly termed, does not recommend itself to his reason and conscience in the sight of God, he may then, as an intelligent being, and not before, give up the Bible and go some where else to seek the proper knowledge of his Maker. I can do little more at present than suggest some of the general sources of evidence, without pursuing them; but as infidels have one argument which they consider most masterly, it may be ne- .^sessary to dwell upon it a little more particularly. " The chief support of this revelation, it may be said is that of miracles; of course miracles are a very essential part of the evi- dence on which it is to be believed; but we have seen no miracles wrought in its defence; therefore we are destitute of the very evi- dence on which your bible itself professes chiefly to rest its au- thority." Answer: It is true that miracles are essential to the giving of a revelation from God to man, because the very act itself is truly miraculous; it is also necessary that it should be delivered to others by prool of miracles, in order that Divine ^?0M'er may be manifested in its sup- port: but this is only a part of the evidence in favour of our reli- gion, and the otherparts arcsoessential,thattliis alone would not be sufficient: for if there were no displays of wisdom, goodness and holiness, in the christian religion, 1 presume a mere exhibition of power alone would only serve to confound and astonish us. PLAN OF SALVATION. 6^ Suppose there were no signs of wisdom or goodness in the visi« ble creation, but merely of power, wouid this be a sufficient proof of the god whom we worship ? An Almighty God without wisdom and goodness, would be an object of terror and dismay, and his presence would be sufficient to cause men and augels to long for an immediate end of their being. Rather than live under a mere government of might, where there was no moral attribute to regu- late the destinies of creation, every intelligent creature would loathe his existence, and wish to drop into the unconscious re- gions of annihilation. But as the power of our Almighty Father, is unchangeably employed in subserviency to perfect goodness and infinite wisdom, we glory in his omnipotence, and rest securely under the shadow of his wings. Now a revelation from such a God must bear his image and su- perscrijjtion: miracles are necessary to display his power; but the revelation given must also illustrate his wisdom, and correspond vi'ith every moral attribute of his nature, in order to carry convic- tion to the soul of man, that it came from that benevolent and Al- mighty Being, who created the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land. Miracles cannot be spared, any more than the signs of power can be spared, that are exhibited in the creation; but it is as improper to say they constitute the chief part of the evidence, as it is to say the omnipotence of God constitutes the chief part of his nature, or that the signs of omnipotence are the prin- cipal part of the evidence given of his nature, in the heavens whieh declare the glory of God, and the firmament which shozveth his han- dy work. Thus we rectify the first proposition of the deistical argument, that miracles are the chief support of revelation. But as ouf statements imply, nevertheless, that the evidence of miracles is a part of the evidence which cannot be spared, we must now notice their second proposition, which affirms, that all men in these lat- ter ages are destitute of this kind of evidence. I hope this pro- position may be shown to be a falsehood, and if so, their conclu- sion is good for nothing. In the days of our Saviour and his apostles, the evidence of mi- racles was conveyed to the minds of men, through the medium of their senses; in all succeeding ages the same evidence has been conveyed through the medium of human testimony. That a degree of.credit is due to human testimony, has been already established as a first principle, by showing the palpable absurdities that will ftoUow from a denial of it; and as some philosophers have spurn- I p;8 AN E«SAY ON THE ed at this channel of commuuicalion, so they have equally denied the veracity of our senses, and set all human knowledge at defi- ance. What a despicable figure will thatman make who shall undertake to demonstrate that Christ might have imposed upon the senses of the thousands of mankind, in the performance of those great mira- cles attributed to him in the New Testament! or to demonstrate that the accounts of those matters might have been written in the -days of Augustus Cesar, at the time when the facts are said to have transpired, without affording the world any opportunity to detect such fraudulent and pitiful pretensions, which thousands of living witnessses could contradict in the face of heaven. Most of our objectors, I suspect, are beginning to be ashamed of this method of philosophical demonstration, and fondly hope to "obstruct the channel of human testimony, by another subterfuge. The history of Jesus Christ say they, was not published to the -world till some hundreds of years after those great events are said -to have occurred: it was invented in after ages, and has succeeded in imposing upon the natural credulity of the vulgar; but philoso- phers can see through the fraud. And what but hypothesis can philosophers give for this bold assertion ? They affect to be very fond of demonstration, and in- sinuate that no other kind of evidence is to be trusted; but w hen the secret is out, we find they are only fond of demonstration, when something is to be proved by their opponents; when proof is called for, in support of their own assertions arbitrary conjec- tures and professions of superiority to the vulgar, appear to be alto- gether sufficient. Those great events are said to have transpired in the reign of Augustus Cesar; and their own historians have informed the world that the Christian religioiu was spread through the Roman empire in less than half a century afterwards: the history of those events, as narrated by the evangelists, declares that this religion took its rise from Jesus Christ, who proved its divinity by aston- ishing miracles wrought in the presence of thousands: this ac- count is true, or it is not; if it is, all infidels are fighting against the truth; if it is not, then the christian religion rose from some- thing else, as the world very well knew; therefore, whenever this pretended history came out, no matter w hen it was, every man ac- quainted with Christianity would know it to be a falsehood. If these accounts were not published, till some centuries after the facts are said to have taken place, every man that would open his eyes and read them, would gee falsehoed upon the face of PLAN OP SALVATION. 6S ihem, fkr more clearly than any man ever saw images upon his brain; for the authors agree to declare that they were eye witnes- ses of the facts that they relate, which they could not be if the facts occurred some hundreds of years before they were born. And more- over, they not only declare they were eye witnesses, but tliat they wrote their history and their epistles, and published them in their own time: Peter, who was one of the chief apostles and followers of Jesus Christ, declares that his beloved brother Paid \\a.d then published several of his epistles^ which some had already begun to ■wrest, as they did also the other scriptures, totheiroum destruction. Luke informs us, in the introduction to his history, that several ac- counts of those matters had been published by others before he began his account; and manyother references might be enumerated in proof that the New Testament writers openly profess to be eye and ear witnessses; to have lived in the days of Jesus Christ, aod to have published their accounts to that generation. But if those accounts never made their appearance in the world till some hun- dreds of years afterwards, in all thase particulars they would car- ry conviction of their being the production of deceivers, to every man that had eyes and ears to see and hear them. Thus, if our objectors theory be admitted, with all their con- tempt of the credulous vulgar, they involve themselves in a cre- dulity similar to that which they so much explode; and prove clearly that the great Roman philosophers and historians have failed in the detection of a fraud that might be detected by the common sense of a Hottentot. According to the character and extraordinary actions, which the New Testament ascribes to the Lord Jesus, no person ever lived whose history is of such importance to mankind: he must have been the greatest and the best personage that ever appeared in mortal flesh, or else Christianity must be a fraud the most amazing and unparalleled, of any thing that has ever yet appeared among the human family. This religion, if true, was hot hid in a corner, but blazed out in the face of open day: and if false, it must have been somehow hid in a corner, more secret, deep and obscure, than the fantasms of Aristotle, or the unexplored and secret dwelling place of the philosopher's stone. If the Lord Jesus was in fact controlling the elements of heaven through the land of Judea, and his apostles through the Roman empire, the Gospel is true; if they were only attempting to do such things by slight of hand »r the art of magic, were the people's eyes, or the historian's pen? that such fraud* should succeed and silently glide dowa to poste- tii4< AN ESSAY ON THE rity? If the history of those great matters was invented and pub- lished two or three hundred years afterwards, why did not the wise men of that age cast it at once into the fire, or favour the world with some account of the hypocritical stratagem? And if the New Testament was really written by the apostles and evan- gelists, but never made its appearance till some centuries after they were dead, in what secret corner of the world did it lie con- cealed? Suppose a certain person, or threescore of them, united if you please, should some centuries, say four or five hundred yearg hence, publish a history of general Washington, professing themselves to be the authors of the history, and that they were officers ofthe UnitedStatesarmy,actingforyearsunderhis immedi- atecommand: suppose this history should state thatgeneral Wash- ington professed to be the Son af God, and, in proof of it, raised se- veral dead men to life, eonqut-red thousands of the British troops, by merely pointing his sword to heaven, and led his own army across the Delaware bay on dry gioinul; having first caused the Maters to stand as walls on either hand: would this be really such a puz- zling case, that ail the wise men of America and Europe together must necessarily fail in attempting to detect the imposture, and would be obliged to yield to the mighty torrent, and let the delu* sion descend to the latest posterity. Or suppose they should make Martin Luther the hero of their tale, or invent some other name and attribute it to a man who never existed, declaring that in and about the city of London, Paris or Philadelphia, he fed five thousand men with five small loaves of bread, cured hundreds of the plague or yellow fever by the simple touch of his finger, and raised some of them to life af- ter they had been four days in the grave; and finally, that he him- . self arose from the dead, appeared to more than five hundred of the inhabitants, and afterwards in open daylight ascended up in- to heaven: — rwould it be an easy matter to establish these won- ders, and spread them over the earth to the latest generations? If it would, let deists make the experiment, and after carrying their project to ji sufficient height, they can lay open the secret* and thereby produce a stronger argument against Christianity than the wit of philosophers has been able to muster from the days of Porphyry, or Julian,tothose ofthe heroical Thomas Paine. It being foreign to the present design to enter into a regular de- fence of Christianity, further than to take a view of revelation fis one of the general methods whereby the Father of the spirits of PLAN OF SALVATION. 65 ail flesh, conveys a knowledge of his truth to the human miudj I omit any farther illustrations of the present argument. Any candid mind may perceive, by reflection, that the more closely (he subject is examined, the more manifest it will appear, that although miracles are not wrought in our time, yet the evi- dence oi' them is conveyed to us, through the channel of human testi- mony, as well as to the ancient Jews and Gentiles, through theme- dium of sensation; and he who rejects one of these means of com- munication, might as well reject the other, for I presume as great a proportion of our knowledge, depends upon the veracity of hu- man testimony, as upon the truth of our senses; and if we reject either of them, consistency will require an equal surrender of ev- ery other kind of evidence, and thus, we must abandon our- selves to the regions of universal doubt, or, which is the same thing, to universal ignorance. If any should be disposed to make such a sacrifice, and give up all their knowledge to get clear of the restraints of reason and re- ligion, we must leave them in quiet possession of their retreat, till something more powerful than argument shall rouse them from their strange and philosophical delirium. The gospel has been offered to their acceptance, to use the words of bishop Watson, and from what- ever cause they reject it, I cannot but esteem their case to be dan- gerous. I would not be understood to mean that the evidence of miracles is conveyed to us in its whole force, or in the same degree it was conveyed to the people in the days of our Saviour and his apos- tles: miracles, to them, were self-evident, being addressed imme- diately to their senses; to us they are ascertained by the deduc- tions of reason. We take our stand on this axiom, that some de- gree of credit is due to human testimony; we reason concerning the degree that is due in this particular ease; w^e find the number and character of the witnesses to be unexceptionable; we find their testimony accompanied with such circumstantial marks of vera- city, that we cannot suppose it false without involving ourselves in several unaccountable.absurdities; we find the system of truth attested by them accords perfectly with the holy nature of God, and with the unbiased dictates of our reason and conscience: Hence, we conclude that we are compelled to renounce our reason, or to believe that the miracles attested by the apostles were really performed by our Lord Jesus Christ, in proof of that revelation which the goodness of God has transmitted to mankind. Will philosopherf? reject this eridencej merely because it is de- ft6 APf ESSAY ON THE rived through the medium of inference or consequential reasoning, and not through the immediate dictates of sense? If S)6, it would seem that they change their ground as conve- niency may require: one while, they seem disposed to spurn at the dictates of common sense, as a vulgar kind of evidence, and must have argument for every thing; hut (mark their inconsistency) when the subject of miracles is under discussion, they abandon their former ground, refuse to believe upon tlie mere evidence of consequential reasoning, and cry. Let us see miracles performed — let us have the sure evidence of sense, and we will then believe you, and not before. Let God establish the truth of revelation, by an immediate communication of it to my consciousness, says Thomas Paine, and I will be a christian; but this is the only pos- sible way I can be convinced: the plainest deductions of reason- ing will avail nothing, however obvious and incontrovertable: and nothing short of immediate inspiration to my own soul, shall ever overcome my infidelity. And yet this is the gentleman who came forward in such a pompous manner, and called his feeble, though angry and declamatory productions. The Jlge of Reason! But with all his affected fondness for reason, he holds the evidence of re- velation to be so vastly superior, that no other kind of evidence can deserve any more regard than mere hearsay. Now if no other evidence is to be regarded in the case, but im- mediate revelation alone, it evidently follows that if the utmost force of evidence were given, that reasoning was ever able to con- vey, it ought still to be rejected. Thus is reason discarded, in our age of reason, and declared to be utterly beneath the attention of mankind. " And consequently, they are not obliged to believe it." SECTION VL Jlie connexion of those three sources of evidence, and their depen- dance upon each other. Among the various mistakes and inconsistencies of mankind, perhaps none is of more serious tendency, than the practice of separating and tearing in sunder what God has joined together. If common sense and reason, and revelation, are really a three- fold method whereby truth is communicated to the human under- PLAN OF SALVATION. 67 standing, they all tend to the same end; and for a man to neglect and despise one, under pretence of exalting another, is like a per- son neglecting the use of his eyes, in order to devote more time to the faculty of hearing: or like one who despises the insignificant sense of smelling, under pretence of improving his taste. We will suppose half a dozen men surround a table together, to partake of the blessings of providence for the refreshment and support of their nature; immediately they begin tp dispute about the most proper method of eating, one contending that the use of a man's eyes, is most essentially necessary at table, to perceive the food before him, and to distinguish one part from another; a se- cond observes, that a person's hands are most essential, without which his eyes can be of no service; a third insists that hands and eyes together might as well be neglected, and that eating depends chiefly, if not entirely, upon the proper use of a man's moutlu While they are employed in this ridiculous contention, their companions, smiling at the metaphysical controversy, begin very deliberately to use Iheireyes, hands and mouth in the proper place, and thereby receive a suiiieient supply, before the disputants haye well adjusted tlie outlines of their mighty argument. In this manner many infidels have warmly contended that rea- son is onr only guide to truth and happiness; some christians have been disposed to conclude, with equal confidence, that revelation is our only guide: while both together have agreed to reject, or to devote but little attention, to the original dictates of those facul- ties which enable us immediately to discover all the first princi- ples of truth, and without which we could neither reason nor re- «eive any evidence of revelation. AVhile those persons appear to rest satisfied, on both sides, eaeh one believing with great assurance that he is in the right and that his antagonist is a fanatic or a heretic, it may probably be worth while to enquire if they be not both in the wrong, and whether they will ever be in the right till they consent to lay by the dispute, and to meet each other on the harmonious medium where mercy and truth have met tog-ether, and where reason and revelation have kissed each other. I am resolved, says one, that " Righteous and immortal reason"* shall be my only guide, without any of your dreams and ghostly revelations. 1 am equally bound, says another, to follow the holy scriptures, as ex- plained by the infallible church, without bringing its mysteries to « The profane eye of human reason."! * Palmer, f The Popish doctor of Hexham, 68 AN ESSAY ON THEi And I am equally resolved, says a third, to examine whether the three sources of evidence above explained, be not so united that they must stand or fall together, and whether the opposite parties who attempt to separate them, be not at open or secret war, both with reason and revelation. I am aware that this cannot be done, w ithout my being stigmatized, by the one party, as a mongrel kind of deist, and by the other, as a da,ngerous enemy to " Rights eous and imm^i'tal reason;" but when a person is reduced to the dilemma of either sacrificing truth to the favour of parties, or sa- crificing tlieir favour to the promotion of truth, law and gospel, reason, conscience and candour, all point out the path in w hich he should walk, and unanimously decide, that fFe ought to obey God rather than man. It has already been evinced, that reason so depends on the dic- tates of common sense, or in other words, upon self-evident truths, that is impossible for it to exist without them: a few reflections may now convince us, that revelation depends no less upon lirst principles, than reasoning itself. To exhibit this matter in the clearest point of view, it will be necessary to lay down three or four such principles, and appeal to the reader's understanding, whether revelation could aftord any evidence of truth without them. 1st. It is impossible for God to be deceived, or to deceive others. 2d. The scriptures of the old and new Testament have a real and true meaning. 3d. The revealed will of God consists in the doctrines which con- stitute the true meaning of scriptures, and not merely in the exter- nal letter, or any false construction of it. 4-th. It is possible for the human mind, as it respects the essen- tial doctrines of Christianity, to distingiiish the true meaning of ■ike scriptures, from all false interpretations of them, ivhen its fa- culties are rightly exercised under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These principles are self-evident, and to deny them, or any one of them, will be to assail the very pillars of revelation. As to the hrst one it is the chief corner stone of reason as well as revelation: for if God was a deceiver, he could stamp a lie upon our original constitution, and give us deceitful faculties, as well us a deceitful revelation. A God that made every thing, knows the natureof every thing that he has made, and cannot possibly be deceived. Men deceive one another, in order to gain something from one another: but a God that is independently happy in himself call gaia nothing from others by deceiving them. That lying PLAN OF SALVATION. 69 and deceit tend to the injury of God's creatures is self-evident; and to sAy goodness can designedly injure others is a contradic- tion. No God but a kicked one can ever be deceitful. The na- ture of God is exhibited in the creation, and we need nothing more than to nndcrstand that nature, to perceive M'ith immediate conviction, that the Being possessed of it can do no wrong, and it is impossible fw God to lie. Attentive reflection may enable us to perceive this truth with more clearness and conviction; it may be illustrated or set more fully before the mind by arguments or explanations; but it shines with irresistible splendour from the nature of God, and every ar- gument we use, and every truth we believe, takes it for granted, because they take for granted the veracity of those faculties which God has given us, and by which alone we reason or judge of any subject in the world. The more clearly we understand the na- ture of God, the more clearly we perceive this axiom; but though it may be illustrated, or set more fully before the mind, by show- ing its relation to other obvious truths, yet it is not supported by any other argument, but is itself essential to the support of all. Nothing can be the cause of itself. Every thing that begins to exist, must have a cause, adequate to produce the effect. All signs of power, intelligence and goodness that appear in the eftect result from those attributes which exist essentially in the cause. The signs of those attributes are manifest in the structure of the universe. The great and good Being who made this universe, must know perfectly the nature, properties and relations of all things he has made. Being infinitely happy in himself, he need- eth nothing that he has made. He gave life to creatures, and made them capable of happiness, not for his own sake, but for theirs. That conduct which tends to general happiness is right. Gt>d knows the nature of moral evil, and knows that it leads to misery. God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. These principles stand closely related, and perhaps one may be inferred from another; but each one alone, when rightly con- ceived, has evidence in itself that must carry conviction to every sound and candid mind. The second m?i\im, that the scriptures have a true meaning, is alsa self evident. It is impossible for it to be proved, or made jnore evident by any particular passage of scripture; for before that passage can be any proof to my miud, I mast knovy it's mean- K 70 AN ESSAY ON THE ing, and therefore, I prove that the scriptures have a true mean- ing, by taking it for granted, in the very passage which I produce for my proof. That the mind or will of God, made known in the scriptures, is contained in their true meaning, and not iu the mere letter with- out any meaning, or in tliat construction, which is false, I hope every person will acknowledge. To deny it, is to say that all the contradictory opinions in Christendom are true: lor a man may prove every one of them by some passage in the bible; and the let- ter or metaphor of the text, when torn from the context, may seem to support the point in question. Our fourth maxim must also stand firm, or revelation is good for nothing: for to what purpose are the scriptures given to men, ii'it be impossible for the'm to understand their true meaning, or to distinguish them from falsehood.' Here the old atheistic objec(iou again returns upon us; it is possible for us to mistake the meaning of scripture, and by what iititerion shall we determine when our views of it are correct, and when they are not? The same has been said, and may be said, of reason, sense, consciousness, and every kind of evidence that has ever entered into the heart of man to conceive. The proper and the only answer that can be given to this ob- jection, Mhether urged against revelation or reason, is, that the criterion or method by which we distinguish truth from false- hood, is the sincere and regular exercise of those faculties and powers of mind which God has graciously aftbrded us; by such an exercise of our intellectual j^owers, we shall know the truth in all essential 4iiatters, because God is no deceiver, but is a God of truth, without iniquity, just and right is he; and as to trivial mistakes, into which we may fall through the feebleness of our faculties, they will never essentially harm us if we be followers of that which is good. I am aware that such an answer as this is far from being satis- factory to the mind of his holiness at Rome, because it seems to undermine the sanctified prerogatives of St. Peter's chair. This blind heretic, would he say, imagines that the true meaning of scripture is to be sought out by his carnal reason; but he ought to know that unless he speedily and humbly yield up " the pro- fane eye of human reason," to the infallible instructions of the Mother church, it will be necessary to subdue his obstinacy by the force of the h(dy inquisition. But tell me, gentle reader how does the pope, iu conjunction wit h his conclave distinguish truth from PLAN OF SALVATION. n falsehood, and what is their criterion? Why, to be sure, the criterion of infallibility. But is their infallibility pi'oved by the testimony of revelation? If not, it must be founded upon that carnal reason, which supports the delusions of infidels and heretics; and if so, does it not equally prove them to be infidels and heretics? If they learned from proof of scripture that they are iuAillible, by what criterion do tliey ascertain that they rightly understand that scripture? by their infallibility also? Then it seems they prove themselves to be infallible by taking for granted that they are so, independent of that proof; and besides, if we are sure to err in ourjiidgments, are we not as likely to err in judging of the proof of their infiiUibility, as in any tiling else? And suppose we take for granted that they are infallible, because they are pleased, very gravely to tell us so; how will this enable u^ to avoid mistakes any better than we can without them? for supposing their instruc- tions to be infallibly true, as we believe the scriptures to be, are we not as likely to misunderstand their meaning, as the meaning of our saviour and his apostles? Were not all the inspired writers infallible teachers? they dare not deny it. Well, if Christ and his apostles were infallible teachers, and yet poor heretics may misunderstand them, they may equally misunderstand the deci- sions of theHolyMother,notvvithstaudingher priestly infallibility. I rejoice that 1 am not in the power of the holy inquisitors, for if I were, their act of faith would consign my poor body to the tor- ments of the inquisition, and my soul would be sentenced to de- part, far beyond the regions of purgatory, to the dreadful " hell of the reprobates." I do not wish to dwell upon this melancholy theme; but who can look back at the dark ages of persecuting bigotry without uttering a sigh of silent indignation, and dropping a tear of sympathy over the groans of bleeding humanity! Who can see the benign reli-" gion of the Lord Jesus, thus dishonoured by its professed minis- ters, without feeling for the insulted honour of our gracious mas- ter, and for the degradation of human nature! If any person wish- es to be instructed in the secret mysteries of priestcraft, and the almost incredible extent of spiritual wickedness in high places, let him read the history of the tenth, eleventh, and tMclfth, cen- turies. Were I to produce extracts in proof of all the abomina- tions of those times my book would svr'cll into volumes; but as I shall have o»easion frequently to refer to their profound and cun- ning policy, it may be necessary, once for all, to give a few speci- mens of their religious Irypocrisy, wickedness and cruelty, as ex- kibited ami hauded down to us by different historians. yg AN ESSAY ON THE And first let us produce the accounts of Du Pin, who himself helouged to the Mother church, and therefore cannot be suspected of a design to misrepresent her. Speaking of Ratheriiifi, who gave an account of the tenth cen- tury, he says, " In the second part of his treatise, Ratherius more particularly falls upon the immodesty of the clergy, which was at such a height in his time, that one could scarce find a man jit to be ordained a bishop, or any bishop fit to ordain others. '^ After this treatise there are five letters of his writing. The first is directed to Martin, bishop ofTerrara,>> herein he acquaints him that his clergy laid sevei-al crimes to his charge, particular- ly that of ordaining several infants for money." Speaking of one of the popes, he says, " He did not enjoy his dignity long: fpr that Sergius, whom we formerly mentioned, being pome to Rome, seized on Christophilus, put him in prison, and stepped himself into St. Peter's chair. This man is 'esteemed a mpnster, not only for his ambition and the violent proceedings he was guilty of, but also upon the account of his loose morals. He had a bastard by Marosia the daughter of Theodora, who being along time before highly in the favour of Adalbert, bore a great sway in Rome. This bastard sou of his was afterwards promo- ted to the popedom by the intrigues of this Marosia, and took upon him the name of John xi. as we shall show in the sequel." Again, a little after, Ive adds, " About this time Peter, arch- bishop of Ravenna, sent frequently to Rome a deacon of his church, called John, to pay his due respects to the pope. Theo- dora, that impudent whore, having seen him fell desperately in love with him, and prevailed upon him to maintain a shameful familiarity with her. While they lived thus lustfully together, the bishop of Bolognia, dying, this John was chose in his place. But before he was consecrated, the bishop of Ravenna dies also, and Theodora prevails upon John to quit the bishoprick of Bo- lognia, and to accept of this archbishoprick. He thereupon re- turns back to Rome, and w as ordained archbishop of Ravenna* Within a while after, the pope, (namely Landon) who had ordain- ed him, dies; God calling him to give an account of his upjust pro- ceedings in ordaining John. Theodora upon this, that she might not be far from her lover, made him again to relinquish the arch- bishoprick of Ravenna, and to seize upon St. Peter's chair." see a " New Ecclesiastical history," vol. 8. London edition, page 7, 22. by Du Pin, doctor of the Sorbon, PLAN OF SALVATION. 73 Thus, if we credit this learned doctor, who was a person of high authority in the Romish communion, the bishops, archbi- shops and popes, who boasted of their being vicars of Christ upon earth and of their being holy and infallible, were really governed themselves by such as this author justly calls " impudent whores." Let us now recur to another authority. In the Biographical and Martyrologieal dictionary, we find the following account, among many others of the same description: " Another Auto de Fe is thus described by the reverend doc- tor Gedde, ' At the place of execution (here are so many stakes set as there are prisoners to be burned, a large quantity of dry furze being set aboui them. ' The stakes of the protestants, or, as the inquisitors call them the professed, are about four yards high, and have each a small board, whereon the prisoners are seated within half a yard of the top. The professed tlieu go up a ladder between two priests, who attend them the whole day of execution. When they come even with the forementioned board, they turn about to the peo- ple, and the priests spend near a quarter of an hour in exhorting them to be reconciled to the see of Rome. On their refusing, the priests come down, and the executioner ascending, turns the pro- fessed from ott' the ladder upon the seat, chains their bodies close to the stakes, and leaves them. ' The priests then go Op a second time to renew their exhorta- tions, and if they find them inert'ectual, usually tell them at par- ting, ' That tliey leave them to the devil, who is standing at their elbow ready to receive their souls, and carry them with him into the flames of hell-Sre, as soon as they are out of their bodies.' ' A general shout is then raised, and when the priests get off the ladder, the universal cry is, ' Let the dogs beards be made;' (which implies, singe their beards) this is accordingly performed by means of flaming furzes thrust against their faces with long poles. ' This barbarity is repeated till their faces are burnt, and is accompanied with loud acclamatiuns. Fire is then set to the fur- zes, and the criminals are consumed.' " Numerous are the martyrs who have borne these rigours with the most exemplary fortitude: and we hope that every protestant, whose fate may expose him to the merciless tyranny of papists, will act consistent with the duty of a christian, whcu they cojisi- y* AN ESSAY ON THE der the great rewards that await them." Biog. and Mart. Dic- tionary, page 292. Another description is as follows. " First time of torturing." « On refusing to comply with the iniquitous demands of the in- quisitors, by confessing all the crimes they thought fit to charge Jiini with, he was immediately conveyed to the torture room, where no light appeared but what two candles gave. That the cries of the sufferers might not be heard by the other prisoners, tliis room is lined by a kind of quilting, which covers all the cre- vices and deadens the sound. " Great was the prisoner's horror on entering this infernal place, vhen suddenly he was surrounded by six wretches, who, after preparing the tortures, stripped him naked to his drawers. He was then laid upon his back upon a kind of stand, elevated a few feet from the floor. " They began the operation by putting an iron collar round his neck, and a ring to each foot, which fastened him to the stand. His limbs being thus stretched out, they wound two ropes round each arm, and two round each thigh; which ropes being passed ander the scaffold, through holes made for that purpose, were all drawn tight at the same instant of time, by four of the men, on ■a given signal. " It is easy to conceive that the pains which immediately suc- ceeded were intolerable; the ropes which were of a small size, eut through the prisoner's flesh to the bone, making the blood gush out at eight different places thus bound at a time. As the prison- er persisted in not making any confession of what the inquisitor required, the ropes were drawn in this manner four times succes- sively. « It is to be observed that a physician and surgeon attended, and often felt his temples, in order to judge of the danger he might he in; by which means his tortures were for a small space suspend- ed, that he might have sufficient opportunity of recovering his spirits, to sustain each ensuing torture. " In all this extremity of anguish, while the tender frame is fearing, as it were, in pieces, while at every pore it feels the sharpest pangs of death, and tlie agonizing soul is just ready to hurst forth, and quit its wretched mansion, the ministers of the inquisition have the obduracy of heart to look on without emotion, and calmly to advise the poor distracted creature, to confess his imputed guilt, in doing which they tell bim he may obtain a free pardon, and receive absolution. PLAN OF SALVATION. 7e « Females who fall into the hands of the inquisitors, have not the least favour shown them on account of the softness of their sex, but are tortured with as much severity as the male prisoners, with the additional mortification of havin,!; dacencies added to the most Dictionary, page 293, 294. Another account related by Du Pin, concerning pope John the twelfth, is worthy of particular observation. " This man," says he, "was so far from having any of those qualities requisite for so great a dignity, that he was a monster in debauchery and irregu- larity. That John was not one of those, who being covered with sheep's clothing, are inwardly ravenous wolves; but that he com- mitted publicly and in the eye of the world, diabolical actions, without putting himself to the trouble of concealing them. — Tliat he had abused the widow of Ranier, Stephania his father's con- cubine, the widow Ann and her neice, and that he had made his court the very sink of debauchery. The clergy and laity then pre- sent [at Rome] cry'd out that they had seen him drink a health to the devil, and swear by the heathen Gods in his play at hazards.^* J\rew Ecclesiastical History, vol. 8, page 10, 11. Such are the men to whom the laity are required to yield a tame and a blind submission. They must not presume to use their owm judgment, because it is possible for them to err; and when they are informed that the popish priesthood possess infallibility, a distinguishing prerogative of Almighty God, they must receive the holy tidings, like dutiful children, m ithout having the assurance to ask for any proof of this blasphemous claim. Human reason is very weak and deceitful, says the pope; therefore, lay it aside, and humbly receive the sure instructions of the church. The sen- ses are very fallacious, says the sceptic, therefore, tamely receive what "philosophy teaches," without presuming to call it in qnes- tion. These gentlemen appear to agree remarkably m ell in their views; but I hope the world will learn that there is less danger of error in using the faculties of judging which God has given them, than 4n believing things merely because priests and philosophei-s are pleased to say they are true. Let us next consider whether the evidence of reasoning be also inseparable from that of revelation. Reasoning is necessary to enable us to perceive the evidence that our scriptures come from God, as has been shown in the ca.se of miracles, and might be shown in other branches of the subject. And will any one sa^ that there is no necessity for us to discover ye AN ESSAY ON THE this evidence, and that we oiiglit to take for granted without any proof, that the bible is of God? If so, Mahometans ought to take the Alcoran for granted: and we ought all to take for granted that the churcli of Rome is infallible: for their infallibility is built upon this very principle. They know it is impossible for them to give us any ;?roo/* of it, and therefore they think our carnal reason ought to take it for granted Avittsout proof. If we wish any man in the world to believe the scriptures without proper evidence^ we of consequence sanction the grand principle of popery, and virtually declare that it is a righteous thing for them thus to impose upon their unsuspecting followers. A point of doctri'iie proved by the scriptures, before the truth and divinity of those scriptures are ascertained, is exactly like a deduction of reasoning, built upon an hypothesis. As all rational belief in the conclusion, is proportioned to the degree of evidence we perceive in the premises; so our confidence in any point of doctrine proved by the testimony of revelation, is and ought to be in exact proportion to the evidence we perceive that the revelation is true, by which the doctrine in question is established: and if we encourage people to receive Christianity blindfold, without labour- ing to discover the evidence of its truth, we encourage the very principle which led philosophers to take certain hypotheses for granted, in the same blindfold manner, and to build conclusions upon them, till they proved that the heavens and the earth have no real existence. I write thus, not from a suspicion that revelation is supported by slender evidence, but from a conviction that the evidence is abun* dant: I wish all men in the world to examine it, the more attentive- ly the better; and when I see christians manifest a disposition, by indirect hints or otherwise, to discourage the diligent exercise of reason, and seem to think it unsafe to search the grounds of Christianity too closely, I cjvnnot help thinking they secretly sus- pect our religion stands upon rather a sandy basis, and that it cannot well bear a close and impartial examination. Perhaps in this 1 am too censorious: perhaps they perceive the evidence of revelation more clearly than myself; but knowing the blindness of the human heart, they are afraid to encourage the use of reason among the people in general, lest they should wildly abuse their reason, and run into infidelity. Alas, my brother! this is granting deists the very thing which they contend for: this is gran-* ting that the deists of our country have been led into infidelity, by rellcction,or because they would think and examine for themselves, PLAN OF SALVATION. 77 and that the cause why others have not followed their example, is, that priests and parents have prevailed with them to guard against the danger of using their reason. I am persuaded, on the contrary, that the hest method to keep infidelity from becoming general in any country, is, to train the inhabitants from their youth, to close thinking and reasoning. If we endeavour to establish in them the habit of taking things for granted without evidence, and without examination, we may in- deed preserve them for a while in a loose profession of Christiani- ty; but let it be remembered, that the wickedness and blindness of man's heart are not to be cured by the neglect of his rational faculties, but by the proper exercise of them, under the influences of divine grace. May a man resist the spirit in a certain method of using his reason.^ so he may in the neglect of it. Is he some- times led astray through too much attention and thinking? and how much oftener through the want of it.^ Are some persons led into infidelity, who are of a reasonable turn of mind? and how ma- ny more who never reasoned for an hour since they were born? how many drunken infidels are cursing and blaspheming about tlie streets every day, who are almost as ignorant of the nature and grounds of Christianity as a savage? And were these witty and jovial deists led to disbelieve and despise the religion of their country, by being too much indulged in the use of their reason ? No: God knows if there was no other degree of reason among men, than the quantum of it possessed and exercised by such boasted free-thinkers, we should have but a very scanty pittance of it under the sun. Let any man lift up his eyes, and take a survey of popish coun- tries, where men for centuries have been trained up to im- plicit faith, and where " ignorance was the mother of devotion,'** and " reason the greatest enemy tofaithy What fruits have been produced by those maxims? They produced a servile and barba- rous superstition, under the name of Christianity, far worse than paganism,* and afterwards they produced a swarm of infidels or open atheists. * Dr. Campbell, speaking of Spain, calls it « a country sunk in the most obdurate superstition that ever disgraced human nature." He adds, in a note, " This perhaps will appear to some to be too severe a censure on a country called Christian, and may be thought to recoil on Christianity. I do not think it fairly capable of such a construction. That the corruption of the best 78 AN ESSAY ON THE Is it not notorious, that reason has been subdued, and implicit faith instilled into the people by the priests of Rome, more than by any other set of men upon earth? And is it not equally noto- rious that greater bodies of deists now exist in popish countries, than in any other countries in Christendom? Why then do we vain- ly imagine that we bhall obstruct the progress of infidelity by going back to the popish standard, and by persuading God's ra- tional creatures that it is dangerous for them to use their reason? If we could persuade them to guard against pride, prejudice, hy- potheses, and sophistry, and prevail with men in general to exer- cise their reason with all possible attention and regularity, I think it would appear, and the discovery would become more general too, that popery and infidelity are really supported by the same weapons, and that they are both as much under the necessity of sneaking into dark corners to avoid the light of reason, as a biid of night to cower down into some deep grove, or hidden corner of the world, to avoid the illuminating beams of the sun as he shines with brilliant grandeur through the heavens. But man's reason, we are told, since the fall of Adam, has be- come so corrupt that it is a very deceitful guide. Does this mean that our reasoning faculties, when used in the best manner in our power, naturally lead us into delusion? or that they are as likely to lead us into falsehood as truth? If so, I must dissent from the conclusion, and maintain that true reasoning will no more support falsehood than it did before the fall of iVdam. If man is greatly corrupted, and prone to run into error and wickedness, does it hence follow that his eyes and ears and other things produces the worst has grown into a proverb: and, on the most imjKirtial inquiry, I do not imagine it will be found tliat any species of idolatry ever tended so directly to extirpate hu- manity, gratitude, natural aft'ection, equity, mutual confidence, good foith, and every amiable and gener «us principle from the human breast, as that gross perversion of the christian religion which is established in Spain. It will not surely be ailirmed, that our Saviour intended any censure on the Mosaic institution, or genuine Judaism, when he said. Wo unto you. Scribes and Plia- risees, hypocrites; for ye compass sea and land to make one prose- lyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Yet the words plainly imply, that even pa- gans, by being converted to {he Judaism, that was then professed, were >»rt//e children of hell, and consequently corrupted, instead of being reformed." See Campbell's dissertation on miracles, third edition, page 237. PLAN OF SALVATION. -TO natural faculties have become so corrupt that they are no longer to be trusted? It does not. Was Adam's intellectual and moral faculties so destroyed, by his apostacy, that he could no longer distinguish truth from false- hood, or right from wrong? If so, wherein did he difl'er from a horse, or any other beast of the field? If he could no longer distin- guish between right and wrong, it was surely impossible for him to have any conviction of the guilt or turpitude of his past actions, or any sense of obligation to his maker for the future. For how can a creature know he has done wrong, or that he ought to do right, after he has lost all capacity to distinguish between tlicm? Does God require of man to follow the dictates of his reason and conscience, or to depart from them? If to depart from them, it follows that it is contrary to the will of God for a man to be conscientious; and to act according to his requirements, we must all act as unreasonably as possible. If he requires us to follow them, then to say they are deceitful, is to say God enjoins on his creatures to follow a deceitful guide. If it be objected that he has given the Bible as our guide, I an- swer, 1st, thousands are not in possession of the Bible; and 2d, those who are in possession of it cannot understand it without the exercise of their reason, which, if it be deceitful, will delude them as much in their judgments concerning the meaning of scripture, as in any other matters. If it be said, the spirit is our guide, I would ask, does the spirit excite us to fellow the dictates of reason and conscience, or to act in opposition to them ? if to act in opposition to them, then we say the spirit will not allow men to be conscientious, and that it influ- ences them to be unreasonable. But if it influences us to follow them, then we cannot charge our reason and conscience with be- ing deceitful, without charging the Holy Spirit with being equally so, seeing it influences us to follow their dictates. But if reason and conscience never deceive, how comes it to pass,says one, that men fall into so many delusions? answer, by ne- glecting or suppressing those faculties, and following some other guide. Does not the apostle aftirm that the m oman, being deceiv- ed, was in the transgression? To say Eve entered into this delusion by following her reason and conscience, is to say those faculties were originally made deceitful; but if it was by departing from thein, to follow another guide, then rebellion against God was a violation of reason: and if sin then consisted in acting against rea- son and congciejico, Avhy suppose its nature has since altered? $X) AN ESSAY ON TKK But the apostles, words are often quoted to prove that a uian's conscience may lead him into wickedness: I have lived in all good conscience unto this day. Does this mean that Paul had never, to that day, done any thing for which his conscience condemned him? That he had laboured with the utmost candour and attention to know his duty in all things, and had never in his life done any thing which he knew he ought not to do, or left undone any thing which he knew he ought to do? How could he then say that he was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious? i. T'mu i. 13. How could he say (ver. 15) that he \va.s the chief of sin- ners? Did Paul really believe, with the writings of the prophets in his hands, that it was his sacred duty to be a blasphemer, aperse- ffiitor, and injurious? Can a man be conscious of leaving undone that which he knows to be good, and of doing thatwhich he knows to be evil, as Paul did, and all the while have a good conscience? Can a man be the chief of sinners, and live in all good conscience throTigh the whole of it ? If so, the chief of sinners may assure, himself that he is in the way to heaven, for the apostle John saith, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. d. John iii. 21. The apostle's words, taken in conjunction with the context, evi- dently signify that he had regularly kept the Jewish laAv, by which they Mere then about to try him: as to this law, says he, for the. pretended violation of whicli, you have bound me with this chain, I have lived in all good conscience unto this day: I have never trans- gressed one of those laws, upon which you hope to found a legal sentence against me. Touching the righteousness of the {ceremonial) law he was blame- ?ess, because he had kept it withthe most scrupulous regidarity. And when did Paul, to the end of his life, ever blame himself for any violation of the Jewish or ceremonial law? Never. And why did he not ? Because in that respect he had lived in all good conscience. But did he never blame himself for persecuting the followers of Jesus Christ? Yes, he reproached himself with it repeatedly, and it was principally on this ground that he pronounced himself the chief of sinners. And why ? Because in this respect he did not live in all good conscience, as he did in respect to his keeping the law which they charged him with having violated. Did he ever say he killed the disciples of Jesus in all good conscience} So far from it, that he represent it as a crime so enormous, that nothing but the plea of ignorance could afford any ground fpr him to ev^l- hope for mercy. PLAN OP SALVATION. 84 '^liis true, he said, "I verily thought with myself, that I ought t« do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth,"* but he no where tells us that this thought arose from either his reason or conscience; but on the contrary, that it arose from the most fu- rious prejudice and malice; " I compelled them to blaspheme," says he; " and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities."t If we are to conclude a man's reason and conscience lead him astray, because he departs from them to follow his furious passions, may we not as well conclude that the devil is still following the dictates of reason, and lives in all good conscience unto this day ? But we are to take it for granted, I suppose, that whenever a man thinks a thing is rights thatthought arises from his conscience^ and whenever he thinks a thing isirwe, that thought arises from his reason. If this be so, it is plain that all mankind have regularly followed their reason and conscience, and nothing else, from the creation of the world to the present hour, in judging of what i« right and of w hat is true. Did Paul say, or will any man say for him, that he sincerely and candidly used all the means in his power to know his duty, and that after the most serious and dispassionate reflection, he really felt in his conscience that it w as his sacred duty to be ex- eeeding mad against the saints, and compel them to blaspheme? When a man calmly and candidly labours to know his duty, and after consulting his moral judgment, and striving to conceive the matter clearly, has an immediate conviction that the right or wrong of a certain thing is self-evident, this I understand to be a true dictate of an original faculty; call it conscience, or what you please. When he has recourse to such principles, to draw con- clusion from them, and prove the right or wrong of some other point of moral conduct, this I understand to be reason brought into exercise, to enlarge the knowledge we derive froui the first principles of morality. When a man uses his utmost en» deavours to prove the right or wrong of a certain matter, and can- not find any evidence for or. against it, with the help of revelation or otherwise, this I understand to be a matter beyond the reach of his faculties. And while this is the case, his doing it or leaving it undone is to him indifferent, because there is no moral evidence within his reach either for or against it. It is true, if there be any probable evidence, or any ground to presume that a certain action is wrong, a man ought to refrain from it; because where * Acts. xxvi. 9. i Acts, xxvi. ti. S3 AN ESSAY ON THE there is ground to doubt the lawfulness of doing a certain action^ there can be no hesitation as to the lawfulness of leaving it un- done: but where no evidence can be had on one side or the other, not even the slightest degree of presumptive evidence, the thing is perfectly indifferent, and ought so to be considered by every man till some proof shall appear to command his belief. Now if a man should espouse such an indifferent matter, as a very great duty, or abhor it as a dreadful crime, who will say he is led to this by the dictates of his reason or conscience? The Pharisees thought they discharged a very great duly in '' paying tithes of mint, anise, cummin, and all manner of herbs;" they thought the disciples of Jesus were guilty of a heinous crime in plucking ears of corn, and rubbing them in their hands, on the Sabbath day. Were they led to these conclusions by their con- science? or by their passions and superstitious bigotry? History informs us that some of the heathens believed it their duty to practise debauchery, as an act of worship or devotion to their gods. Were they led to this belief by following the dictates of their moral judgment? or by following the influence of sen- sual appetites? It is an easy thing for a man to bring himself to believe that which he strongly wishes to believe. In doing so, h« often does violence to the first convictions of his understanding, and thereby establishes himself in opinions directly opposite to some of its clearest dictates. To say every man's opinions of right and wrong are formed by following the evidence of his rea- son and conscience, is to say no man ever resisted their dictates in regulating his moral opinions, and of course every sinner in the world has lived in all good conscience unto this day. One per- suades himself it is right to spend his life in gambling, which he calls an innocent amusement; a second believes it right to oppose all religion, as superstition and priestcraft; a third can see no harm in fornication and adultery, which he calls living according to our nature. Now if those persons have formed their opinions by following the dictates of conscience, and have acted in conformity to their faith, they have surely lived in all good conscience unto this day. And if they followed this evidence without deviation, informing their judgment of right and m rong; and then regulated their actions according to their best judgment, shall we blame them for it, and say they did wrong? If so, we suppose it right for men to resist their conscience and labour to subdue its influ- ence; otherwise it cannot be wrong for them to do the contrary. I see no way to avoid these consequences but to admit that meu PLAN OP SALVATION. ^s often form their opinions, concerning moral subjects as well as others, by departing from rational and moral evidence, and follow- kig the blind influence of prejudice and passion. This being ad- mitted, the consequence is clear, tliat the absurdities and abomina- tions of the heathens, afford no proof of the deceitfulness of their reason; hui,becoming vain in their imaginations, their foolish heart was darkened hy yielding to the pernicious influence of lust and pride, vanity and superstition. And are we disposed to excuse them entirely, and to lay the whole blame on those judging faculties, which God Almightj'- gave them, and the exercise of which he demanded of them, to subdue their passions, and to regulate their judgments concern- ing truth and falsehood, right and wrong? Whence arises this sentiment which goes to apologise for hu- man depravity.^* Whence this inclination to undervalue the rea- son of mankind, and represent it as being very deceitful and fal- lacious in its operations? Does it arise from the supposition that as reason is shown to be fluctuating and uncertain, that the truth and certainty of revelation will appear in an inverse proportion? Alas, if reason be a false guide, it is as likely to bear false m it- ness concerning the evidence of revelation, as any thing else; for suppose you prove the truth and divinity of the scriptures to a man, by the most clear and conclusive arguments, how easy is itfor him to reply, "It i^s true, sir, that you have proved this matter by very clear arguments; but you have often taught me to consider hu- man reason as being so corrupt, that it is as likely to su2)port false- hood as truth; and how do I know but this is one of its deceitful sallies, intended to impose a false revelation upon me?" Thus the person'furnishes a weapon against himself, and evinces that eve- ry attempt to demolish the evidence of reasoa, equally militates against that of revelation. Or, will it he said that Mr. Paine was in the right, when he de- clared that every man should have a new revelation, to confirm the old, before he is " obliged to believe it?" If so, Paine him- self and every other deist in the world, is entirely excusable, un- less it can be made appear that any one of them has resisted the light of a new revelation: they have had the deceitful evidence of reason; but this does not render them blamable for their unbelief, because reason is supposed to be as apt to bear witness to a falsehood as to the truth; therefore an exact attention to its dic- tates may have led them into infidelitv. S4 AN ESSAY ON THE And this is the way it seems, that we are to support the honour of revelation! we must degrade and undervalue the reason of man- kind, under the cant names of human reason, carnal reason, and the likti, and then to be sure revelation will shine forth, and bear down all before it! This poor, mean stratagem, first invented in a popish conclave, is so far from supporting Christianity, that it has strengtliened the hands of our enemies, and enabled them to make proselytes, by proving out of our own mouths, that a man cannot be a christian, without degrading and renouncing his ra- tional faculties. And suffer me to repeat the question, if our rational faciiltieg are fallacious, why are they not as likely to lead us astray, when we use them to find out the true meaning of scripture, as in any thing else? If it be said the use of a man*s reason is not essential to the right understanding of the scriptures, why do not our horses understand them as well as ourselves? The apostle tells us we are to compare spiritual things with spiritual, and it is a common maxim among us, that scripture is to be explained by scripture. Now what is this but proper and regular reasoning? we compare one passage with another, as our premises, and from the compa- rison, we draw our conclusion concerning the true meaning of scrip- ture. But if reason be deceitful, the whole of that deceit is car- ried into our conception of the scriptures, whenever we attempt to find out their true meaning. In vain may you recur to the old objection, that it is possible for us to be mistaken, and to take that to be sound reason, which is altogether sophistical; for the same thing may be urged against inspiration, common sense, and every kind of evidence in the world. If we refuse to trust our faculties, till some criterion be produced, to prove the abstract impossibility of our ever being mistaken, our ease is perfectly incurable, and we must wander into the regions of universal scepticism, or retire to the bosom of popish infallibility, where the danger of our being deceived is tenfold more manifest than it was before. It will be equally unavailing to say " we must lay aside our un- certain reason, and depend entirely upon the light of the holy spi- rit;" for if the spirit is to give us an immediate direction in every thing, reason and scripture together are entirely useless. Why do I want a bible any more than my reason, if 1 have an internal guide that shows me on all occasions what is right and true? The holy spirit is given to assist the faculties of our nature, hut not to supersede the necessity of using them. Docs God give PLAN OF SALVATION. jgyg his spirit to reasonable creatures, that they may lay aside their reason? Does he give a Bible to mankind, and then give his spi- rit to enable them to do \vithout it? Does he enlighten the eyes of our understanding, in order for us to lay our understanding by? Does he demand of us to exercise and improve our talents, and then give his spirit to excuse our hiding them in a napkin? Has he created us with active powers, that we should diligently use them, and afterwards given his spirit to justify our laziness, and to make those powers altogether unnecessary? God is not the au- thor of such contradictions. Man is the author of them; and while some whimsical enthusiasts have laid aside their reason, and almost taken leave of their senses, under pretence of having a spiritual light that rendered them no longer necessary, others from the same frenzy have laid aside the Bible* on account of the abundant revelations they were daily conscious of in their own souls, and which raised them far above the want of reason, or the carnal letter of the scriptures. Leaving those geniuses to their own spiritual imaginations, we come next to consider the dependance of reason upon revela- tion. As the progressive exercise of reason enables us to carry our discoveries far beyond the first principles of common sense, and thus greatly to enlarge our kno^vledge: so the inestimable gift of revelation carries our views still higher, and enables us to make discoveries which reason alone could never make. This does not imply that our intellectual faculties are ever deceitful; they are alvTays true as far as they go; but being naturally feeble, they cannot soar to the highest regions of truth, attainable by man, without the assistance of revelation. In like manner the dictates of common sense are always true, as far as they go; but they can- not bring us even to the middle regions without the help of rea- son: and yet their humble sphere is so very important, that with- out it we lose the benefit of reason and revelation together, and drop into the shades of universal ignorance. The great necessity and advantages of revelation have been ex- hibited by many good men, whose shoes I am unworthy to loose. All that is necessary on the present occasion, is briefly to men- tion a few particulars, which may serve to illustrate the mutual dependence of the three great sources of evidence, which is the design of the present section. See John Nelson's Jouriuil> M m AN ESSAY ON THE First, men in general, have neither time nor talents to learn eve- ry thing needful to be known, by the slow and cautious method of reasoning, nor yet to comprehend them when exhibited by others. They must of necessity devote their chief attention to the common labours of life, and though they are capable of reasoning, yet they have not time to enter into it extensively; and therefore the good- ness of God has given them a plain revelation, composed of truths the most essential that ever Jiave been presented to the human mind. If they only exercise that degree of reason which is neces- sary to discover ihe signs of divine wisdom, goodness and holiness, that are very manifest in the scriptures, and strive impartially to understand them, nothing more is needful; and they have a fund of instruction before their eyes, adapted to every capacity. This point has been exhibited in a satisfactory manner by Mr. Lockej and many others. Secondly, the doctrine of our immortality, or future existence, lies so deep, that few men are able to pei'ceive its evidence by reasoning alone; and the most penetrating minds have found some remaining doubts, which nothing but revelation could re- move. Thirdly, the original cause of man's innate propensities to evil, lay hid in obscurity, and puzzled all serious minds, till it was ex- hibited by revelation: reason now confirms the truth of it, by de- ductions from matter of fact and common sense; but that the first man involved his posterity in this wretched state, by his rebellion against God, would yet have remained a secret, had no revelation from God been given to mankind. Fourthly, the peculiar kindness of God towards the children of men and his, deep interest for their eternal welfare, is a pure dis- covery of revelation. AVithout it, we should be totally ignorant whether God would ever pardon our transgressions or not, and equally so, respecting the method his wisdom has adopted to make that pardon accord with the pure and righteous principles of his moral government. But, Jesus is the light and the life of men; and this life and immortality have been brought to light by the gospel. Fifthly, our need of a divine influence to assist our faculties, together with God's willingness to grant us the aid of his holy spirit, we learn from the holy scriptures; and without a revelation from God, of some kind, all our views of this matter must have been merely hypothetical. \ Sixthly, the existence of other orders of iutelligeut creatures PLAN OF SALVATION. sr would have remained unknown to us, or at best but barely proba- ble, Iiad not God condescended to inform iis in a supernatural way. Now we know that we have brethren in some other region of the universe, to whose society our heavenly Father intends to raise us, if we act well our part in this state of probation. We learn al- so, that there are other wicked creatures in the universe besides ourselves; that they have power to suggest evil tlioughts to our minds, in sonic w ay unknown to us; and that it is a matter of great consequence for us to set a proper guard upon our thoughts and most secret desires. These ate matters of infinite concernment, on which our virtue, tranquillity and future blessedness, materially depend. Lastly, w ithout revelation we could never have known the in- tention of God to raise our bodies from the grave, to renew the face of nature, and to make new heavens and a new earth wherein righteousness shall dwell. The gloomy thought might have ac- companied us through life, and we could recur to nothing but con- jecture to remove it, that tlie present wretched state of things would continue forever: that pur descendants, irt'suecession, and all the innocent animals through the earth, and air, and water, would be a prey to misery, bloodshed and dissolution, to all eterni- ty. But revelation brightens the prospect before us, and easts death and misery " into the back ground of the scene." It invites man to act up to the proper dignity of lug nature, gives him assu- rances of every necessary aid, and stimulates him by prospects, calculated to rouse into action all the intellectual and moral fa- culties of his soul, and M'hichare every way worthy the wisdom and goodness of God. In a word, every thing contained in this heavenly system, is friendly to virtue and human happiness, and no man, but a w icked one, will find any tling in it to terrify or alarm him. Those points, and many others, might he pursued to great ad- vantage; but these hints may suffice to show the connexion of reason and revelation, and their mutual dejiendance upon each' other. He that rejects revelation because he possiesses the light of reason, is like an astronomer who casts all his ti lescopes into the sea, because he has eyes, wherewith he may behold the stars or celestial planets. He who neglects and despises reason, because he has revelation, is like an astronomer who blindfolds his eyes under pretence of honoring and exalting his telescopes. He who uses them in harmony, is like an astronomer who makes a proper 9» AN ESSAY ON THE use of his eyes and telescopes together, without ever dreaming that either of them can be spared or neglected, except by an ig- noramus that is unacquainted with their utility. For ive ally with open face, beholding as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, f rom glori/ to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. 11. Cor. Hi. 18. The objections commonly urged against one of those means of knowledge, are equally applicable to the other. Is reason in the hands of depraved and fallen creatures.^ so is revelation. Are we liable to mistake the voice of reason.*^ so we are the voice of vevelation. Have men perverted the faculties of reason, till they have bewiMered themselves and those who heard them.^ so have men wrested the scriptures, even unto their own destruction. Has a confnsed system of foolish opinions been long prevalent in the world, under the name of reason and philo- sophy? so have as foolish and as wicked system's long prevailed in the world, under the name of Christianity. Are there many contradictory opinions which claim the support of reason? so there ftje many as contradictory which claim the support of revelation. Have many deists pretended to be led to infidelity by /oi/oirtw^ their reason? so they have pretended to be led into it/;?/ rmrfi??^ the scriptures. Is reason unable of itself, to effect and change the heart of maii? so i§ revelation. Who can forgive sins but God only? They also have the same recommendations. Is revelation the gift of God? so also is reason. Does revelation appear to better advantage the more its uature and principles are examined? so al- so does reason. Was revelation intended for the instruction and happiness of mankind? so also was reason. Is revelation opposed to all foolishness and wickedness? so also is reason. Does the apostle say his opposers were enemies of the gospel? so does he say they were wicked and unreasonable men. Does the psalmist say the law of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes? so does the apostle 8^y it is our reasonable service. Does the apostle caution us against vain philosophy and science falsely so called? so he does against false apostle$, deceitful workers, who would transform themselves into the apostles of Christ. Jlre we commanded to search the scrip' tures,Sind study them diligently? so we arc commanded to be always ready to giveevery one an answer, that asketh us a reason of our hope. It is true the apostle opposes the wisdom of this world, and g{^ys it is fooli?hness with God; but he no where opposes reason, sind I hope no ^me \y'\\\ charge him with saying any part of truth PLAN OF SALVATION. ^9 is foolishness with God. It is a dangerous thing, you say, to blend philosophy and Christianity together, and the very way our reli- gion was at first corrupted, was partly by connecting it with the heathen philosophy, and partly by bringing into the profession fifit, the miserable superstitions of their idolatrous theology. I believe this account is perfectly correct; but do you therefore in- fer that reason is a very dangerous guide.^ It seems then, you are entirely satisfied that Aristotle's philosophy, and the superstitious theology of the Pagan priests, were altogether founded upon truth and reason! If the heathen philosophy or theology were true, and the gospel true, what injury would result from their being brought together? Does one truth contradict another, or must we really take for granted that one truth added to another, will produce a falsehood? Until I be prevailed on to admit the ridiculous hypothesis that one part of truth is injured and destroyed by another, I must be per- mitted still to believe that no philosophy that is false, was ever supported by reason, and none that is true was ever unfriendly to the gospel. The vain philosophy and wisdom of this world which St. Paul so justly reprobated, was science falsely so called, i. e. it did not consist in real knowledge, which has the first principles of truth for its foundation; but it consisted in a system of fantastical opin- ions, built upon unsupported hypotheses, that were invented by the vanity and roving imaginations of men. All this was foolish- ness with God, because it was real foolishness in itself. The judg- ment of God is according to truth, and he pronounces a thing to be foolish because it is so: he never cautioned us againstany branch of truth, because falsehood is dangerous; or against the ex- ercise of reason, because it is dangerous for men to be unreason- able. These inconsii^tencies belong not to God, or to his inspired apostles: we have secretly and inadvertently borrowed them from the dark stratagems of popery, and as sure as God is the author of reason and revelation, and as truth is consistent with itself, no branch of human knowledge will ever be supported by one and contradicted by the other. Upon the whole, I conclude, that common judgment, reason and revelation, are three that bear record on earth, and these three are so inseparably united that we cannot abandon any one of them without taking leave of the other two. 90 AN ESSAY ON THE SECTION VII. Of analogy and presumption. Having examined the three cliiei* sources of human know- ledge; it may be worth vvliile to inquire whether there be any other method of discovering truth, that is not comprehended in any one of the foregoing means of instruction. I am unable to conceive any thing else, that has even the ap- pearance of evidence, excepting it be the subject of analogy; and a close inspection, of this will convince us, I think, that analogy is properly compreliended under the foregoing division. It affords a self-evident probability, and thus comes under the province of common or intuitive judgment: and when we reason upou this ground, we may be led to many probable conclusions: but if our first principle be only probable, there is nothing more than pro- bability in any conclusion deduced from it by regular reasoning. Let it suffice to illustrate this matter by three examples. 1. There is a self-evident probability, from analogy, that the dther planets around our sun are the habitations of some kind of living creatures. We see that our earth abounds with various or- ders of animals, possessing life; and astronomers have proved by very clear evidence, that the other planets are very large bodies, like this which we inhabit; hence, we immediately perceive that there is a very strong probability that those vast bodies do not roll through the heavens for nothing, any more than the world in in which we live, but that they minister to the happiness of living creatures: this is called reasoning from analogy; but the first principle of this reasoning is self-evident. How did we learn, or how can we prove, that if one thing is known to resemble another, in some particulars, it probably resembles it in some others that are unknown? Will you say from experience? 1 answer, the infe- rences we draw from experience, are built upon the same analog}-: I know by experience that day and night have succeeded each other, without intermission, for thirty years: hence, I conclude, that for thirty years to come, the same uninterrupted regularity will continue. But this conclusion is not certain, and for aught I know to the contrary, the sun may be darkened, and the moon with- draw her light, in less than thirty years from this day. Can any philosopher demonstrate the contrary? He cannot. The conclu- sion is only probable, because it is built on a first principle deri- ved from analogy, which aiFords no other than probable evidence. PLAN OF SALVATION. 91 2. It is Tery probable that the ropublie of America, will some lime be cliangod into a monarchy. Yet it is not certain that it ever will, because the conclusion is only built upon the analogy of hu- man nature, a^ntl the practice of former ages in diflerent parts of tlie workl. 3. There is a self-evident probability- that if God should give another revelation to mankind, it will also be attended with cer- tain difficulties, which could only be solved by candid and patient reflection, and that it would contain some masteries beyond the grasp of human understanding. This condition is also drawn from analogy. The works of creation, the course of providence, the law of Moses, the gospel of Christ, and every part of the Al- mighty's w orks from the beginning of the world unto this day, are of this description. They are full of difficulties, and even contra- dictions, in the judgment of those who are too proud, too merry, or too slothful to examine them; but to the candid and sincere, those difficulties only aflord matter of diligence, and useful improvements, while the incomprehensible parts aftbrd mattev of humility and just veneration for that intinite being, who cannot be completely comprehended by any tiuite understanding. But that another revelation, w ould exactly resemble the foregoing in those particulars, is only probable: God may hereafter change the state of the w ovld, and the nature of man's probation; the powers of evil may be so subdued, and virtue and piety so esta- blished, that the same degree of laborious thinking may not be required, that is noAV needful for mankind; and in such a state of things, a revelation may be given, the evidence and principles of which will be perceived in a more immediate and intuitive way, without the slow method of comparison and consequential rea- soning. The probability arising from analogy, is sometimes called pre- sumjJtive evidence. When men are cast ii»to prison, there is a pre- sumption that they will try to make their escai>e, because the supposition accords with the analogy of nature; and if they de- clare they will not go away from the prison, we are not disposed ta leave the doors open upon the strength of their promise, because there is too strong a ])resumption against them. AVhen events are related by any person that are very extraor- dinary, and not according to (he common analogy or resemblance of occurrences which the events of one age or country bears to those of another, there ariseth a presumption against the truth of his relation. But this presumption can never rise higher than pro- %2 AN ESSAY ON THE bability, and totally disappears when combatted by positive evidence. If an individual should fell me he saw my friend yesterday, who died more than a year ago, and conversed with him for half an hour, the presumption would be so strong against it, that I should be apt to question the factj but if twelve men whom I could name, should corroborate his testimony and declare solemnly that they Avere present in open daylight, and conversed with my deceased friend for half an hour, 1 could no more disbelieve them than I could give up all contidence in my best tried friends and acquain- tances on earth. When the first astronomer informed his contemporaries, that he could name the precise minute, for months beforehand, when there would be an eclipse of the sun or the moon, there was a strong presiimplion that it was mere conjecture; but the evidence of sense has fully convinced the world, that truth may stand di- rectly opposite to the highest probabilities that are only presump- tive; and of course, the probabilities arising from analogy, should only be credited when there is no clear evidence against them, and not even then with a belief too decisive and dogmatical. Infidels appear to be governed in their peculiar opinions, chief- ly by analogy and presumption. They will not believe that man was ever in a state of innocence and perfect happiness, or that the elements of nature were ever different from their present arrange- ments: they will not believe a revelation was ever given from heaven: they will not believe miracles were ever performed: they will not believe any prophecy concerning a different state of the world in future: they will not believe the christian doctrine of a future state, or that mankind will ever be raised from the dead. And why all this unbelief? Is it for want of evidence.^ not at all: the evidence is so clear that they have to do violence to their rea- son to resist it; but they have contracted an almost unconquerable fondness for analogy and presumption, which they straiif to the uttermost, and prefer to the plainest and most conclusive deduc- tions of reason. If we follow the dictates of common sense and reason, and be- lieve the truths supported by them with corresponding confidence, they call us dog^matical. They are resolved, if we believe them, "to hold themselves in that state of doubt, and suspense of judgment, winch is 90 becoming in a philosopher.-' But that sceptical doubt is only indulged, it would appear, when religious matters are in question: in matters contrary to religion, they seem so very dog* PLAN OF SALVATION. 93 matical, that they are bent upon a most obstinate adherence to their opinions, in opposition to all reason, Avhen a bare presump- tion would be their only ground of credence, if* there was no tes- timony against them. Mr. Hume says " A wise man will proportion his belief to the evidence.''^ I presume this philosopher never spoke a more im- portant truth; and if all men would follow it, there would be a death blow given both to the sceptical and dogmatical spirit, which equally offends against this axiom. The former, consists in giving a less degree of credit than the evidence requires, and the latter, in giving a greater: and it is as hard to determine which is the more dangerous or irrational, as it is to determine which of two travellers whom a third conducts through an unknown desert, most effectually loses the benefit of his guide; the man who runs on before him, or the one who loiters in the woods behind. Scepticism and dogmatism both consist in believing without evidence: the former, in believing a subject is doubtful when there is no evidence of its being doubtful, the latter in believing a sub- ject to be certain, when there is no evidence of its certainty. He who believes any proposition with the confidence of certainty, which has no foundation but analogy, is very dogmatical; he who doubts of a truth that is self-evident, like tbat of his own existence, is equally sceptical; and it is no uncommon thing for those ex- tremes to meet in the same person. Lifidel philosophers have doubted the present existence of the world; they have doubted the evidence of sense and all human testimony; they have doubted " the axioms of mathematics:" and yet those very men have believed with great confidence, that the course of nature has uniformly been the same from the beginning of the world, that no miracle was ever wrought, and that no reve^ lation luas ever given from God to man. Now if we had no man- ner of evidence that such things ever did occur, the sole evidence we could have that they did not, would only be presumptive, and therefore in its very nature doubtful: from the analogy of nature, so far as it has come under our observation, we would presume it has always been the same; and if mankind in former ages had seen astonishing miracles, we would presume again, from the analogy of human nature, that they would transmit accounts of ihem to pos- terity; but hoAv can it be demonstrated, or proved by any other argument, either that the course of nature has been the same from the creation, or that mankind in former ages, were as much dispo- ned to transmit accounts of miraculous facts to posterltv, as the N 94* AN ESSAY ON THE men of this generation? It is impossible for our objectors to pro- duce any such proof. - Will they affirm then, that the thing is self-evident? That there is a self-evident probabilitij of it, is granted; but this implies a de- gree of uncertainty; and if such uncertain analogies are among their most confident opinions, let the world judge who are the men that properly merit the charge of being dogmatical. Thus it appears, if we had no positive evidence that a miracle was ever Avrought, the contrary would be a proper subject of that doubtful kind of belief, or suspense of judgment, in which our philosophers afteet to glory, and upon which they congratulate each other, on their freedom from vulgar prejudices; but what shall we say of their dogmatical spirit, w hen we see them adhere to their presumptions in opposition to proofs and arguments the most convincing and indubitable? . Will they say a presumptive probability can never be overcome by any other evidence? And suppose an army of seven thousand men should conquer an arniy of ten thousand, both to all appear- ance equally prepared for the battle, the like of w hich has some- times happened; will any one say there was no ground to presume that the army of ten thousand would be victorious? or, that this presumption ought to be adhered to, with obstinate perseverance, in opposition to all the evidence of sense, or of human testimony, that could be brought against it? Whyi the strange influence of the loadstone was first discover- ed, it had to combat as strong presumptions from analogy as any miracle whatsoever: and will our opponents insist that no evidence should influence us to relinquish our belief of such uncertain proba- bilities? Then all navigators and philosophers are fools for believ- ing in the mystery of magnetism, which, like miracles, suspends the law of gravitation. To this might be added the innumerable mysteries of mechanical operations and chemistry, many of which are so opposite to the whole course of my experience, at least, and have such strong pre- sumption against them, that I might justly consider them as very doubtful matters, were they not confirmed by the testimony of men whose veracity cannot be doubted. But perhaps I am mistaken all this while, in taking for granted that our sceptical philosophers, who have doubted the very exis- tence of earth and heaven, were at the same time very dogmatical in opinions founded upon mere presumption. It cannot be possible, says a seriou* enquirer, that they only doubted of «ome things PLAN OF SALVATION. 95 and in others were as confident as other people: much less, that their doubts arose in proportion to tlie strength of the evidence, and that they chose always to be confident, where there was no ev- idence, but some uncertain probability! Was it not their grand maxim that "all things are equally doubtful?" I answer, this was indeed their professed maxim, but their own writings, as well as their actions, will prove that they considered themselves at liberty to depart from it, whenever it might suit their convenience. I desire no better testimony in the case than that of Mr. Hume himself. Every one acquainted with his phi- losophical writings, knows that he not only professed to doubt, or disbelieve, the existence of God, angel and spirit; but that he doubt- ed the existenice of earth and sea, and laboured to prove that there is no certainty in mathematical demonstration. And is it possible that this same gentleman had at the same time, some very dogma- tical opinions? Hear his own words: " The violations of truth" says he, " are more common in the testimony concerning religious miracles, than in that concerning any other matter of fact." And did not our philosopher believe this proposition very confidently? So much so that he immediately adds, "This must diminish very much the authority of the former testimony, and make us form a general resolution, never to lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretext it may be co- vered."* From this we may perceive with how much confidence Mr. Hume believed " that the course of nature had been uniform from the beginning, and that no religious miracles was ever wrought." His belief in this was so dogmatical, tliat it led him to " form a gene- ral resolution" to reject all evidence against his opinion, and " never lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretext it may be covered." Thus, you observe, his " sceptical doubts and suspense of judg- ment," are only resorted to when those subjects are introduced, concerning which he chuses to doubt or disbelieve; but when evi- dence is to be brought against the beloved presumptions, founded on analogy, the.boasted " suspense of judgment" is laid aside, and " a general resolution" substituted in its place, " never to lend any attention" to the evidence, but to adhere to his own dogmas with the unshaken firmness of a popish inquisitor. * See his Essay on Miracles, page 304^; and Dr. Campbell's an= «wer, p. 102. W AN ESSAY ON THE In another part of the same essay, he says, « No tesfimony for any kiud ( f miracle can ever possibly amount to a probability, much less to a proof." These instances, to which many of a like nature might be ad- ded, seem indicative of very strong faith: and our wise men, it ap- pears, who have so much complained of the blind credulity of the vulgar, are found to be as resolute in their belief as their honest neighbours. Their inconsistency would not be so intolerable, if they could be prevailed on to believe their own senses, and the common dictates of reason; but instead of this, they turn human knowledge upside doMu; in matters that are self-evident, they glo- ry in being doubtful, and only become confident in those cases that are naturally dubious and uncertain; and which is worse than all, they carry their immovable faith so high as to resist every kind of positive evidence, and resolve not to give it a bearing. But it is not a little surprising, that the same persons who in general man- ifest such a violent fondness for analogy, abandon this ground entirely, when it suits their purpose, and draw conclusions in di- rect opposition to it. Almost the whole of that knowledge which we denominate experience, depends upon the veracity of our sen- ses: it is derived through the medium of smelling, tasting, feeling, seeing, and hearing. There is a regular uniformity in the opera- tions of these senses through the general course of our lives, and ■we daily find the objects around us to be what they are represent- ed to be by this uniform experience. Our senses never cause us to take fire for water, or water for fire. AVhen my eyes testify that one man alone comes into my room, I always find there is but one, and I am in no danger of mistaking him for a company of five, ^even, or ten. And so of other things. Now if a man declare he saw a miracle performed; that he saw for instance, a person standing by the sea side, who commanded a tree to be plucked up by the roots, and be removed into the sea, and it instantly obeyed him; there would be a strong presumption against the reality of this fact. AVhy.^ Because of its being so con- trary to experience: i. e. contrary to what we have generally seen and heard. And suppose another man should testify of a certain particular case, in which his senses actually deceived him, and their regular dictates led him to believe a falsehood; there would he precisely the same presumption against the reality of this fact. Why? Because it would be equally opposite to the general course of our experience. What ought we then to do w ith these extraor- dinary cases.^ "NVc ought surely to withold our assent, till the facts PLAN OF SALVATION. 9^ be supported by clear and convincing evidence, that Mould bear the closest scrutiny and inspection. Then, as reasonable beings, we should yield to the conclusion, without making any arbitrary additions to it: we should believe that in cases thus authenticated miracles had been wrought, and the senses of men had deceived them. But what is the conduct of our infidel philosophers in these matters.^ The most inconsistent that can be imagined. In ease of miracles, they refuse all evidence a fair hearing, and pretend that no proof is able to evercome the presumption arising from common experience; but as to those particular facts which are produced as intances of '" fallacy in the senses," they not only give them a ready hearing, but entirely abandon the presumption arising from common experience, and draw a conclusion indirect contradiction of iti They grasp the new circumstance with uncommon fondness and not only believe it with a superficial examination, but leap into the wide conclusion, that all other cases are of the same na- ture.* If the senses deceive us in one thing, say they, why not in all.'' It appears then, that if we could once prevail on those sages to believe a miracle had ever been wrought, they would instantly conclude that all men are working miracles every hour of their Jives- If the laws of nature have been suspended in one case, why not in all? If one part of matter (the loadstone) can counteract the law of gravitation, why not all parts? If the sun was eclipsed on one certain day, why not every day? If a certain medicine should cure the yellow fever in one case, why not in all casesf and, to put an end to the queries, we might add, if one man should happen to be an idiot, why not all men. If instances are produced, of certain particular cases in which the testimony of sense is fallacious, the only fair conclusion of reason would be, " that in some rare cases our senses may deceive us:" and if our opponents will produce instances of the kind, which will bear as close inspection, as the miracles ascribed to the Lord Jesus Christ, I, for one, will yield to the conclusion; but I hope they will excuse every man who understands the principles of rea- soning, from drawing an universal conclusion from premises so particular, that they have to explore the most hidden secrets of nature to find any one instance, but such as may be detected in half an hour, and shown to be no fallacy of the senses. Dr. Reid has convinced me, that the great complaint concerning the fallacy of our senses, is a mere fiction of philosophers; and I * See Berkley and Hume. 96 AN ESSAY ON THE cannot help being doubtful (which they say I ought always to be) whether they be able to produce a single instance that will bear examination. "Complaints of the fallacy of the senses/' says Mr. Reid,"have been very common in ancient and in modern times, especially among the philosophers: and if we should take for granted all that they have said on this subject, the natural conclusion from it might seem to be, that the senses are given to us by some ma- lignant djemon on purpose to delude us, rather than that they are formed by the wise and beneficial author of nature, to give us true information of things necessary to our preservation and happiness. Many things called the deceptions of the senses are only con- clusions rashly drawn from the testimony of the senses. In these eases the testimony of the senses is true, but we rashly draw a conclusion from it, which does not necessarily follow. We are dis- posed to impute our errors rather to false information than to in- conclusive reasoning, and to blame our senses for the wrong con- clusions we draw from their testimony. " Thus, when a man has taken a counterfeit guinea for a true one, he says his senses deceived him; but he lays the blame where it ought not to be laid: for we may ask him, did your senses give a false testimony of the colour, or of the figure, or of the impres- sion? No. But this is all that they testified, and this they testified truly: from these premises you concluded that it was a true gui- nea; but this conclusion does not follow; you erred therefore, not by relying upon the testimony of sense, but by judging rashly from its testimony: not only are your senses innocent of this error, but it is only by their information that it can be discovered. If you consult thera properly, they will inform yon that what you took for a guinea is base metal, or is deficient in weight, and this caa only be known by the testimony of sense. " I remember to have met with a man who thought the argu- ment used by protestants, against the popish doctrine of transub- stantiation from the testimony of our senses, inconclusive; because, said he, instances may be given where several of our senses may deceive us: How do we know then that there may not be cases wherein they all deceive us, and no sense is left to detect the fal- lacy? I begged of him to know an instance wherein several of our senses deceive us. I take, said he, a piece of soft turf, 1 cut it into the shape of an apple; with the essence of apple I give it the i»niell of an apple; and with paint, I give it the skin and colour of PLAN OF SALVATION. ga an apple. Here then is a body, which, if you judge by your eye, by your touch, or by your smell, is an apple. " To this I answer, that no one of our senses deceives us in this case. My sight and touch testify that it has the shape and colour efan apple: this is true. The sense of smelling testifies that it has the smell of an apple: this is likewise true, and is no decep- tion. Where then lies the deception? It is evident it lies in this, that because this body has some qualities belonging to an apple, I conclude that it is an apple. This is a fallacy, not of the senses, but of inconclusive reasoning."* This candid and ingenious author examines various other grounds of this charge against the veracity of the senses, and shows that they are rash conclusions, founded on our ignorance of the laws of nature; and makes it appear that though our senses, like all our other faculties, are naturally weak, and subject to accidental disorders, yet no case has been produced in which, upon careful examination, our senses has given deceitful tes- timony. It is true, that in some cases the representation of one sense, (that of sight for example) if we judge from the first appearances »f things, will lead us to a false conclusion; but is it the part of a philosopher to draw his conclusions from the first appearance, or from that view that is acquired by a patient examination? If we take no pains to examine, but draw our conclusions from the first superficial glance, we may take a sophism for a sound argument, and then declare that our reason had deceived us; or we might draw a rash conclusion from the first view of scripture phrases, and then say the oracles of God are fallacious, and the apostles have deceived us: but these conclusions, though exactly similar to those which are brought to discredit the senses, would excite the just indignation of any person of common reflection; he would instantly see that the delusion of which we complain, was brought on, not by any deceit in our faculties, or in the scriptures, but by our own voluntary ignorance and want of thought. I will suppose an Indian from the western woods, comes into our civilized region, and, among other curiosities, he is struck with the appearance of a man standing behind a looking glass: he gazes awhile with silent astonishment, thinking one of his red brethren is really standing before him. This man's senses, you say, have deceived him; he thinks there is a glass w indow in the wall, and * Reid's Essays, vol. 1, page 388 — 291. 100 AN ESSAY ON THE A philosoijher accosts him, and says, " you must know, unlearn- ed stranger, that there is no real man behind that wall; your sen- ses are altogether fallacious, and I counsel you to take warning from this plain example; lay aside your vulgar and dogmatical confidence in sensation, and learn to follow the noble guide of reason! Indian. " Pray Mr. Philosopher, how do you prove by reason, that there is no real man standing before me?" Philo. " I know there is not: I am certain of it." Indian. " Is this what you call giving a reason, that you know, and that you are certain?'^ Philo. " No: but it has been proved a thousand times, and every body in our country knows it to be as I tell you." Indian. " If it has been proved a thousand times, you can sure- ly prove it once: I want to know what is the argument which proves that this is not really one of my red brethren from some of our towns." Philo. " You may plainly see, by observing the motions of that supposed man, that it is nothing but a figure of yourself: if you raise your hand, or move any other part of your body, you will see that figure imitate all your actions exactly." Indian. " Do you call it offering a reason then, to tell me I can •plainly see? did you not just now declare that my sight is deceit- ful, and ought not to be trusted.^ And now you appeal to my fal- lacious senses, and call this offering a feason!" Philo. " But if you will be at the pains to take down this glass, you may both see aud feel that there is nothing but a solid wall be- hind itc therefore it is not possible that you could have seen any other man but the figure of yourself." Indian. " It is true, I both see and feel that there is nothing be- hind this glass but a solid wall; but you say my senses are de- eeitful: how do I know then but that there is really a window through the wall, and a man standing on the other side, notwith- standing what I see &ndfeel? you first tell me my senses deceive me, and propose to prove it by reason; and then you turn about and appeal to my senses for the proof! I suspect sir, that you are deceitful, and that I shall gain more wisdom and happiness by trusting my senses, then by following your shuffling and contra- dictory counsels." Thus it evidently appears that reason does not correct the sup- posed fallacy of the senses; but we are indebted to the testimony of the senses for a correction of those fallacious conclusions which PLAN OF SALVATION. loi Are hastily drawn from the first appearance of things. As to the pretended imposition upon our judgment, by seeing ourselves in a mirror, or seeing a strait stick appear crooked in the water, a sa- rage or a child maybe deceived by these appearances for a little while; but it is soon discovered even by a child, that he only sees himself in the glass, and that astrait stick does not become crook- ed by being held in the water. And this discovery is made, not by the philosopher's boasted reason, but by a little attention to the plain dictates of common sense. SECTION vm. JPotiT defective rules of judgment examined. My thoughts have been wandering through the creation in quest of some other rule of judgment, by which to distinguish truth from falsehood, beside those I have attempted to explain; l*tit they had to return, like Noah's dove, without being able to find any permanent resting place. Farbe it from me to assert that there is no other kind of evidence, merely because I am unable to find it out; more capable minds may be able to discover what is beyond the grasp of my scanty thought; but until some other rule of judg- ment shall be made plain to my view, it will be readily granted that the foregoing rules of judgment ought to be my only grounds of credence. By intuitive judgment, we are enabled to perceive immediate- ly that some things are certainly true, that others are necessarily so, and that others have a self-evident probability; that is, are more likely to be true than false. We may build upon this foun- dation, and thus enlarge our knowledge by regular reasoning, and still more by the proper study of revelation; but if we depart from these rules or methods of distinguishing truth from falsehood, we are at once lost in a wide wilderness; nothing but hypothesis and conjectures surround us, and all things are equally doubtful. It is true, several other rules of judging might be adopted; but upon a close inspection there appears to be no evidence in them, and they are very apt to contradict each other. It may not be im- proper to mention a few of them, and appeal to the reader's un- £02 AN ESSAY ON THE govern our belief, instead of common sense, and reason, and reve- lation. 1st. Let it be proposed as a rule of judgment, « that the things ive have been taught from our youth are certainly true, and those which we have not thus learned from our parents and teachers, are certainly false." This is indeed a very short rule, and one that is very gratifying to indolence: for if every thing be true that I have been taught, if I must govern my belief by this rule, and reject every thing that does not accord with it, I may at once lay by my pen, my reasoa and my bible: if I can only make shift to remember wliat my fa- ther and my instructors told me to believe, it is entirely sufficient, and this is all the improvement of knowledge I ought to look for. But if I may be permitted to look abroad into the world, I can- not help seeing that my rule, thougli short, is able to produce a long string of contradictions. It teaches me that every thing in the world is true, or else that it is not at all necessary for a thing to be true, in order for it to command our belief. Pagans must believe in thirty thousand gods; Mahometans must believe in the whimsies of the alcoran; Papists must believe in purgatory and transubstantiation; Deists and Jews must believe that Jesus Christ was a crucified impostor; and Atheists must be- lieve there is no God of power, wisdom and goodness, but that there is a blind god, or goddess, called Fate or Chance, which made this great world ont of atoms. My new rule, I find, will support all those persons in their difterent creeds, provided only, that they have been tanght to believe these conti-adictory opinions, by their parents and authorized teachers of religion and philosophy. Suppose then that I lay this rule aside, and, Hying from one ex- treme to anotlier, receive it as a maxim, " that every thing I have been taught from my youth is certainly false;" will this mend the matter? so fiir from it, that, if possible, it will make it worse: for if mankind are to receive this for a rule of judgment, it will follow not only that all we have received from others in our education, is certainly false, butit will be equally evident that if we make any new discoveries by reflection, they also will be- come falsehood when we teach them to our children, and they ought of consequence to reject them as such; otherv.ise they will violate the rule, whi^h teaches, that every thing our fathers and instructors have inculcated upon us, should be rejected as a pre- judice of education. If we are to govern our belief by this, 1 hope our children are to have the same privilege, and thus, what is true in PLAN OF SALVATION. los one age becomes false in another, and therefore uho can blame philosophers for retiring into the shades of scepticism, to enjoy a state of profound ignorance, and smile at the whimsical and incon- sistent credulity of mankind? True, we could not blame them, if the world was favoured with no other method of discovering truth , than such fantastical rules as these; but if sceptics have followed such rules till they were weary of the inconsistency of them, and then, to mend the matter, have abandoned all human know ledge, they are to be pitied, on account of the dismal case into which they have fallen, and to be blamed for leaving the sure path of reason and revelation, to pursue the bewildering dictates of passion an4 prejudice, or the airy flights of conjecture and imagination. But how are these inconsistencies to be avoided? There is only one way to avoid them, and tliat is a very plain way; it is, to re- ject both those rules of judging; — to consider the mere circum- stance of our having received a doctrine from our parents and ' teachei's, as being no sign of either truth or falsehood: — and to bring such doctrines to the proper test of evidence, as well as all others. 2d. Another rule, nearly related to the foregoing, is, "to receive a doctrine for true, merely because it is believed by the majority, or at least, has a great many votaries on its side." When we have immediate conviction that a certain truth is self-evident, we mayjustly appeal to the universal judgment of mankind a5 a proof of its being an original dictate of our faculties; the real existence of a material world for example: but if we per- ceive no evidence of itfrom intuitive conviction, from reason or reve- lation, the number of votes in its favour ought to go for nothing; because this rule would lead us into the same contradictions men- tioned above. It is now a pretty general belief in the world, and was once almost universal, that there are scores and hundreds of gods in this universe; and if the truth is to be decided by vote, I suspect our heathen neighbours will still have the majority. Papists make great use of this argument, and we cannot blame them much, when we consider that they have no better; but they would do well to consider, that if a musselman, or a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, should chance to get hold of their mighty argument, he would be able to turn it against themselves, and to shake the infallible church to her centre. It is pleasant to observe with what address Demetrius, the Ephe- «iaH silversmith, made use of this mode of reasoning. « He call- 104 AN ESSAY ON THE ed together the workmen of like occupation, and said, "sirs, ye know that by this craft Ave have our wealth: moreover, ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods which are made with hands; so that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought, but also, that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.^^ Acts, xix. 25. Thus, we see the old gentleman founded his eloquent harrangue upon three very popular topics; first, our craft is in danger; se- condly, the magnijlcence of the great goddess: and thirdly, she had numbers on her side; " whom all Asia and the world wor- shippeth." These arguments did not die with Demetrius: they have descended from one generation to another, and our fathers have found them to be very convenient engines incases of necessity. But blessed be God, a few have been found in all ages, bold enough to look around, and ask, whether craft, magnificeyipe, and votes are the method or rule of evidence, by which reasonable beings are to distinguish between truth and falsehood? The same opinion which has the majority in one age, falls into the minority in another: and thus the present rule, like the for- mer, causes truth to change with the opinions of men, and the same thing that is true at this time, will be deemed a falsehood whenever it has the misfortune to be neglected and fall into the minority. And if we turn about and say, " that is certainly the truth which is believed by a few," the matter remains the same; that which is believed by few at one time, is believed by many at another, and thus we would make truth change as often as a new whim rises up to alter the fashion. For it is a lamentable fact, that books are read and doctrines believed by thousands, for no atherreason but because they are fashionable; and as the fashion of a man's coat or a woman's head-dress is altered, perhaps seven times in a few years, is it wonderful that opinions should often rise ftnd fall, with those who are disposed to regulate their belief by the same rule which produces so many revolutions in their apparel? 3d. Perhaps we shall have better success, if we take for our rule of judgment, the infancy or old age of our doctrines: "That doctrine is certainly true" will one say, "which is old and of long standing in the world." This principle has afforded another argument, which has also t>een much wanted, tind often resorted to, by tlie advocates of St, PLAN OP SALVATION. 109 Peter's chair. The holy Roman church, they say, has heen stand- ing for more than a thousand years; whereas the protestants sprang up, as it were but yesterday, and invented their heresies in the days of Martin Luther. If a doctrine be false because it is new in the world, then the popish doctrine was once false, because it once was new: this they cannot deny, unless they can make it appear that the secrets of purgatory were discovered and believed by mankind from eternity. And if popery be true because it is more than a thousand years old, then the protestant doctrines, when another thousand years shall be fulfilled, w ill also be true for the same reason. Thus it appears that any falsehood may spring up, and will gradually change into truth by the lapse of ages. At first it is a most bitter falsehood: but a few centuries will expunge its bad qualities, and, like tobacco or wine, it grows better every year. I fear my freedom of speech will give offence, which I would wish to avoid, and I shall probably be reminded that it ill becomes me to allow myself in these intolerable levities, when speaking upon subjects of such importance; but if I were hindered from indulging a little pleasantry, when beset with such ridiculous ar- guments, I am afraid I should lose my temper and get angry at them, which would be a great deal worse. The old Pharisees made great use of this kind of logic against the Redeemer of mankind; and who can blame them, if this be in deed the rule by svhich the Creator would have his reasonable crea- tures to judge? " We are Moses' diciples," say they; -' we know that God spake unto Moses, for his religion was of ancient date, but as for this fellow, we know not whence he is. Is not this the carpenter's son.^ Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Give God the praise, we know that this man is a sinner." If we should go to Ephesus, or to some other heathen country, and find another Demetrius making silver shrines for the goddess Diana, he would be able to stand his ground against the whole of us. And what shall we say of atheism itself, which appears to have been professed in our Saviour's time, and probably for a long time before he appeared upon earth? Have not atheists a right to plead the venerable antiquity of their doctrine as well as we? or does a good argument, used by a divine, become a sophism when it falls into the hands of infidels? . But the truth is, infidels are not very fond of the argument ia this form, because priests can use it as well as they; let it be turn- ed topsyturvy, and they uot only use it with great fondness, birt lOti AN ESSAY ON THE claim it as theirs exclusively. Their maxim is, that those dogmas and arguments, which are as old as the world, are not to deceive a philosopher: he knows the trutli lies in the new ideas, and new dis- coveries of scientific geniuses, who have happily escaped from the shackles of priest-craft, by the irradiations of science. But if an argument or a truth be considered to diminish in its value by age, the conclusion still follows, that truth may gradual- ly degenerate into falsehood, and reason into sophistry. And if the late discoveries of our philosophers be true, they only claim this character, it seems, by the novelty of their appearance, or the short duration they have had as ideas in the human brain; and they too, in their turn, must degenerate into falsehood and sophis- try by the lapse of ages. The transubstantiating principle is the 9ame in both cases, as to the real change produced; only the Pa- pists appear to think time has a purifying quality, and transforms falsehood inio truth; whereas the latter maxim supposes it to have a degenerating quality, so that all the value of an old truth, or aa old argument, is entirely gone, and grown out of date. 4th. Another rule of judgment is the following: "It is a sure sign of the truth of any doctrine, when it is confidently be- lieved and taught by persons of high rank and dignity, or in other word?, w hen it is believed by a great general, statesman, philoso- pher, or doctor of divinity. This maxim deserves a more particular examination than th« preceding, because, in a limited degree, it ought to have an influ- ence upon our judgment; but this degree must be carefully distin- guished from its false application. When men of understanding and habitual meditation give their judgment or opinion, in matters they have been long conversant with, some degree of credit is unquestionably due to their autho- rity, especially where a numberof them, of the same profession, agree in theirjudgraent: and it is a matterof no small consequence to form a correct view of the degree of credit that is due, that we may not follow them with a blind and implicit confidence, on the one hand, or foolishly deprive ourselves of their assistance on the other. Let me suppose an astronomer, who is known to be a person of experience and regular thinking, advances a certain matter as Iiis decided opinion, of wliich I know nothing, and have never had any evidence for or against it: he offers no argument to prove it to me, but merely tells me he believes it, and thinks he has good evir dence. PLAN OF SALVATIO.V. 107 Ought I to receive it for certain, merely because the ai5tronomer believes it? No. But still his authority aftbrds a presumption, or a degree of probable evidence to my mind, that his opinion is true. If I find other astronomers are of the same judgment, the proba- bility is increased, and reason enjoins on me to give that credit to it, that is due to presumptive evidence. Suppose the astronomer asks me whether I believe it or not, what ought to be my answer? I thiuk it ought to be this: sir, you are better able to judge of this matter than I am, and your opinion alone affords a strong pre- sumption that it is true; but though I gladly pay this proper de- ference to your judgment, yet 1 must judge for myself, and cannot believe it firmly or absolutely, till you produce some evidence to my understanding besides that of your opinion or authority. Now it is evident, while he offers no argument, and I am unable to conceive any, 1 ought not to receive it for a certain truth; but while no evidence appears against it, I ought to consider myself as being possessed of probable evidence for it, and proportion my belief accordingly. But being farther instructed in such matters, I begin to examine the subject for myself, and in the progress of my investigation, I find, or think I find, very clear evidence against the astronomer's opinion. What now must I do? I think I ought to suspend my judg- ment, and suspect it, so far at least, as not to suffer it to make a final decision, till I have examined the ground a second time: if the evidence still appear clear against him, let me lay it before some of my most impartial and judicious friends, who are compe- tent to judge in the case, to see if it will carry the same conviction to their minds that it does to my own: if they perceive the force of it, as well as myself, I am warranted in believing firmly that the astronomer was in an error; stili however, retaining a cheerful rea- diness to receive new light from any quarter. If my friends hesi- tate concerning the evidence I offer, and seem doubtful of its cer- tainty, I ought to go and review the ground a third time, with the utmost care and attention; and if I discover that 1 have been mista- ken, I ought immediately to yield to conviction; but if every suc- ceeding view of the subject should still increase the evidence to my mind,the Almighty God will approve me in using ray own judgment, independently of all authority upon earth: and 1 cannot abandon it, and regulate my belitf merely by the opinions ofother men, without being a sinner, and a positive enemy to truth. For it were to es- pouse the supposition, that a man oughtto regulate his belief by the opinion of others regardless of any other evidencs. All ether men 108 AN ESSAY ON THE have a right to aet upon the same rule, and thus tlie examination of evidence may be neglected entirely, and men of high rank and character may give tone to the opinions of the world, just as they give tone to the fashions of dress and politeness, which are chang- ing every year. Thus it appears, that it is not only our right, but our sacred du- ty to think and judge each one for himself, by those methods and rules of judgment, which God has appointed to direct his intelli- gent creatures to truth and happiness. And if I pay that deference to the judgment of others, which is properly due, and no more, if will lead me to examine the matter more closely than otherwise; whereas some divines and philosophers, I fear, have thought a de- ference should be paid them, of a directly opposite tendency: in- stead of being influenced by their authority to examine the matter with more attention and deliberation, before we form a final judg- ment, they would have us give less attention on this account, and not presume to press the enquiry any further, after we know their mind and pleasure; but to take for granted at once that the thing is true, solely because they believe it; and let their dignity as philo- sophers and doctors of divinity supply the place of every other argument. The popish doctors, it appears, make this profession openly, and in the face of heaven: they would have us understand that their infallible authority is the only rule by which we should regulate all our opinions: and it is truly surprising that they have been able to carry their project to such a height, and that the world has been so befooled by their ingenious craft. But it shows the great weakness of human nature, and evinces our ridi- culous propensities to gaze after any leader, that has cunning enough to assume some kind of dignity and grandeur above his fellows. It is a plain proof of our natural inclination to idola- try; and it went so far among some of the heathens, that the rab- ble not only yielded a blind submission to their sages and heroes, while they lived, but adored them as deities after they were dead. Deists, it is true, do not make such an open claim to these sin- gular prerogatives, as those of the sacred and holy order; but they seem very willing to avail themselves of the common preju- dice, whenever it can be done in a way that will save appearances, after all the comphiints they have uttered against priestly authori- ty. They pretend tliat all men of genius and liberal thinking are on their side; and they make almost as great a stir about the irra- diations of science and philosophy, as the priests did about their PLAN OF SALVATION. 109 sanctified divinity. Paine has informed the world that the pro- gressive improvement of the sciences will regularly discredit the christian faith; and has affirmed or insinuated, very gravely, that if men in general could be brought to understand philosophy, they would see clearly that the christian religion is contrary to the true word of God, which "is the creation we behold." And as the people in general could never see this mighty evidence, for want of a proper knowledge of science, he doubtless hoped that they would take it for granted upon the authority of a philosopher. Are deists willing, let me ask, that every man should think for himself, and pay no more blind reverence to philosophers than to divines.'' Are they willing for us to examine and expose the hy- potheses of a Gibbon, or a Hume, with the same freedom and inde- pendence, which they would allow us to use when exposing those of a popish Bellarmine.^ Are they willing we should examine ideas in the brain, as the only subject of human knowledge, and use the strong weapons of common sense against this venerable hypothe- sis, which has more antiquity to plead in its favour than evea popery itseU? If not, they show their near relationship to his ho- liness in St. Peter's chair, and need no longer complain of the craft of priests, in imposing their dignitied authority upon the su- perstitious vulgar; for it seems they are very ready to use the same craft, and avail themselves of the same superstitious weak- ness of the people, whenever it may suit their convenience. I have several times thought, that I shall have the mortification to pass among philosophers as a dogmatical and vulgar enthusiast; and among divines, as a pompous and self-sufficient heretic; but I hope a few friends will stand by me, which will aftbrd some con- solation under such a calamity. For you must know I am not so indifferent to the opinions of mankind, as to be willing to stand alone in such a world as this. And it affiards me unspeakable plea- sure to find I can screen myself under the authority of a Reid, a Beatty, and a Campbell, among philosophers; and under the au- thority of a Baxter, a Wesley, a Fletcher, and others, among di- vines; as I hope to make appear in the sequel. Not that I intend to follow any one of these, m ith a blind sub- mission, and say " Thou art my father and my master!" our hea- venly Father and Master has taught us better things, and we ought to obey God rather than man. . But we often see partialities and contradictions in men, that would be unaccountable, if we were less acquainted with human nature. You will hear one person express his iudignation agaiust P no AN ESSAY ON THE the superstitious papists, for their blind submission to popes and cardinals; but at the same time, if you touch the hypothesis of Des Cartes, Berkley, or David Hume, Esq. immediately he is of- fended that you should question the opinions of such sublime ge- niuses: another smiles at the blind disciples of Mr. Hume, but thinks you a very bold heretic if you presume to question any thing ad- vanced by Martin Luther or John Calvin. A third, is surprised at the blindattachmentand will-worship ofthepoorCalviius(s,biit at the same time considers you almost a blasphemer against revelation, if you dispute the authority of George Fox, or Robert Barclay. A fourth pities the tame credulity of the poor infatuated quakers, but at the same time rises with no inconsiderable degree of zeal and in- dignation, if you presume to dissent from any opinion believed and taught by John JFesley und John Fletcher. These are the strange inconsistencies of mankind. But what is still more provoking, a gentleman sometimes ap- pears to be indulged in the privilege of becoming dictator general, and of governing the belief of hundreds by his ii>se dixit, merely because he owns a very large farm, or lives in a very large house, or has large sums of money in bank. He was favoured, it seems, with a noble birth, and has very noble blood, and therefore w ho can doubt his indefeisible right to controul the opinions of common farmers and mechanics, and to direct them what they are to be- lieve and what they are to disbelieve? His honest neighbours, it appears, many of whom in all likeli- hood, possess more genuine wisdom and moral worth, than has been verified in his noble line from the days of his great grand-fa- ther, must prostrate themselves before his honour;-They must learn to consider themselves as a species of animals far inferior to that of his wealthy order, and must settle it down in their hearts, that the commonalty, or the peasantry are an order of beings that are to demean themselves with cringing submission, look up with reverence to their lordly superiors,and tamely yield up their under- standings to their dictatorial sway. And this is to be done, not be- cause their superiors have any more common sense or reason tban themselves; (for they sometimes have not half so much) but mere- ly because they have more gold and silver, or because they are pleased to inform the world that they have blood of a superior quality. It is not easy for any one to imagine how it would please my soul this day, if I could persuade all my vulgar brethren, as we are denominated, over the whole face of the earth, to join me heart PLAN OF SALVATION. Hi and hand, and let us try if wc cannot throw of the shackles which this piece of craft has east npon our understandings. Why should we abandon the common dignity of our nature, and submit our judg- ments to be led by a master, just like a dog or an ox? If we have - to plough their fields, and reap down their harvests, and thus wear outourftof/iesaslheirservants; forGod's sake, for truth's sake, and for the hoivour of human nature let tlie immortal soul be free! let us show them that we are men, and that we will think and judge for ourselves. They have not power to halter our understandings without our own consent: and when they cry out, "This people which knoweth not the law are cursed - thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us — Did not we straitly command . you that ye should not teach (or believe) in this name?" Let us smile and imitate the noble independence of the apostle Peter, in his re- ply to the old scribes and doctors of divinity: — "If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, he it known unto you all, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone that was set at nought of you builders, which has become the head of the corner." Acts,iv. 9. And if they cast us into prison, and make our feet fast in the stocks, let us prove, like Paul and Silas, that still the soul is free. Let us never sacrifice truth to any man's authori- ty, and the God of truth will defend us; he will support us under '^ every affliction, or shake the foundation of the prison by his power, i' and show thiit his kingdom ruleth over all. I must close this section by expressing my sincere respect for those in the higher ranks of life. There have been, and now are, many divines and philosophers, — many among the rich and influ- ential part of society, who are persons of great respectability, and 1 hope I shall never be insensible to their worth. They are men of true wisdom, veracity and benevolence; and are justly to be con- sidered among the most amiable benefactors of mankind. But how agrees this with the foregoing paragraphs? It agrees very well with them. The persons I speak of are not strutting with pompo- sity about the world, and labouring to be adored as deities, on ac- count of their being divines, philosophers, statesmen or heroes; much less on account of their money or their blood: they scorn to impose upon the souls of men and cause their understandings tg be- .come the dupes of craft and absurdity: they have no desire to put out the eyes of mankind, by taking advantage of their prejudices? in order to make them their tools and vassals; nor yet to cast a il3 ' AN ESSAY ON THE uiist before them, in order to secure their ii^norant gaze, and cause them to adore a hero as a little god, for being a mortal enemy to human happiness. But they delight to use their time and talents, their office, influence and riches, to diffuse useful knowledge, truth, virtue, piety and solid happiness among their fellow-creatures. The practice of despising their brethren of the human family, be- cause they happen to be poor, ignorant or unfortunate, is detestable ill their estimation. They glory in that candour and benevolence? iii that love of truth and righteousness, which tend to dispel the dark mists of delusion, and to assuage the miseries of the human race. They consider themselves as members of the great family of mankind, who are to live and act, not for themselves alone, but for the general welfare. They are willing that moral goodness should be the standard of esteem ; aud while they delight to enjoy the confidence and love of their fellow-creatures, they are equally willing that every other man should be esteemed in proportion to his moral worth, whether he be rich or poor, learned or unlearned. In a word, they chuse to be governed by consistency and reason, and are pleased to see their fellow-creatures render unto God the veneration due to his eternal goodness, as well as to see that they themselves are honoured, for exercising a degree of the same be- neficence. They hate the selfish atheism, which wouldleadthemto trample upon the rights of others to build up their own fame, and to use various arts, and sometimes very barbarous ones, to prevail with men to adore them as little deities, for thousands of years af- ter they are dead, to the neglect of God tlieir Creator. These are the dispositions and principles of the men, of whom I am speaking; and for these reasons 1 hope to love aud esteem them highly till 1 go down to the grave. SECTION IX. The necessity and safety of a diligent pursuit of truth. We have already noticed the false principle in divinity, that *' ignorance is the niolher of devotion.'" If this principle be admit' ted, it ^^ ill follow from it, either that " devotion is not founded in truth," or that the most successful way of understanding or know- PLAN OF SALVATION. 113 ing the truth, is " to coutinue in a state of ignorance." Tlie latter conclusion appears to be adopted by some christians, thona;h thej are not fairly willing to own it; why else are we indirectly cau- tioned against the improvement of knowledge? and >vhy is a dili- gent pursuit of truth sometimes represented as being dangerous? AH truth, rightly understood, believed and practised, tends t« the happiness of intelligent beings. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. For this end was I born, and for this purpose came I into the world, that I might bear witness unto the truth," says our benevolent Kedecmer. That one truth may be of far more importance to us then ano- ther, is evident; hat we cannot suppose any truth is naturally unfriendly to happiness, without supposing at the same time that one truth has a nature opposite to another, and in some eases falsehood is to have the preference. We might as well sup- pose that justice, in some cases, is injurious, and that injustice is then to be considered of superior value. if truth uniformly tends to the happiness of mankind, and er- ror to their ur.happiness, what danger can there be in a diligent pursuit, and extensive knowledge of the truth.? Are men in dan- ger of becoming too happy.? or are we afraid that too many delur sions will be detected.? Reasons of a very ditierent kind are alleg- ed; some of which are the following: First; It is urged that men in general, are incapable of entering into the intricacies of metaphysical reasoning: and it is essentia! to their happiness and safety, not to meddle w ith such bewilder- ing speculations, but keep to the simplicity of the gospel of Christ. I answer, 1. It is true, no man will ever gain any thing, but lose mueh^ by regularly labouring to know what he is incapable of knowing; but does it hence follow that some men are incapable of knowing any more than they know already.? or that it is a hurtful or use- less thing for them to pursue the knowledge they can acquire, be- cause it is so, for them to try to know what they cannot? There is not a man in the world, but is incapable of knowing many things: piust we all, thereforcylay by the pursuit of truth, and refuse to improve the talents we have, because it is impossible for us to im- prove those which we have not.? For a man to exercise metaphy.* sical reasonings upon what he cannot know, is not to pursue truth, but to build castles in the air upon an hypothesis. If these be the "bewildering speculations" alluded to,in the objection, I would to God that all mankind would avoid them; for they are so far il4 AN ESSAY ON THE from being a regular road to truth, that they have been the prin- cipal instruaients made use of to till the world with delusion. 2. For a man to neglect that part of trutli which is v ithin his reach, and conteut himself in a state of ignorance, under pretence that he may possibly get bewildered and miss his way, is an ab- surdity similar to that of a servant, who, after neglecting his mas- ter's business, excuses himself by saying, "sir, I thought if 1 went about the work you enjoined on me, 1 might possibly make some mistakes, and not do it exactly right: I therefore concluded my wisest and safest way was to sit still and do nothing." Some sin- ners have reasoned in this way, and for fear they might miss their way, or not persevere in the way of righteousness, they concluded never to begin! A person who confirms himself in liis ])resent ig- norance by such pitiful sophistry, need not congratulate himself Hpon his having avoided "bewildering speculations." 3. As to our keeping to the simplicity of the gospel, if we fol- low the plain dictates of reason, they will ever keep us there. According to the simplicity of the gospel we are to give all dili- gence to improve our talents, to know and obey the truth, and to be always ready to give every one an answer that asketh us a rea- son of the hope that is in us: therefore, he who pleads for the neglect of our understanding, immediately departs from the very rule he had recommended. And such persons only pretend to be ignorant, or else they have yet to learn, that true reason as well as the gospel, is very simple in its nature; and if they say that all the intricate and dark philosophy of the schools, is built upon reason, it is necessary again to remind them, that the pope will, with equal confidence, declare that the dark superstitions of the Romish religion are built upon the bible. Secondly; It may be alleged that many men have done harm with their knowledge, and had they been more ignorant, they would have been less wicked: add to this, that as the desire of knowledge proved fatal to our first parents, so it often does to their fallen children: witness the thousands who have been led to infidelity, if not to atheism itself, by their curious speculations and insatiable thirst for new discoveries. Answer, 1. That some men have done harm with their knowledge, is readily granted-, but have they not also used all the faculties of their souls, and the members of their bodies, as instruments of unrighteousness? But 1 hope every one knows that the man is culpable for all this, and not his knowledge, any more than the members of his body, or powers of his mind. Shall we conclud'e, PLAN OF SALVATION. US that because men have used their hands to do a great deal of mis- chief, it would be better for them to have no hands? or because they have more power to do harm with two hands than with one, does it therefore, follow, that the Creator would have acted more wisely, if he had given them one only? What immense evil has been done in the world by means of iron and other metals? They have been formed into instruments of death, to pour out human blood like water. But shall we hence infer that God acted un- wisely in storing the earth with those metals for the use of man? or that the proper use of them should be discouraged, because wicked men will apply them to bad purposes? And because men have far more power to spread error abroad among their fel- low-creatures, than they had when every copy of their works was written with a iten, is it therefore, to be lamcuted that the art of printing was ever discovered? 2. It is not merely the knowledge of truth, but the love of it al- • so, that is to produce genuine happiness either in ourselves or others. It is truth rightly understood, believed and used to the regulation of our practice, tbat tends to the general welfare of the world; and not barely knowing it when that knowledge is only used to invent schemes of v.ickedness; otherwise the devil him- self would be a very happy creature; for I presume he has more knowledge than any of us. When a man is striving to increase his knowledge, in order to increase his power to do harm, he ouglit indeed to be discourag- ed, because truth is not his olsject; he only aims to use it so fur as it can be abused to promote his seltish purposes, and when false- hood will serve his turn better, he gladly embraces it, and lias no more regard for truth than he has for falsehood. He pursues knowledge, as many deists read the bible, not to use it for his own real advantage, and that of others; but to try if he cannot destroy it, and thus deprive all other men of the benetit of that which he himself abhors. Have not sceptics proved this in the face of heaven? have they not laboured under the mask of love to science and human improvement, to convince mankind that all things are .equally doubtful, and that we ought not to believe any one thing rather than another? Now if mankind were brought into this state, it is evident ail knowledge of truth, and the benefit re- sulting therefrom, would be totally destroyed, unless they are plea- sed to say that the knowledge of truth consists in believing no- thing. Therefore, it is as impossible for such a sceptic to be a lover of truth, as it is for a man to be a friend to human happiness who does lu« uttermost to banish it from the face of the earth. 116 AN ESSAY ON THE And shall we therefore advise this person not to pursae the knowledge of (ruth? Advise him rather, not to pursue the destruc- Uo7iofiL Shall we say he had better be more ignorant? How can he be more ignorant, if he is now uniible to distinguish truth from fiilsehood in any one tiling in the UJiiverse? To persuade men there isdangerin pursuing tJie knowledge of truth too diligently, because some persons have run into great danger, by pursuing the destruction of it, under p-eff'nce of improving knowledge, is justas ridiculous as to declare there is great danger in being too attentive to the Chris- tian religion, because our venerable divines of the dark ages had almost banished the knowledge of it from the earth, under pre- tence of supporting, its authority. The danger consists — not in our diligence, — not in the abun- dance of our knowledge, — not in striving to understand truth too perfectly and extensively; but in those selfish principles and per- nicious prejudices which influence us to conceal, stifle, and suppress all evidence that seems to have a bearing against our favourite idols, a^id to pursue doctrines and defend them, not be- cause they are true, but because they are necessary to the support of our party, our pleasure, or our pride. Candour is so essential to the discovery of truth, that a man without candour will not on- ly miss it, but actually is not pursuing it, however diligent he may be in the pursuit of his studies. His opinions are already formed, by the rule of passion and prejudice, and he is labouring to find something to defend them. When he finds any thing that accords with his opinion, he receives it gladly and sets it ofi" to the best advantage; but if evidence appear against him, however clear, he labours to conceal it, both from hinjseif and others, and is unwilling it should be brought to light, for fear a full view of it would show where the trutli was, so plainly, that it would be al- most irresistible. Such a person is not pursuing doctj'ines because tliey are trne^ but because they are subservient to liis purposes; and when error will serve his turn to the best advantage, he will love it so much better than truth, that the clearest evidence will be resisted and hated for its sake. 3. As to our First Parents, 1 grant the desire of knowledge was one cause of their apostacy; but was not the desire of happiness another cause? And is it then a just inference to conclude that a diligent pursuit of happiness is dangerous, and ought to be dis- couraged? This conclusion must stand or i'nM with the one 1 am opposing; and I presume it is impossible to banish knowledge from the world without destroying happiness in the same proportion. PLAN OF SALVATION. 40 In what did the danger or the fault of our first parents consist? It consisted in vainly attempting to increase their knowledge and their happiness, by recurring to imaginary means of obtaining thera, which God had never appointed. The devil formed an hy- pothesis for our Mother five, which she took for granted, and made the foundation of a very grand and interesting system, as she sup* posed. The hypothesis was, " that she would sustain no manner of injury by partaking of the fruit, which her Maker had forbidden; but that on the contrary, she would gain much wisdom by it, and become like God himself.'' Now what evidence had our mother for this theoretical maxim? She had no more evidence for it, than she had that lier great and benevolent Creator was a deceiver and a liar. But she rashly ad- mitted it without evidence, and probably her imagination was cal*- i*ied away with many fantastical conclusions, concerning her fu- ture dignity, happiness, wisdom and divine prerogatives, when she should become a goddess, knowing good and evil. Was she expos- ed to danger by the diligent pursuit of truth? Just the contrary: she admitted the deviPs theory, not from a diligent examination, but from the want of it: had she carefully reflected upon the abun- dant evidence she had of the veracity of Almighty God; — that she had no proof against it but the bare word of this tempter; — that in receiving his declaration, she must necessarily renounce all the evidence she ever had of the tender care, wisdom, kindness and truth of her heavenly Father: — had she thus reflected, 1 say, and acted according to the convictions of her understanding, the snare would have been effectually broken. But, neglecting to pursue truth with diligence, and being content with her present ignorance of the danger that threatened her, she admitted the devil's hypothesis with very little hesitation, and thus brought wretchedness and death upon herself and family. And I am a little inclined to think that hypotheses have been among the most successful engines of Satan from that day to the present. 4. It is alleged in the objection, "that thousands have been led lo deism, if not to atheism, by tlieir curious speculations and in- satiable thirst for new discoveries." I feel no hesitation in admitting this to be very probable, if not oertainly true: and I am so far from fearing it will militate against the conclusion here defended, that I hope to make it appear that it destroys the opposite conclusion. The curious speculations, and thirst of new discoveries, which fed men to unbelief and scepticism, did not arise from tha l©Yt of iia AN ESSAY ON THE truth, nor eonsequently from a sincere desire to find itj otherwise llie} would have regulated their enquiries by evidence and by no- thing else; unless some one will be pleased to assert, that truth is discovered and supported by something else besides evidence. 1 readily grant (hat it is possible for me to think very diligently, and at the same time, through a vain curiosity, or foolish eager- Iiess, I may expose myself to great danger, by running beyond the light of evidence, either to make a discovery in less time, and by a shorter process, than that of regular and patient induction, or to ex- plore and pretend to account for things, of which 1 know nothing at all, and cannot know, because they are beyond the reach of my understanding. So far as I have evidence, jo far 1 have knowledge in exact proportion to it: and if 1 be content to follow the evidence, and aim at no knowledge but tJiat to which it conducts me, by chaste and clear comparisons and consequences, (which, by the way, is all the knowledge 1 can have) there is no manner of dan- ger ill the pursuit; but if 1 leave the evidence, in order to make greater discoveries than those to which it will lead me, or to find out a greater number of them, or to discover them sooner, or w ith less labour, then indeed I am in great danger, because I am no lon- ger in the pursuit of truth, otherwise 1 would not desert the evi- dence of it, by which alone it can ever be ascertained. The love of truth will never produce in me a desire to make any other discoveries than such as are true, and I shall regard the discovery no farther than I perceive evidence that it is true; otherwise it is not for the sake of truth 1 am labouring, but for the sake of something else. Perhaps I am very desirous to obtain /trnf; to immortalize my- self, or at least my name; — to secure literanj glory to ray memO' ry; — to have a monument built of wood or stone; — to live in the people's memories; — to enjoy immortality from their breath; — and, to weoi' a crown of laurels, for many ages after 1 am tfead. Now to accomplish this end, several things are essentially ne- cessary. First: Something extraordinary must be done. I must make new and great and ingenious discoveries: there must also be a suf- ficient number of them to form w hat may be called my theory, — my system, that I may pass for a great ^-(jw ins and a philosojiher. Secondly: 1 must be very careful to frame my discoveries in a way that shall strike in w ith the passions and prejudices of the people; — at least with those who will probably have the greatest kaml in conl'crriug literary glory upon me. iieuce, if 1 find evi- PLAN OF SALVATION. iie -dence leading me to conclusions opposite to tlie most darling sys- tems and theories injtJie world, especially those of divines and phi» losophers, I mnst immediately reject that evidence, and give over the doctrines to whicli it leads, otherwise I shall become vnpopU' /aj*, and the whole body of divines and philosopliers will do their utmost to deprive me of the crown of laurels. Thirdly: My discoveries must be sublime, like those of a true genius: they mnst be far above common or vulgar opinions, and must be supported in a manner far more sublime, than to be subject to the test of old worn-out arguments, or to the vulgaf dictates of common sense; they are to be so refined and phi- losophical, that the commonalty and peascmtri/, shall be totally in^ capable of understanding any thing concerning them. Fourthly: They must have the appearance, at least, of great plausibility, and ingenious reasoning; otherwise they will be apt to expose me instead of securing my immortality. Suppose then I perceive that one of my discoveries would be very unpopular, and another is incapable of being supported by solid arguments: what must I do.'' The unpopular discovery must be abandoned without farther ceremony; and as to the other, though it cannot be supported by any solid proof, yet there is one expedient by which I can save appearances, and secure my future fame. Let an hypothesis be invented, and cautiously guarded against too close an inspection, till the system be built upon it, that the eyes of men may be so dazzled w ith the regular deductions and philosophical appearance of the superstructure, that their atten- tion may be diverted from the defective and theoretical founda- tion. Care must be taken too, that the hypothesis have some ap- pearance of plausibility: it must seem to account for some pheno- mena of nature. It must also be above vulgar apprehension; so that if any one attempt to attack it with the w capons of common sense, the whole may be resolved into his unphilosophical igno- rance. Perhaps the brains would be a good seat for the hypothe- sis, \\ here the vulgar are not very conversant: no man has ever seen his brains, and it is not to be presumed that any person is so well calculated to describe the images of them as a philosopher 1 can decorate the ground-work with many learned names which may serve the better to conceal it from public notice: I can treat in systematical order, of the organs of sensation — 6f the animal spi- rits, — of the optic and olfactory nerves, — of the pineal gland,— * of the souVs presence chamber, — of liie ideas, or images of sound — and how they travel through the air, enter my ear and progress 120 AN ESSAY ON THE througb the organs till they reach the brain, M'liere they take their seat, or are laid by in their proper apartments, and reserved for future use. If a man should have the assurance to rise up, and declare he never saw his brains, or an idea in all the m orld, and that he ac- tually sees his wife and children without ever using ideal spectacles in his brains, — it is surely an easy thing for me to si- lence him, " by telling him he is a poor, unphilosophical, vulgar and dogmatical enthusiast, that knows nothing about the laws of nature." Now 1 must appeal to my friendly reader, and ask two plain ques- tions. 1, Is it not possible that 1 should pursue such a method as is hei-e described.^ If so,letit be remembered, that whateveris possible may be supposed for the sake of argument. 2. If I should pursue such a method, w ould it not be very clear that truth would not be my object.^" If so, let it be remembered, that the danger of such a method affords no argument to prove there is any danger in the practiceof diligently pursuing the knowledge of truth: consequent- ly, for aught that has yet appeared to the contrary, it is impossible for knowledge to be improved too much, or for truth to be pursu- ed with too much attention, scrutiny and perseverance, while the love of truth, or candour, regulates our course, w ithout which the true enlargement of human knowledge is not the object we aiie al'ter. SECTION X. yhe necessity and safety of a diligent communication of truth. If it be necessary, safe and right, for a man to pursue truth witli diligence, because it naturally tends to promote human felicity, then it is equally necessary, safe and right, for him to communicate the know lodge of it to his fellowrcreatures. Are there any objections to this conclusion? There are several^ the chief of which we will briefly examine. First: It may be said, we ought to accommodate ourselves to the people's ignorance; and if we attempt to lead them into pro- found subjects, which they are not able to bear, we shall onj^y PLAN 6P SALVATIQJJ'. 131 dause them to stumble into greater errors, and they will be materi- ally injured, instead of being benefitted by our oiftciousness. An- swer: That caution should be used in the manner of our communica- tions, is freely acknowledged. A father, if he would benefit his children, must not attempt to communicate the highest branches of knowledge to them, until the knowledge of plainer truths shall have given them a capacity to receive those of a higher order. Hence our Saviour says, "I have many things to say unto you, but ye are not able to bear them now. What I do thou knowestnot BOW, but thou shalt know hereafter." And hence God nursed up the ancient Israelites, as children in a state of minority: " The law was their school-master," and they " were kept under tutors, aii4 governors until the times appointed of the Father;" and many great truths of the gospel were hid for ages, because the world was not then capable of receiving them. God, as thegreatfatherofmankind,knowsperfectly theircapaci- ty and state of mind, and knows what portion of truth is most suita, kle to their present condition: he accordingly gave a revelation, by Moses, adapted to the infant state of the world, and made known his truth more fully, by the Lord Jesus Christ, after his former dis- pensations had opened the way for it, by maturing the minds of his feeble children. In like manner, a minister, or any other man who is about to ad- dress a particular assembly, whom he knows to be very ignorant and uninformed, should accommodate himself to their capacity. Thus Paul says to the Corinthians, " I have fed you with milk, and not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, nei- ther yet now are ye able." 1 Cor. iii. 2. And he reproves the He- brews, because he had to use the same method with them; who, had they improved upon the means of knowledge in their power^ might have been able to teach others: '• For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." Heb. v. 13. Here he blames them for neglecting to improve their knowledge, and says expressly, that they « ought to teach others also:" he therefore enjoins the two duties for which I plead: 1. " That we ought to improve our knowledge as mtieh as possible;" and 2, "That what we gain we should communicate to others, that they may enjoy the benefit as well as ourselves." i23 AN ESSAY OX THE When a man addresses himself to the Morld, he ought not sure- ly to keep back any part of the truth, that he is able to understand} and to prove by evidence which to him appears satisfactory, for fear those to whom he addresses himself should not be capable of receiving it: for what could this arise from but the pride and piti- ful self-sufiicieney, that would lead him to think no person in the world could understand the truth so well as hiniscU? Must he eonsider mankind as his chiMreu, and thus put himself in the place of God? And suppose some should be unable to enter into the sub- ject, must it be kept back on this account? If so, it would appear, that a considerable part of the scriptures should have been kept hack; for " our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom gi- ven unto him, hath written some things hard to be understood, ■which the ignorant and unlearned wrest, as Ihey do also the other scriptures, even to their own destruction." Had those ignorant people improved their understanding, by proper attention to truths within their reach, they might have be- come sufficiently learned, to have understood the deep things which the apostle wrote, or at least to have avoided stumbling at them; but I suspect they were too indolent to come to an under- standing of those things, by the slow method of regular improve- ment in knowledge: they probably formed some hypothesis to help them to the understanding of Paul's writings in a shorter way, and without much labour; and hence they ivrested them to their own destruction. Secondly: It may be alleged, that we ought to accommodate our- selves to the prejudices of mankind, and not advance doctrines, however true, against which there are strong and general prepos- sessions, lest we drive people still farther from the truth. Paul « became all things to all men, that he might gain the wore." T© this I answer: 1. Paul accommodated himself to the different customs and manners of the people, that were in themselves indirterent, and walked cautiously and prudently among them, that he might not exasperate them, or augment those passions and prejudices which his aim was to destroy; but he kept back no part of the counsel of God, either in his preaching or his writings, under pretence of submitting to their prejudices. 2. When our brethren, through weakness of understanding, are very scrupulous concerning certain indifferent matters, as eating different kinds of meat, and the like, we ought to be cautious not tn wound their weak consciences; but to accommodate ourselves to PLAN OF SALVATION. 12S iheir feeble miiuls, till they be better informeil, or more capable of receiving iustructioii. 3. We ought never to attack people's prejudices with the wea- pons of auger, bitterness, or ammosity; this would be the direct way to increase them, because it would be to fight delusion on its own ground; but farther accommodations than these are inadmis- sible; because ii" the calm dispassionate voice of reason and reve- lation is to be suppressed or laid aside, on the ground stated in the objection, we at once espouse the principle, that when truth and prejudice come into contact or competition, the former ought to yield to the latter. 4. if a:Iaker, is so far from being preferable to the truth, that it has produced the most dismal consequences. Some have been led by it to conclude, that after spending a life of wickedness, they could move the passions of the Almighty, and melt him into pity by their tears and groans. Others have feared he was in such a rage of passion against them, that it was very difficult to appease his fury. The heathens imagined that scenes of barbarity would gratify his vengeance, and hence they were led to burn their own children in (he fire. 2. Some have appeared to be suspicious of any doctrines that would give too full a view of i\ie kindness or mercy of God, lest men should leap into presumptuous conclusions, and harden themselves in their transgressions. And is there any danger, think you, in believing God to be ful- ly as meicifiiland kind as he actually is, and can be proved to be? Avould it discourage sin more eft'eetually for the world to be kept a little in the dark, and be prevailed on to believe that there is some barbarity in God, in order for them to be restrained by the force of terror? I think not. Men are very apt indeed, to run into presumptuous conclusions, and hence to harden themselves in iniquity; but this never arises from that view of the Divine nature which is according to truth, but from some delusive notion of it. One error is never to be cured by another, and I presume ag much sin has been produced by believing God to be less merciful than he is, as has been brought on by believing him to be more merciful than he is. Was any sin prevented in popish countries, by believing that all infants who died withoutbaptism, were to be everlastingly damned in hell? or that God was delighted to see heretics burnt at the stake, and that his soul will be gratified to hear them and their in- fant children cry and groan in hell-flames forever? Was any sin ever prevented by believing that all heathens are to be forever damned, for not believing in Jesus Christ, of m hom they never heard? Was any sin ever prevented by believing that most men . were ordained to damnation, by the sovereign pleasure and un- changeable decree of God ? No: such a barbarous divinity is just as unfriendly to holiness, as the loose tenets of those who represent J 30 AN ESSAY ON THE God as being a lover of sin, or who believe that there is nothing in his nature but mercy. And indeed they meet together in the same point; for how easy is it for those who believe God is possessed of the evil principles of injustice and barbarity, to be- lieve he is possessed of the evil principles of partiality alsoP They can suppose he has a humorous fondness for them, and thus indulge themselves in presumptuous sins as much as the others. All the difterence is, that the others suppose God has this humour- ous fondness for all the world, and they suppose he has it for a part, among whom they stand in the first rank, or at least that they certainly have a share in this partiality, w hich was secured by an absolute and eternal decree. And suppose men were brought to believe that God had no mer- cy in his nature, but took such pleasure in seeing his creatures in torment, that he intended to send all men and angels into hell; would sin be prevented by this? so far from it, that it would only produce terror and dismay for a little while, which would pioba- bly degenerate into anger and resentment, and from that into atheism. I pray God to save good men from the pitiful hypothesis, that there is danger in following the light of evidence too closely, for fear it should lead us to some truth that will encourage sin! If any falsehood is necessary to promote virtue, w hy not tell lies to encourage holiness.^ AVhy not deceive the people for their good? AVhy not use pious frauds to support religion; or in plain English, why not do evil that good may come? Shall we keep men in falsehood, that truth may prevail, or do evil; that good may come? God forbid. Let the glorious nature and attributes of our Maker be understood according to truth, let us avoid attributing to God a want of justice and holiness, on the one hand, and believing in a gloomy and barbarous divinity, ©n the other; both of which are alike unfriendly to virtue and hu- man happiness: and let us never dream that God is so destitute of wisdomandgoodness, as to put certain means of knowledge within •ur power, the diligent use of which is dangerous, and may lead to conclusions that would be naturally calculated to encourage wick- edness. Such inconsistencies do not belong to God, but are invent- ed by the imaginations of men. 1 grant a doctrine believed without evidence, even though it should happen to be true, will be apt to prove unfriendly to virtue and happiness; for if there be no proof of it, that we are able to discover, we have every ground to ceusider it either a falsehood, PI-AN OF SALVATION. 131 or a trutt that the wisdom of God has concealed from mankind, because they are not in a fit state to receive it, and therefore, in all likelihood, the belief of it, though true, would, from their par- tial conceptions, cause them to stumble into some error which w ould lead them into sin. For example, let us consider the dying thief, whom our Saviour pardoned on the cross: it may be that he had long before that time believed that he should obtain mercy in his last hours, and, from that persuasion, had hardened himself in his ungodliness, as many have done in ail ages of the world. If so, the thing which he believed was true, and came to pass accordingly. But he had no evidence of its truth, and therefore must have believed it upoa ihe grouud of ht/puthesis: other sinners are equally destitute of evidence in this matter, and liave an equal right to the hypothesis; but for one that finds lie believed the truth, perhaps nine hundred prove, too late, that they believed a falsehood. iS'ow, in such cases, I acknowledge there is great danger, and the belief is of bad tendency, even though the object of their pre- sumption may afterwards be found to be true; but it will not hence follow, that there ever is danger in pursuing truth to the utmost of our abilities, provided we believe nothing as true, but 30 far as it is supported by evidence. The case under consideration, is not believing the thing, on ac- count of its having any sign of truth: but merely believing it upon the ground of fanciful conjecture. This is always dangerous, as I have attempted to make appear. Though the conjecture may chance to be true, in many eases, yet it is irrational to believe it till we have evidence of its truth, and is as much a violation of the method which God has appointed to govern the belief of rea- sonable creatures, as if it should prove to be a falsehood. Though hypotheses may be formed, as Dr. Reid observes, to excite inqui- ry, yet nothing but evidence should govern the belief of any man, if he would continue safe and happy, or even lay claim to the prerogatives of an intelligent being. We should never assent, even with a doubtful or hesitating faith, until some grounds of probability appear; and after they do appear, he should be still on his guard, and refuse to believe with firm assurance, while the evidence is only presumptive or probable. Many arbitrary conjectures have been invented concerning the purifying influence of the fires of purgatory, or of hell: con- cerning another state of probation for sinners, after death: con- ceruiug their admittance into heaven, at the day of judgment, or iBJ AN ESSAY ON THE at some other time: concerning the nature of their torment, and of their accompanying the prince ofthepoiver of the air: concern- ing their future annihilation, and the like. Tliese rovings of the imagination commonly have a pernicious influence upon their votaries, and if the scripture even said no- thing against them, the most that could be said in their favour is, that they are unsupported hypotheses; and therefore ought not to govern the belief of any thinking man, till some evidence be pro- duced of their reality. I am apt to think it is impossible for anj such evidence to be produced; and we ought to be very cautious how we receive such opinions; for even supposing some of them to be according to truth, (that of departed sinners accompanying Satan upon errands df mischief, for example,) the belief of them being purely hypothetical, would be the same thing as believing falsehood upon a similar ground; (seeing both would be a depar- ture from all evidence) and if any man should hope to improve human knowledge, by leaving the proper methods which God has vouchsafed for our instruction, to launch into the bold and fic- titious regions of conjecture, let him look at the history of the world, from the days of Aristotle to those of Mr. Hume, and let him take warning by the wrecks he will behold, of religion, of happiness, of reason, and of common sense. PLAN OF SALVATION. 13a CHAPTER n. UPON THE NATURE AND GROUNDS OF REDEMPTION- SECTION L Ji view of the Divine Attributes,. It is evident from the scriptures, tliat the coming of the Lord o'f glory to redeem fallen man, is the most important event that has occurred since the beginning of the world. Christ is the "foundation, the chief corner stone of the prophets and apostles. He is the light of the world, and the life of men. He is the mediator between God and man — the friend of sinners, and the beloved of the Father, full of grace and truth. He is the image of the invisible God — the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last — and in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God-head bodily" In a word, he is the Saviour, the Governor ^diwA Judge, of the whole human family, and will reign till all enemies are sul)dued under his feet. We all want to know for what purpose he lived, died, and rose again from the dead; nor are we alone in being thus inquisitive, for these are "things which the angels desire to look into." 1 Pet. i. 12. If the extent of this subject be such as affords matter for the en- largement of angelic knowledge, as the apostle's words seem to in- dicate, how can we hope to comprehend it completely, in our pre- sent state of being! The more we look into, and understand it, the more evidently shall we behold "the glory of God, shining in the face of Jesus Christ;" but never in this world, if in the world to come, shall we be able to comprehend the whole extent of its influence, or the immediate connexion between the cause and the effect. The connexion between cause and effect is a mystery in every part of the creation. Even in vegetation, in the growth of a spire of grass, our under-standings have limits, beyond which they cannot penetrate. The operations of animal nature are equally difficult; much more those of the intellectual world. Is it wonder- ful then that the nature of God, and the great scheme of redemp- tion, should contain some mysteries which we cannot fathom? ^'Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preach- S iSi AN ESSAY ON THE ed unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Tim. iii. 16. But though we cannot comprehend the whole of our great Crea- tor's works, either natural or supernatural; jet he has given us faculties whereby we may regularly enlarge our knowledge, and he calls us to the exercise of them: we ought tlierefore "to give at- tendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. "NVe ought to me- ditate upon these things, and give ourselves wholly to them; that our profiting may appear to all." 1 Tim. iv. 1.3. 15. It is our wis- dom, duty and happiness, to endeavour to understand the great plan of salvation as well as possible: " of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of thegrace that shouUl come unto you: searching what the spirit of Christ, which was in them did signify, when it testified before-hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 1 Pet. i. 10. 11. If then tlie prophets, who were under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, found it necessary, and considered it laudihle, to use their understanding in diligent inquiries and meditations Hpon the glorious doctrine of redemption; surely we are justified in following their example, and I presume neither prophets nor apostles will ever reprove us for the inquiry, or persuade us not to search too diligently. The principle on which the necessity of redemption is founded, is, that man is a sinner, faiien and corrupted, and that God is not willing he should perish; hut that he should come to repentance and salvation. Man, by nature, is prone to evil, and by practice, has becom^i a positive rebel. Misery and death have become univer- sal; but an universal remedy has been provided: for, "as by the of- fence of one, judgment come upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men un- to justification of life." Rom. 5. 18. " For the creature was made siibjcct to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope: because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liber- ty of the children of God." iiom. viii. 21. This glorious deliverance will be accomplished through our Lord Jesus Christ, " whom the heaven must receive until the time of restitution of all things, which Gad hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Acts iii. 21. As to ihc particvJar ends for which our Saviour came into the world, they need «ot all bo enumerated: sufiice it to say, he cam* PLAN OF SALVATION. 133 to counteract the aecidentai consequences of A(lam*si sin upon the unsinning part of the creation, according to the above quoted scrip- tures: — he came to destroy death by a general resurrection: — "he came to fulfil all righteousness, and set us an example that we should follow his steps: — he canie to bear witness unto the truth, and to conlirm the proniises made unto the fathers: — he came to teach us the good and the right way, to preach the gospel to the poor, and the opening of the prison doors to them that were bound- he came to destroy the works of the devil, and to reign till he shall put all enemies under liis feet: — he came to die, the just for tlie un- just, to condemn sin in (he flesh, to offer his soul a sacrifice for sin, that the world through him might not perish, but have everlasting life:" he came "to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins:" in a word, he came "to ther they be things in earth or things in Heaven!' But what was the comprehends all the particulars? I would answer, that he came to make such an atonement for sin, as should glorify God, in the grant of pardon to the guilty, in relieving the miserable, and in pro- curing final salvation for the chedient. iVm I right in this view of the subject, or am I wrong? Wliat saith the scripture? That Jesus is exalted to be a prince and a Saviour, and that the whole of our salvation is obtained through the redemption that is in him, is a point so abundantly established throughout all the scriptures, that there is no necessity of confirming it at present by particular proofs: no man who believes the bible w ill pretend to call it in question. And that he came to glorify God in this salvation of sinners, is al- so undeniable, from his own express declaration. "Now is my soul troulded; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: hut for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I hava both glorified it, and will glorify it again;' "Jesus said, now is the son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him." John. xiii. 27. 28. — xii. 31, "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that w ill I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son" John xiv. 13. "I have mani- fested thy name unto the men which thou gavcst me out of the world: 1 have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work whichthougavestmetodo." John, xvii.4. 6. "Father,the hour is come: glorify thy son, that thy son also may glorify thee." ver. 1. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying glory to God in the highest, and on ':ood-willtoivardmen."jA\ke.n. 13. 14. 136 AN ESSAY ON THE Thus, it is evident Jesus came to make the salvation of sinners accord with the full glory of God; and not as some wouli^ Iiave it, that he came merely to satisfy the divine Justice, as if the glory of God consisted in this alone. It is true he came to satisfy justice, because justice is a moral attribute of the Deity, and must be gloriKed as well as his other perfections; but goodness and holiness were no more satisfied for sinners to be pardoned without a Redeemer, than justice itself: therefore, as redemption reconciles the salvation of sinners with the glorious nature and attributes of God, every moral perfection is alike satisfied and exalted by our Lord Jesus Christ. fFliat is meant by the glory of God? or, in what does his essential glory consist? " And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he said, I beseech thee, show me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass be- fore thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee, 8^.6. And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keep- ing mercy for ihous-Ands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." Exod. xxxiii. 11, 18. 19 — xxxiv. S, 6. &c, Jlere the xllmighty God condescends to inform u* in what his es- sential glory consists; first, in goodness under its various forms of grace, mercy and long-sufferivg: secpnd, in truth, and the third in justice: that will by no meaijs clear the guilty. There is one thing in this passage deserving very particular at- tention: after proclaiming his goodness in various forms of expres- sion, and decla,ring heforgiveth iniquity, and transgression, and sin, God immediately adds, "that he will by no means clear the guilty." Is not here the appeara?iee of a contradiction.? that he Tf'i// forgive sin, and that he Mill not forgive it at the same time.? Answer: it is said in the most unequivocal manner that he tvill forgive; but it is not said he will not forgive; but that he will by no means clear the guilty; that is, he will not excuse the guilty, or grant them any legal discharge from the penalty, by constituting them innocent. If they would obtain deliverance from punishment, it must be by his goodness granting a free pardon, because no other kind of a discharge will ever accord with his nature and government. There are ceitain means through which he will par- don the guilty, but he will by no means clear them any other way, PLAN OF SALVATION. 137 not even by the means of redemption; for I think we shall find it was no part of our Saviour's design to exonerate sinners from guilt, by constituting them innocent, hut to introduce them to a throne of mercy, as guilty rebels, that divine goodncs may forgive them. Some suppose God will clear the guilty, or constitute them innocent, by means of a certain imputation; but God himself de- clares, he will by no means do it; because he has determined tliey shall be delivered from the penalty no other way but by his "goodness, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin." This shall afterAvards be considered more particularly. Again, we learn that the Lord is glorious in holiness. "Give un- to the Lord the glory due unto his name: worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness." And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in rightemisness and true holiness.'^ Psalm xxix. 2. Eph. iv. 24. We learn farther that ^'justice and judgment are the habita- ' tion of thy throne: merci/ and truth shall go before thy face." "I will speak of the glorious honor of thy majesty, and thy won- drous works. The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion, slow to anger, and of great mercy. The Lord is righteous in all his ways and holy in all his works," Psalm 89. 14 — 145. 5. 8. 17. And after these things 1 heard -a great voice of much people in Heaven, say- ing. Alleluia, salvation, and glory, and honor, and power unto the Lord our God: for true and righteous are his judgments; for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornitication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." Rev. xix. 1. 2. It appears from all these passages, to which many more might be added, that the glory of God, which our Saviour came to dis- play and vindicate, consists in his goodness, justice ^ truth and holi' ness. We must now inquire into the meaning of those words, and endeavour to obtain clear conceptions of the moral attributes to which they call our attention. For it is in vain we are told that goodness belongeth unto .God, unless we know Mhat the term good- ness means, and so of justice, and all the rest^ The scriptures being written in human language, common words are used according to their common meaning; the inspired M'riters rarely, if ever, give a definition or explanation of the words they use, which would swell the bible into volumes, but they leave us to learn the nature of intellectual and moral quali- ties, by eon in practice if notpreventedv T i^3 AN ESSAY ON THE He who Mishes another to be injured, and who would injure him, were it not for the fear of being detected, punished or expos- ed, is also an unjust man in principle. It follows that no man can be truly just without "loving his neighbour as himself, and doing to others as he would they should do to him." God has a right to the supreme veneration, love, and obedience of all intelligent creatures. All innocent creatures, in a state of perfect order, ha> e a right to the character of innocence, and to the consequeuces of it; and no person can charge them with being guilty when are they not so, or punish them as such, without being unjust. WJien one creature knowingly and intentionally acts in opposi- tion to the right of other creatures, or of his Creator, he thereby forfeits his own right to the character and consequences of inno- cence, and deserves to be punished in proportion to his demerit. He has a right still to demand that tlie blame and punishment, shall not exceed tlie oSence; and no being can charge him with more guilt than he has actually contracted, or punish him for Sfimes he never committed, without being unjust. If his children, or other creatures, are involved in misery in consequence of his crime, which they would otherwise have avoid- ed, he has injured them in defiance of justice, and this is a princi- pal ground of his demerit or ill desert. His guilt, however, is not in proportion to the extent of the inju- ry considered distinct from, but in conjunction with, his knowledge and intention to do wrong. I will suppose one man discharges a pistol at a tree, in order to scare a person who stands near it, and that the bullet glances from the side of the tree and passes throught his liead; another fires at liis neighbour with an intention to break his arm, but inadvertently shoots him through the heart: a. third deliberately runs a sword through his neighbour's body, with the full intention to take his life. Here are three cases, in which the hurt or loss sustained by the sufferers is the same. But does any reasonable man want arguments to convince him that the degree of guilt is not the same in all those eases? Had nothing followed in the first case but what was intended, the injury would have been comparatively small; but still the thing was criminal, because the intention wJis to scare a person by such means as he knew, or might have known, would (Expose his fellow -creature to considerable danger. But in the last ■^ft»e there was a full intention to deprive another of his life with PLAN OF SALVATION. 148 a lull knowledge of tlie immediale tendency of the means made use of, to produce that efiect. When one or more creatures are brought into a state of misery or natural disorder, by the bad conduct of others, or by any other means, the person that shall deliver Uliem from this state, through a regard to their happiness, without being under any obligation of justice to do it, and without violating any right of others, is truly benevolent. If in doing this, he should find it necessary to expose himself to any kind or degree of suffering, which justice did not require of him, which should not be inconsistent with his I'esuming again his native happiness, and which was endured from a pure intention to glorify God and enlarge the Jiappiness of his creatures, this suf- fering, far from being unjust, would increase the merit of his be- nevolence. To deny this, is to say it is unjust to be kind, and an innocent person must never be benevolent but where it costs him nothing, If he should find it necessary to inflict a degree of pain on any of those creatures with his own hand, which justice did not require that they should endure, in order to prevent a greater evil or es- tablish them in a state of perfect happiness afterwards, this suf- fering inflicted on them, far from being unjust, would result from pure benignity, whicli carries justice in its bosom, and bestows more happiness on others than they have a right injustice to de»^ mand. Injustice consists, not merely in inflicting pain on the innocent, but in doing it when it is unnecessary, and from such a regard to some selfish gratification, as makes the agent regardless of the rights or happiness of the innocent sufterer. But when the pain is necessary to counteract a disorder v* hich would produce a greater degree or duration of it in future, or which would prevent a last- ing benefitj the person who inflicts it from a pure regard to the increase of happiness and diminution of misery, is perfectly just and good. Deny this, and we say at once, that all physicians are nnjust, or else that they always inflict pain on their patients in ex- act proportion to what they deserve, and what justice inflexibly requires. These statements I must now take for granted: for their truth I appeal to the reader's judgment, and shall forbear tracing tli^ absurdities which would follow from a denial of them, till I come to apply them to the several doctrines defended in the present es* ady. IM AN ESSAY ON THE 3. The moral attribute of truth, consists in a perpetual will or disposition to think, speak and act, with a sacred regard to truth, and never intentionally to do any thing that is calculated to deceive ourselves or others. It implies such a love of truth, arising from a conviction of its tendency to promote the happiness of intelligent beings, as shall influence us to use all the means in our power to know the truth, to assist others to know it, — to guard against falsehood, to assist others to guard against it, — and to abhor all lying, deceit or dis- simulation. So far as any man indulges prejudice^ or refuses to give evi- dence a fair hearing, through party attachments, voluntary neg- ligence, or any thing else that depends upon his will^ so far he is deficient in the love of truth. So far as any man knowingly and intentionally uses sophisti- cal reasonings, or any kind of false evidence, calculated to de-' ccive others and impose upon their understandings, so far he acts in opposition to the moral attribute under consideration, and is so fiir culpable before that Almighty Being, who requireth truth in the inward parts. Through the w eakness of our understanding, we are all liable to fall into errors, and to lead otliers into them; but in such cases as do not arise from indolence, or any want of attention or can- dour on our part, wo are altogether inculpable, because no person is blamable for not doing that which is not in his power. 4. Iloliness, I think, is a general term, not so properly applied to any distinct and particular attribute, as to the perfection of alJf moral attributes in harmony. A being that is perfectly benevolent, just and true, we call a holy being; and surely his holiness consists in the perfection of his justice, truth and goodness, and in nothing else: at least, if there be any other moral quality distinct from these, I have ne- ver been able to form any con&eption of it. Shall we say holiness consists in moral purity and a perfect hatred of sin? But vyhat is moral purity but the perfect iufluenco of the attributes above mentioned? And what does hatred of sin arise from, but from a love of goodness, truth and justice? Mr. Wesley som-ewherc speaks, and 1 think very properly, con- cerning " holiness in all its branches." The several »branches of it are mentioned above, and as unniercil'nlness, injustice and falsehood are the branches of wickedness or unholiness, so their wpposites are tli^e branches of holiness, which is a general term. PLAN OF SALVATION. 145 including every principle aud action that is necessary to perfect rectitude. Although justice, truth and benevolence, may be conceived dis- tinctly from each other, yet I think there is a kind of unity in them, and a mutual dependence, whicli makes them appear to be insepa- rable. He >vho is so destitute of a regular regard to human hap- piness as to refuse to be benevolent, when in his power, will not perform acts of justice from a pure love of the principle, but from some selfish motive: he who is unjust, cannot be benevolent, and he who injures his neighbour by deceit and lying, is certainly unjust and unmerciful. The unity of those attributes, and that which is common to them all, I take to be " a constant intention to enlarge happiness and diminish misery as much as possible." This implies a delight in the promotion of happiness, and a love for all good beings, so far as they are good, that is, so far as they are disposed and fixed in the intention to enlarge happiness and diminish misery as much as possible. Those glorious attributes belong to our Maker in all their ful- ness: abundant in goodness and truth — and that will by no means CLEAR i/te GUILTY. So far as we act from a love to those perfections of the Deity, and from a regard to universal happiness, so far we partake of the image of God, in which man was at first created. " To love the Lord our God with all our heart," is to love goodness, truth and justice; and while this love is uniform, and is not interrupted by other motives, it will lead us to " do unto all men as we would have them do unto us." But alas! our love is too often wavering; other motives mingle with our regards to righteousness; and in this consists the deficiency of human virtue. There is no mixture of other motives in the divine mind, and hence there is perfect consistency and uniformity in all his actions: He never deviatei from a pure regard to general happiness, and never will do it in any period of eternal duration. But we sometimes yield to selfish influences, and hence there is an irregularity and inconsistency in our deportment. We often make blunders also through ignorance and unavoidable mistakes, to which the Almighty is not liable. For these our heavenly Father will not condemn us; but so far as our wrong conduct arises from an abuse of our power, or a neglect tq use it, so far we are guilty, and every being of truth and jus- tice must disapprobate us accordingly. 146 AN ESSAY ON THE All God's perfections are in harmony with each other. If there were any inconsistency or contradiction in the divine attributes, they would lead to an inconsistency of conduct. If justice ever contradicts benevolence, then every being must lay one or the other of them aside, orcoutradict himself in practice. There has, perhaps, never been a more ridiculous or dangerous mistake in the world than the supposition that one moral attribute may contradict another: it has, if I mistake not, given rise to the most inconsistent and barbarous systems of divinity, that ever darkened the human mind, and M'hich ultimately resolve them- selves into the Manicheau principle, that the full disposition of essential wickedness belongs to God, as well as holiness! Surely if any attribute be a perfection, that which contradicts it must be an imperfection: if one be moral, its opposite must be immoral: if one be righteous, its contrary must be unrighteous. If we deny this, we say plainly " that virtue and vice are not opposite to each other, but that virtue or moral goodness is opposite to itself. Benevolence produced all happiness in the creation, truth di- rected creatures how to enjoy and retain it, and justice guarded it, and demanded that it should not be interrupted. What contradic- tion is there in this.^^None at all: the divine attributes agreed to promote happiness, and to forbid the introduction of misery; and the first act of an intelligent being, which injured others, or obstruct- ed the flow of happiness, opposed the influence of goodness, truth and justice, and this was the ground of its criminality. But did sin make any, alteration in the divine attributes.-^ did it throw them into confusion, or change the nature of any of them.= God forbid. Benevolence is as much disposed to communicate happiness, truth to conduct us to it, and justice to de^ fend it, as they ever were. Hence we find a wise plan has been devised and executed from the dictate of goodness, and communi- cated to us accordJJtg to that of truth, to save all sinners that will be saved without taking their principles of rebellion to heaven; and this they cannot do, because justice is as much as ever disposed to defend the general welfare. Justice never inflicts misery, even on the guilty, without some essential good in view; either to reform the ottender, or to guard others from the influence of his crimes: and when it is thus neces- sary, it is surely as consistent with goodness as it is with justice. A principle which inflicts misery for no end, or for a bad one, is as contrary to justice as it is to mercy, and such a principle can not be imputed to the Almighty, without charging him with esse'i^ PLAN OF SALVATION. 147; *Ial wickedness. When punishments are inflicted on sisners with a view to their reformation, it is kind as well as just; and whea they are punished without a regard to their individual advantage, it is beeavse they utterly refused the overtures of mercy, and is done with a view to the welfare of others. Thus are all just pun- ishments inflietedfor a good end: that is, forthe purpose of promot- ing happiness and preventing misery. God is love, " and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.". 1 John. iv. 16. The office of justice is not to con- tradict love, but to defend the medium through which love dis- plays itself, and diffuses tranquillity to all creatures that con- sent to come under its benign influences. SECTION II. Sin dishonours God, and destroys the happiness of his creatures^ therefore his displeasure against it must be manifested. God has given his creatures a law or moral government, that is, his truth has communicated certain rules of action to their un- derstandings, founded upon justice and goodness, with a conviction of their obligation to conform to those rules without any excep- tion or violation. That the law is founded upon those attributes, is evident from the following scriptures: "Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the tnith.^^ Psalms cxix. cxlii. "The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he Avalked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity." Mai. ii. 6. "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment AoZ^, andjusf, and goody Rom. vii. 12. The Almighty's government is jMSf, because it seoures the rights of all beings in existence: it is good, because its native tendency is to promote the happiness of all intelligent creatures, and misery was never introduced but by a departure from its precepts: it is frwe, because it has no tendency to deceive, but gives a correct view of the nature of God, and of the way in which happiness is to bd enjoyed. Therefore it is holy, because it supports every mora! principle. 14i AN ESSAY ON THE As the glory of God consists in his moral attributes; and as those attributes are exhibited through the medium of his law or government; it follows, that the way creatures are to glorify God, is for them to support his government by cordial obedience to every precept of the law. "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it sliall be done unto you. Herein is my father glorijied^ that ye bear much fruit: so shall ye he my disciples." John, xv. 7, 8. " Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, und glorify your father that is in heaven." Mat. v. 16. But how does the law of God promote the happiness of his crea- tures? I think it is done in two ways: lirst, by means of the under- standing; and second, by means of the attections.* 1. By presenting the glorious nature of God and of his govern- ment to the understanding, the soul is charmed and possesses a conscious felicity from the intrinsic excellence of those objects thus presented to its intellectual discernment. In proof of this, we may appeal to two authorities: first, to the oracles of God, which declare in many places, directly or indirectly, that the influence of truth upon the understanding produces happiness. "Take not the word of truth out of my mouth; ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free: his delight is in the * Mr, Superville says, in a sermon, "The soul is capable of three general affections; to know, to love, and lo feel; which are three sources of actions and pleasures that are almost without juimber. — It is very certain tliat the soul, disengaged from the bo- dy, elevated above visible things, and admitled into the presence of Christ, shall know God in a manner very difterent from that in which we knew him in this life. What then can hinder the ac- tivity of the soul.'' Is it not certain that an understanding, refined, extended, always in motion, continually employed in the discove- ry of new objects; always forming just ideas; always at the source of truth; always enlightened by him who enlightens every man that Cometh into the world; always capable of considering truths in connexion Mifh their causes and eftects, and in their relation to God and Jesus Christ; is it not certain, I say, that an understand- ing thus refined, and thus occupied, will be a source of unspeaka- ble knowledge, and perpetual joy?" See the Methodist magazine lor the year 1811, vol. Si-, pages 95, 96. There can be no objection to this just and animating view of the subject; but I presume the author would be understood to mean, that the "three sources of actions and pleasures," which he men- tions, though distinct in conception, are nevertheless united in na- ture; and that there is no feeling essential to an intelligent nature, but what arises from knowledge and love, or js inseparably con* aectcd with them. PLAN OF SALVATION ,1^ }fi\v of the Lord, and in his law doth he meditate day and night." Psalm cxix. 43. John, viii. 33. Psalm i. 3. Now if the pious man delight in his meditations on the law, that happiness results from the beauties of it presented to the understanding. Secondly; we may appeal to the consciousness of every man of reflection, and ask if he finds no happiness in the exercise of his understanding, while he beholds the glory of God, displayed in the goodness and justice of his moral government? 3. The law prod'uces harmony in our aftections, harmony with, our fellow-creatures, and union with our Creator; from this results all the sweets of moral, social, and divine felicity. We have peace in ourselves, peace and love with our brethren, communion with God, and joy in the Holy Ghost. It is true, all our happiness is from God; but it is communicated through the free exercise of our intellectual and active powers, by means of the divine govern- ment, which influences us by moral motives,' and not by com- pulsion. How can we be happy in the love of God, or of our fel- low-creatures, unless we choose to love them.^ A forced love, pro- duced by mechanical impulse, is a most glaring absurdity. The law of God is calculated to delight the understanding, to influence the will, to harmonize the aftections, and to regulate the conduct: it unites the creatures of God together as a band of bro- thers, assimilates them into the divine nature, and thus conducts them to the eternal fountain of love and tranquillity. They par- take of the felicity of their heavenly Father, because they are governed by the same moral principles, which are essential to his own perfect nature, and which (with reverence permit me to think) constitute the everlasting happiness of Almighty God. I must therefore conclude that the full joys of the upper world flow to creatures through the channel or medium of the moral law, which was established by our benevolent Creator to promote this gracious ejid. But what saith the scripture.^ It saith love is the fufilling of the law: and every one who ever loved knows that love and happiness are inseparable. Rom. xiii. 10. Again, the Lord Jesus says, " As the father hath loved me; so have I loved you; continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in yau, and thtxt yorir joy might befull.'^ John xv. 9, 10, &c. The psalm- ist says, <'The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The sta- ll iJO AN ESSAY ON THE tutes of tlic Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandrnett of tlie Lord is pure, enlightening the CT/es: the judgments of the liord are tnie and righteous altogether. More to be desired arc they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter &\so than honey and the honey-comb. Moreover, by them is thy servuni warned; and in heeping of them there is great reward. Lord, 1 have hoped for thy salvation, and done thy commandments. My soul hath kept tliy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly. Great peace. have they which love thy laW; and nothing shall ofibnd them." Psalm xix. 7, &c. — cxix. 145, &c. "But whoso lookcth into the perfect law of libertij^ and continueth therein, he lieing not a for- getful hearerJmt a doer of the work, this man shall heblessed in his deed. For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life." Jam. i. 25. Prov. vi. 2:i. St. Paul tells us "The command mcnt wa.^ ordained to life ;^- and our Saviour, who certainly understood the nature and end of the divine law', says expressly, " 1 know that his commandment is life everlasting.'^ liora. vii. 10. Jolm, xii. 50. We are therefore war- ranted in the conclusion that the glonj of the Creator and the hap^ piness of all rational creatures, are supported by means of his maral government. Front this it follows, that a violation of the law is an insult to all the attributes of God; an infringement upon the general plan of happiness; aviolation of all right; and consequently sin is a v^-y great evil. Its native tendency is to dissolve the harmony of uni- Tersal society, to obstruct the inliuence of every righteous princi- ple, and to produce everlasting misery and disorder. Is justice roused to execute vengeance upon the sinner.^ it is; and all the other attributes are equally insulted. Goodness is opposed to the rebel, because he obstructs the generay flow of happiness; truth, be- j*ause his conduct tends to obscure the goverjiment; and justice, because he has violated tlie rights of others. But would not the repentance of the criminal be a sufficient atonement, to influence the divine being to exercise forgiveness? AnsAVcr: 1. Repentance alone would not manifest God's abhorrence of the erime at all; every one might consider sin a very small thing; a little mistake of the judgment a mere trivial aftair, that, at any time woukl admit of forgiveness upon a bare acknowledgment; therefore (it might be said) let us all try if there be not some un- known advantage in it: at all events we shall lose nothing, for whatever be the iioTisequences, it is plain wc can be delivered PLAN OF SALVATION. 151 from them when we please by a little confessiou and repentance. Will the great Lord of angels and men thus suft'er liis government to sink into contempt.^ Will such a small acknowledgment satisfy his goodness, justice and spotless holiness? Will the great prin- ciples of his moral law be secured, and the general happiness maintained, by such a feeble and diminutive administration.^ 2. It is a well known fact that sin has a pernicious influence up- on the aifections and moral faculties of the sinner: he contracts habits of aversion to the law and the law-giver, as well as amoral incapacity to recover himself. If then he were treated as an obe- dient subject, upon his repentance, while he had a secret prone- ncss of disaffection to the government, the foundation would be laid for universal depravity. The sinner must therefore be reform- ed and renewed, that a properprovision may be made for his future allegiance: and this must be done by an arm more mighty than his own. And if God were to grant this extra assistance by virtue of his repentance alone, this supposes his confession would more than counterbalance his fault, inasmuch as it would not only enable him to obtain what he had before, but would merit an additional display of divine power; that of renewing a fallen creature. This would surely exhibit rebellion in a very favourable point of view! and would represent it as a small and trivial matter, which God is willing to excuse or pardon, and even to reward upon a bare confession or repentance. 3. As the purity of God's nature Mould not thus be displayed, by a full proof of his hatred against sin, it would neither accord with goodness nor justice for rebels to be received to favour upon such terms; because it would weaken the motives to moral obedi- ence in the upright, and diminish tlieir confidence in the divine at- tributes ef their Creator. 4. This notion, concerning the all-sufficiency of repentance, originates in the most unjustifiable arrogance and presumption. God assures us his nature demands another kind of satisfaction, and who is the man that, upon second thoughts, will venture to direct the Almighty what kind of atonement would be requisite to repair the injury done to his glory? 5. If we suppose the government of God needs no other satis- faction than the repentance of the offender, we consider it infe- rior to the laws of men: because it often happens that repentance or acknowledgment affords a criminal no security, and many have been executed without being asked Avhether they repented or not. Does the insulted authority of the Almighty require less satisfac- 153 AN ESSAY ON THE tion than the momentary laws of men? Such an opinion is a re.- proach to our maker, a support to human pride, a violation of common sense and reason, and stands amongst the Avhimsieul ab- surdities of infidelity. SECTION III. The attributes of God were glorified in the redemption of the world, by our Lord Jesus Christ. Consider we next liow God was glorified in the highest, in the redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ. To understand^ this in the clearest light, it is necessary to inquire how God would have vindicated his government, and displayed his glory if sin- ners had not been redeemed. It will be readily admitted that God was not bound in justice to send a Saviour for fallen man: revelation assures us that lov& is the sx)urce of redemptron, and God could have manifested the purity of his nature by executing the sentence of the law upon ev- ery oftcnder. And if it be asked, why was it necessary for Christ to die for the salvation of sinners? we must ask a previous ques- tion: why must men or angels be punished on account of their re- bellion against God? A proper answer to this question will effec- tually answer the other, and will give us a just view of the de- sign of our Saviour's sufferings and death upon the cross. Supposing no Saviour liad interposed for sinners, and God had executed the sentence upon every criminal; on what principle could this act of the Creator be accounted for? We must believe either, (1.) that he punishes sinners for no other reason but his own sove^ reign pleasure; or (2.) that he does it from a regard to the safety and 7vell-being of his creatures in general. If it be done for no other reason but his own sovereign pleasure, it Mill follow, (1.) that he has no regard to the promotion oi' hap- piness in this severity against offenders, and therefore, there is no goodyiess in the matter: (2) that he has no regard to the security of the native rights of his creatures, and therefore it cannot arise from moraX justice: (3.) that there is some principle in the Deity that delights to inflict torment, when it is not necessary to PLAN OF SALVATION. 1^3 secure the Mell-being of any creature in existence. These conse- quences are too evident to be denied, and too shocking to be ad- mitted by any reflecting mind: and we have no other alternative, hut to admit that a benevolent and righteous governor inflicts pe- nalties on obnoxious individuals from a regard to the general good of society. If punishments be inflicted by an earthly ruler, uheu they are not necessary for the support of good government, and the securi- ty of general happiness, all men of common understanding will agree that such an act in the governor's administration arises either from his caprice and ignorance, from bis j^ride and selfish- ness, or from the tyranny and malevolence of his disposition. As nothing of this kind can be imputed to the Creator, — as he views such selfish and wicked principles with unchangeable abhorrence, — the conclusion is incontestable, that his sentence against offen- ders arises from perfect justice and goodness, or in other words, from a pure regard to those principles of government, the vindi- cation of which is cssenti*il to the security and welfare of his obe- dient children. If, on the contrary, thieves and murderers are permitted to pass with impunity under any government, and are never punished for their crimes, we justly inferthat there is adefkiency of principle in the government itself, or in the executive. If the magistrate never execute the sentence of the law upon the violators of it, we conclude the principle of justice has little or no influence «pon him, that he is indiflereut to the public interest, and that his pernicious lenity arises from a partial fondness for criminals, and a secret disaf- fection to the principles of his own government. Now if the divine administration should leave any just ground for such suspicions, what darkness would overspread the universe, and how would all moral creatures be injured, whose happiness consists in their confi- dence in, and attachment to, the pure nature of their Almighty Father.^ To prevent such a general calamity, the justice and good- ness of God are engaged to support the dignity of his law, and to demonstrate the purity and impartial rectitude of his unchangea- ble nature. For these reasons the penalty of the law must of necessity be inflicted upon all criminals, unless the ends of government can be secured, and the divine attributes be fully and clearly manifested by some other expedient. Such an expedient has been devised by the wisdom of God, and executed by his goodness: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but havo everlasting life. 154 AN ESSAY ON THE He could have vindicated his government without redeeming ns, by executing the sentence upon every criminal. If God had not " so loved the world as to give his only begotten son, and deliver him np for us all," the conse(|Uciices would have been, that every individiial sinner must die the death, or suffer the dreadful penal- ty. And why must this be done.^ Not to minister to (he Almighty's pleasure, for he lias declared, and confirmed by an oath, that he has " no pleasiire in the death of the wicked;" but to seaire the ivjluevce of the government, for the sake of the general ivelfare. And how would this have been secured by the execution of every offender.^ Answer: It would have manifested God's regard for righteousness and good government: It would have manifested the great evil of sin, and its hatefuiness to the pure eyes of the Al- mighty: it would have impressed upon the obedient part of the creation, a clear conviction of the strength and purity of God's unalterable laws: it would have displayed the necessity and unut- terable felicity of a cordial obedience, on the one hand; and the tUreful effects of rebellion on the other: hence the influence of their rebellion upon others would have been prevented, the divine .at- tributes vindicated, and the general flow of happiness secured. For these ends, and such as these, is punishment inflicted under anv just and good government upon earth: and I hope none will impute to the Creator a tyranny that is execrated among mortals, and which is shocking to conscience and contrary to revelation. Here, then, every rebel -must stand, without help, and without hope: in vain may he repent, pray, or make confession; because the general good must not be neglected to exercise partiality to an in- dividual. All sinners must die, unless some plan can be devised to magnify the law in their deliverance . But can the rebels devise any such plan.- AlasI if it be left to them, the dye is cast forever: they can do nothing but sink still deeper into misery, unless some kind friend, more mighty than they, should interest himself in their favour. Can such a friend be found among all the armies of the sky .^^ They all have to do their own individual part in promoting the divine glory, and cannot leave their own work to ransom another: because after they have done all that they can do, they have done nothing more than their duty: consequently each one for himself will have to support the government by obeying, \>hile the rebels will have to do it by suf- fering. Is it so, then, that mercy is clean gone forever? Has the loving Father of the spirits of all ilesh shut up his tender mer- cies in eternal displeasure! Can he sec his poor miserable creatures PLAN OF SALVATION. 155 mgulplied in the horrors of insufferable despair! and can he de- vise no means wliereby his banished may be brought back, that they may not be irrecoverably undone! " Will he be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousand rivers of oil?" Alas! all this is unavailing, and lighter than dust upon the scale. But the Almighty Father waits not to be intreated; " he has found a ransom, and has laid help upon one that is mighty." The Lord exeeuteth righteousness and judgment for all that are op- pressed. The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow^ to anger, and plenteous in mercy. He hath not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us accoi'ding to our iniquities. For God so love-d the world, that he gave his only begotten Sou, that whosoever belicv- eth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Sou into the world, to condemn the world, but tliat the world tlirough him might he saved." Psalms, eiii. 6, &c. John iii. 16, 17. " Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us; In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. And we have seen, and do testify, that the Father sent the Sou to be the Saviour of the world." 1. John. iii. 16. — iv. 9, &c. It is evident that our Saviour did not die to supercede the neces- sity ofpardoai, by giving us a legal discharge from all penalties^ but to open the way for mercy, to deliver all those from suffering the penalty, who come boldly (that is, believingly) to a throne of grace; not to a throne oi justice to sue out their liberty in the name of their surety: — but that they might obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. The death of Christ manifested God's abhorrence of sin, as well as his love to the sinner, and justilied the heavenly government in the pardon of all penitents, as well as it would have been done if all sinners in the universe had been forever damned. This was all mercy was waiting for: namely, for such an exposure of the dread- ful evil of sin, and such a demonstration of God's hatred against it, as should glorify his atti'ibutes, and restore the government to its native dignity and influence over his intelligent creatures. This was accomplished by our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore every moral attribute was satisfied, that a free pardon should be granted to every sinner of Adam's race (hat would receive the Saviour for his Lord and king, or, which is the same thing, to every sinner that would 136 AN ESSAV ON THE Yield to his love's redeeming power And fight against his God no more. As the Father never was disposed to punish any sinner, merely to minister to his pleasure, but to secure the ends of good govern- ment; so he never demanded of his only begotten Son, to suffer the whole penalty for the pleasure of his vengeance; but he was so lov- ing to every man, that rather than the government should be vin- dicated by the condemnation of the guilty, he even gave his own Son, yea, " God himself was manifested in the flesh; that this hu- man nature connected with the rfei/^, should expire under the ex- cruciating agonies of the cross, that poor sinners might be pardonx ed in such a way as should support the honour of his holy law- God could have chosen the other alternative, and have displayed his holiness and hatred against sin, by the damnation of the crimi- nal; butlove would have it otherwise. Rather than his apostate creature should die the dreadful death, the loving God himself comes down from heaven! He hangs between the heavens and the earth, a spectacle to angels and to men! What heart of stone — what frozen, savage heart — can remain unmoved, and unconcern- ed at such melting love as this? Shame on the man that shall itpresent redempt ion as having its seat in the satisfaction and gratification of unrelenting vengeance, while all heaven is astonished at the bleeding mercy it displays! Pro- phets, apostles, and angels together are shouting and proclaiming the great love wherewith our heavenly Father hath loved us; and must we consider him as a tyrannical and malicious being, whose fu- ry must be appeased, by an infliction of the whole penalty upon his dear Son, before he will agree for one sinner to escape.'' far be the thought from every soul that has been redeemed by the blood of Jesus! Christ died to open our way to mercy, and not to raise us above the want of it. And hence the great name proclaimed unto Moses is verified to us: ''gracious and merciful, abundant in goodness and truth, for- giving iniquity and transgression and sin." "Who is this that conieth from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the great- ness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that trcadeth in the wine-fat? I have trodden the wine-press alone; and of the people there was none with me: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me. Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: for thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is PLAN OF SALVATION. ±57 his name: and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall he be called. The Lord is well-pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law and make it hon- ourable. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness; that he might he just and the justifier of him which belicveth in Jesus." Isaiah, Ixiii. l.-Iiv. 4, 5. — 42. 21. Rom. iii. 23. Benee it follows that the love of God gave a Redeem- er to open the way for his ioxt to flow to poor guilty sinners; and not that eternal justice demanded him as a criminal, in order that grace might be literally purchased, and thus bestow its favours for the sake of value received. Was God waiting for his goodness to be bought by a price that should be exactly equal to its value.*^ Then surely he was waiting to sell his grace, and have a literal price of justice paid down, that should be equivalent to every degree of favour or benevolence he should exercise; resolving not to let any go out of his treasury without an entire and complete compensation: that is, in other words, he resolved not to exercise any grace or favour at all, but merely to buy and sell, according to a literal bargain, and the complete standard of inflexible justice. It may indeed be objected, that although God demanded the whole penalty before he could be satisfied, yet his grace appears to full advantage, inasmuch as it was God himself who botlj devised the plan of redemption and executed it, without being under any obligation to do so: in this his goodness appears without a cloud, and there is no necessity for any new act of mercy to be exercised after justice is satisfied, be- cause it was sufficiently displayed before. To this plausible objec- tion I would answer: 1. That it was God who both devised the plan of redemption, and executed it, is readily admitted; and therefore, redemption re- sulted from his goodness; but if there was any thing done in the execution of this plan, wliich God in justice demanded, and then he had a demand upon himself, seeing he himself performed the thing demanded, as the objection urges,(and very properly) as the only proof of his benevolence. 2. To suppose the right of demand, and the bond of obligation «an exist in the same being, so that he who claims and receives is X 188 AN ESSAY ON THE absolutely the same that owes and «liscliarges the obligation, is to suppose the exercise of justice is a solitary operation that depends not upon the relation of one being with another: it supposes a right of demand in one, does not necessarily imply a corresponding obligation in another, but that the claim and the obligation maybe in himself alone! This, to me, is as unintelligible as to say a man's right hand has a demand upon his left hand, which is bound by moral obligation to discharge the debt, and can- not refuse it without being unjust. Suppose there should be a re- fusal to discharge the obligation; we must then say one person is deprived of his right, and another having acted unjustly has for- feited his right, and exposed himself to a penalty in proportion to his demerit; andyetthe injured person, and the aggressor, the just person and the unjust; the aggrieved person, and the oftender, are absolutely the same individual: in other words, that a person may be just and unjust, the injured and the violator, an innocent suffer- er and an unrighteous sinner, at the same time. If the obligation be not discharged, justice is violated, and the unrighteous person is deserving blame in proportion to his criminality: but who must be blamed or punished for the offence.? Why, truly, the injured per- son himself, for there is no other; and the innocent must be invol- ved with the guilty by absolute necessity, because there is but one individual, and he is guilty and innocent at the same time. 3. I think there is but one conceivable way, in which any being, on whom there is no previous demand, can bind himself from the dictate of benevolence; and that is by jiromise. It is supposed in the objection that it w as a matter perfectly voluntary for God to assume an obligation to himself in our favour; that he had a right to withhold this favour; and therefore, though he demanded the whole debt, yet he obligated himself to discharge it to himself, when he might have done otherwise, which was surely a great dis- play of mercy. Now if he assumed an obligation in our favour, and discharged it according to his just demand, he graciously condescended to bind himself, which could only be done by promise, covenant or engagement. But w'hat conception can we have, in a consistency with com- mon sense, of a person binding himself by promise, covenant or engagement w ith himself alone, excepting that he simply resolves or determines to do that for the sake of others, which he is under no obligation of justice to do.? And is it indeed true, that when a person kindly determines to do a favour, he thereby becomes bound PLAN OF SALVATION. IW in a debt of justice to himself, Avhich is discharged by bestowing the favour, and which cannot be omitted after the resolution is formed, without a plain violation of justice? If so, a favour was never bestowed in the universe; for it is impossible it should be bestowed until there be a volition or determination to bestow it, and that volition or determination is supposed to bind' the agent iu a debt of justice, and of course the act of bestowing it, which is a consequence of the previous determination, is only a discharge of that debt, and therefore no benevolence, because it could not then be withheld without a violation of justice. But if a resolution to bestow a favour does not bind the agent by moral obligation, then it was impossible for God to l)ind himself in this way by promise, engagement or covenant, unless he enter- ed inti alone. And if it was impossible for God to become bound in a debt to himself, then Christ never came under an obligation of justice to God, unless it can be proved that Christ is not God, or that there are tuw Gods, so totally separate that one maybe bound in a debt of justice to the other. 4-. Suppose there were two such Gods, we say it is the Father whose law has been violated by sinners: the Father is our God, un- der whose government we stand responsible. If then the Father inflexibly demanded the penalty to the very last mite, and the Son obligated himself to discharge it, the Son only has shown favour to us, and our proper sovereign, who demanded a penalty of us as the subjects of his government, has exercised no mercy towards us; and consequently our obligations of gratitude for redemption are confined and due to the Son alone. Here it will perhaps be said, the Father and the Son are one: I grant they are; and this is the foundation of my argument; but the sophistry I am oppos- ing, first, supposes them to be two Gods, so separate and indepen- dent of each other, as to stand in the relation of debtor and credi- tor; but after the contract is made and executed, my ingenious op- ponent abandons his old ground, and, in order to secure a part of the benevolence, and the corresponding gratitude to the Father, he tells us very gravely that Christ and God are one. 5. Perhaps it will be said, the Father's benevolence appears in this, that he both provided Christ as a substitute for sinners, and accepted him in our place, when he ^• as not bound to do so. I an- swer, first, if he provided himself for our Redeemer it was indeed benevolent; but in that case he did not become bound, or demand 16U AN ESSAY ON THE a penalty from himself, as has just been evinced. Second: if he provided Christ, as another being, and an innocent one, to be con- demned and executed in the place of the guilty, vvhat right had he to do so? If it is right to release a sinner by condemning and pun- ishing an innocent person in his place, then surely it would be right for Satan to be released from hell, provided an innocent an- gel were condemned and sent there in his place. Does benevo- lence consist in showing favour to one by violating the rights of another? But Christ, you say, consented willingly to be offered up. That he never consented to become a sinner, or to become guilty by imputation, I hope to prove in another place. But granting, for the sake of argun^ent, that he consented to it; still the whole of the benevolence was in him alone, because the right of option to grant the favour or withhold it, was in him and in no other. The Father, it is supposed, was determined to show no mercy, but in- flexibly to demand the whole penalty: Christ was not bound to en- dure it in our place, and the Father had no right to inflict it on Jiim against his will: therefore, our receiving any benefit, or not receiving any, depended on the voluntary goodness of Christ alone, and consequently to him only we are under obligations of gratitude for any favour shown us in redemption. The only remaining subterfuge is, that the Father was gracious in accepting the substitute, when he was not bound to do it. But a few plain questions will remove this superficial vail: first, had Christ a riglit to discharge our obligation? Second, had the Fa- ther a right to any more than our obligation? was not our obliga- tion the very thing which he had a right to demand? If so, when Christ discharged our obligation, which he had a right to do, the Father had no more demand against us, and we were immediately as free from all just penalties and from any need of pardon as the unoffending angels of heaven. Say Christ had no right to dis- charge the obligation or suffer llie penalty for us, and you declare it to be unjust: say he had a right, and you affirm the Father was bound to demand no more, and to accept that or nothing; otherwise you make justice contradict itself, by supposing one being has a right to forbid what another has a previous right to do. To say the Father may demand more, after my surety has paid all that is due, is to suppose he has a right to more than his due, which is a contradiction. Thus 1 think the objection is fairly and honestly answered, and that the Antinomian scheme of atonement supposes God to be to- tally destitute of mercy, PLAN OF SALVATION. lei As to the alarm that may have been excited, lest I should deny the doctrine of the Trinity, I hope it will be removed in the follow- ing section. SECTION IV. ^in examination of two opposite prejudices, founded upon mystery. Infidels will be apt to object that the preceding view of the subject is still too unintelligible and mysterious, that it is hard to see why the divine attributes must be displayed by a redeemer, and how this was done by the death of Christ upon the cross. I sus- pect some christians will, on the contrary, think it too plain, and that it savours too much of an attempt to explain away the divine mysteries. 1 wish to convince these opponents that two opposite prejudices, and not reason or revelation, are the foundation of their objections. The deist will say he is not yet satisfied with the doctrine of atonement or satisfaction for sins; because, though this scheme ap- pears less mysterious than some others, yet the mystery is not en- tirely removed, and he is resolved to believe nothing that he can- not comprehend. I answer: It is true we cannot have a complete comprehension of the man- ner in which all the various effects revealed in the scriptures are produced by the death of Jesus; but in this respect it is like every thing else in the creation, from the growth of a vegetable to the operations of our intellectual faculties. If nothing can be proved to us till we are able completely to comprehend it, then surely it is impossible to prove to a child, that there are such things in being as watches and ships, till he is able to understand every part of them exactly: and he ought not to be- lieve us, but consider us as liars, whenever we affirm and attempt to prove their existence, because it would be to believe a thing which he cannot comprehend. An astronomer declares he can tell the very minute when the sun will be eclipsed: accordingly, he publishes to the world, months or years before-hand, the precise minute when the eclipse will take place: we open our eyes and see it come to pass at the very ^62 AN ESSAY ON THE time foretold. Now there is no man of common understanding but will allow the astronomer in this case gives sufficient evidence that he can foresee the motions of the heavenly bodies; yet not one man in ten thousand is able to comprehend how these things can be known by men. The common people then ought to give philoso- phers the lie, according to the deistical method of reasoning, and disregard all evidence they can produce in support of any fact, until they can clearly and fully comprehend the manner of it. Mystery is no criterion either of truth or falsehood: our belief should be governed by evidence. And when any principle is pre- sented to us as a truth, its being incomprehensible is no argument for or against it. Suppose a man tells me he saw a company of men and women not more than five inches high: I can comprehend this as well as if they were five feet high; but it would be foolish for me to believe it merely because the thing is conceivable: I must have evidence of the fact. 1 turn my attention to this propo- sition: " God npholdeth all things by the word of his power." Now I find it impossible for me to comprehend hoAV this is done; but it is just as foolish to disbelieve it, because I cannot comprehend it, as to believe the other because I can comprehend it. In this case as in the former, I call for evidence: and upon reflection I find it supported by all the evidence of reason and revelation. I find if I disbelieve it, I not only embrace a greater mystery, but am invol- ved in absurdities shocking to every rational principle of my na- ture. It is pli«n, therefore, that a man whose belief is governed by the pretended criterion of mystery, is governed by prejudice and not by reason. As to the difficulty of conceiving why Christ must suffer, and how divine justice is satisfied thereby for man to be for- given, it shall be considered in another place. Some christians will probably think we ought to be very care- ful how we explain away the divine mysteries, or before we are aware we shall find ourselves landed on the shores of infidelity. I saw a small pamphlet once, the express design of which was to show that an attempt to avoid mysteries led a person ( l.)from Cal- vinism to Arminianism; (2.) from Arminianism to Arianism;(3.) from Arianism to Soeinianism; (4.) from Socinianism to Deism: so that the only true system was that of absolute election and reprobation. The Arminians, it seems, who could not swallow all the mysteries of free-wrath, were the men who took the first step towards infi- delity. The pope will tell us Luther was the man who first depart- ed from the holy mysteries; and will be able to carry on the chain with as good a grace as tlve Rev. Divine who published the pam- PLAN OF SALVATION. 163 phlet above alluded to; he will also class John Calvin and his fol- lowers among the heretics who paved the way to infidelity and atheism. It may be worth while to inquire how far such cautions are rea- sonable, and when they may be considered the result of partiality and prejudice. 1. As to the principle, that men ought to believe nothing but what they can comprehend, we grant, if constantly pursued, this would make a fool of any man: he would not stop at infidelity; he would not stop at atheism; for surely no man of common sense will say that atheism is a principle that has no mystery in it: it is ful- ly as mysterious as popery. In vain may a man run to universal scep- ticism for a cure: this is as full of mystery as atheism itself. There is no stoppipg place for such a person but perfect lunacy; he may wander from one mystery to another till he is distracted, and that will terminate his fantastical career. 2. It is granted also that there is great danger and absurdity in a man's labouring to comprehend that which is incomprehensible. It is a shameful abuse of our understanding to spend that time ia fruitless attempts to comprehend a subject of this kind, that ought to be spent in searching into the evidence of its truth. For exam- ple: I sit down to consider this proposition: " God is an eternal be- ing, who had no beginning." Now if, instead of examining the evidence of this truth, I spend ray time in fruitless labour to un- derstand the nature of infinite duration, I shall gain nothing by the pursuit, but bewilder myself, and stupify my intellectual fa- culties. But if I leave the manner of God's existence out of view, as a matter beyond the grasp of my understanding, and merely stu- dy the evidence of an eternal being, nothing can be more clear and satisfactory than this truth, that the first cause must be eternal and independent. Infinite duration is as incomprehensible as any subject whatever; yet the evidence of it is equal to demonstration: for, to say there was a pei'iod of duration, in which duration had no existence, or that there was a time when there was no time, is an absolute contradietion;andif contradictions maybe received, de- monstration and every other kind of evidence must fall to the ground. 3. As it is unreasonable on the one hand to follow the deist in rejecting a doctrine because of its mystery; it is equally so on the other to follow the pope in believing it merely because it is mys- terious. As all truth is supported by evidence, we have as good a right to examine the evidence that may appear for or against an i64 x\N ESSAY ON THE incomprehensible doctrine, as any other principle in the world. But when we reject a doctrine because it charges God with being a barbarous tyrant, some will cunningly observe, that we reject it on account of its mystery. We reject it because it is condemned by the force of evidence; all the evidence of reason and revelation conducts us to the conclusion, that God is a being possessed of all moral excellence, and that there is no immoral principle in his nature. Any opinion which absolutely contradicts this, ought to be rejected, however some may artfully pass it upon the world as a holy mystery. Shortly after the synod of Dort it was openly pub- lished to the world, " that there is a kind of holy simulation in God," and that God absolutely created most men for the sole pur- pose of "illustrating his glory by their damnation." Popish priests had before been burning men to death by hundreds, and this mer- ciless barbarity they called an act of faith, a holy mystery that must never be examined or called in question, upon pain of damna- tion. If any good meaning people should think it dangerous for us to get rid of such mysteries as these, I should be glad to know upon what evidence they adhere to such a conclusion. 4. Another set of doctrines which are called mysterious, are those which involve plain and absolute contradictions. If we re- ject them because we cannot force ourselves to receive contradic- tions, it is said we refuse to believe mysteries. It is said we go upon the deistical method of reasoning, that we will receive no- thing which we cannot comprehend, and that a few s^eps more will conduct us to open infidelity. This is surely a great compliment to the deists, that they are the only people in the world who are consistent with themselves! I, for one, cannot help thinking they do not merit such high praise; but that in truth their system is Very inconsistent. If my oI)jector think otherwise, it seems to me to follow, that his sentiment paves the way to infidelity far more than mine. If absolute contradictions may be received, we need not take the slow method of going from Calvinism to Arminianism, from that to Arianism, &c. butwe may at one step incorporate deism and Christianity together, for we may receive this contradiction: the scriptures are true; but the scriptures are false: Jesus Christ is the son of God; but Jesus Christ is nothing but an impostor. These propositions are nothing more than contradictions, and if they may be received, it is an easy thing for us to be believers and un- believers, pious and impious, righteous and unrighteous, christians and infidels at the same time. P^AN OF SALVATION 165 But a mystery, it will be said, may have the appearance of a contradiction, when in truth it is entirely consistent; only we are unable to comprehend it, so as to prove or explain its consistency. This I grant; and if it cannot be shown to be really inconsistent; but on the contrary, can be supported by clear and good evidence, it would indeed be very absurd to reject it, merely because it may have the appearance of contradiction. But still there is no more danger in examining such a subject, than tkere is in scrutinizing any other, provided we be governed by evidence in our researches, and not by prejudice. An appa- rent contradiction can never be converted into a real one; but on the contrary, if it be really consistent in itself, the better it is understood, the more obvious will its consistency appear; because the reason why it seems contradictory, is, that we have such a par- tial understanding of it. . As to the doctrine of the Trinity, which some are fond to consi- der as an absolute contradiction, it is as clear of the charge as any other truth, provided we regulate our views of it by the scriptures, without recurring to the laboured explications of it that are to be found in human creeds and confessions of faith. The following plain scripture argument, from Dr. Watts, sup- ports the proper notion of it, if I mistake not, as we find it stated in the oracles of God: " Since there is but one Crvd, even the Father, according to St. Paul, and since the Father is the only true God, according to Christ's own expression, then the Son and Spirit cannot have another or a difterent God-head from that of the Father: but since the Son and Spirit also are true God, it must be by some commu- nion in the same true God-head which belongs to the Father: for if it were another God-head, that would make another God; and thus Uie Christian religion would have two or three Gods, which is contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel." — Watts' Sermons, vol. ii. page 447. But lest Dr. Watts should be suspected of leaning towards the Socinians, let us recur to another authority: 1 mean to that of Mr. Fletcher, who was never suspected of heterodoxy concerning this article: « It is agreed on all hands," says he, "that the Supreme Being (compared with all other beings) is one: one Creator over number- less creatures: one Infinite Being over myriads of finite beings: one Eternal Intelligence over millions of temporary intelligence§. In this sense, true christians are all unitarians. y les AN ESSAY ON THE " But if the Supreme Being is one, when he is compared to all created beings, shall we quarrel with him, if he informs us, that, although he hath no second in the universe of creatures, yet, in himself, he exists after a wonderful manner, insomuch that his one eternal, and perfect essence subsists, ivithout division or separa- tion, \im\erthyee adorable distinctions, which arc called sometimes the Father, the Son, andthe Holy Ghost; and sometimes, the Father^ the JFord, andthe Spirit? Shall thethingformed say tohim that formed it, why hast thou made inef/msi^orwhy dost thou exist after such a manner? " Three sorts of people, in our days, capitally err in this matter: " 1. Tritheists, of the worshippers of three Gods, who so un- scripturally distinguish the Divine Persons, as to divide and sepa- rate them into three Deities; and who, by this means, run into Fo- lijtJieism, or the belief of many Gods. " 2. Detlieists, or the worshippers of two Gods. They are gene- rally called Avians, from Jirius, iheW chief leader, who maintain- ed tliat there is one eternal God, namely, the Father, and one who is not eternal, namely, the Son, who was made sometime or other before the foundation of the world. Thus they m orship two Gods, a great God and a little God. " Never did we say or think, either that three persons are one person, or that three Gods are one God: these contradictions ne- ver disgraced our creeds. We only maintain that the one Divine Essence manifests itself to us in thi'ee Divine Subsistencies, most intimately joined, and absolutely inseparable: with the scripture we assert, that,as these subsistencies bore each a particular part in our creation, so they areparticularly engaged in the securing of our eternal hapj»iness; the Father ch'mRy planning, the Son chiefly eX' ecuting, and the Holy Ghost chiefly perfecting, the great work of «nr new creation." See Fletcher'' s ^^Rational Vindication,^^ Sfc, in answer to Priestly, revised and finished by Mr. Joseph Benson. London edition, l7U0. vol. i. p. 33, 31, 35. Mr. Fletcher has here exhibited the full mystery of the Divine Nature, according to the scriptures: and in this there is no con- tradiction. But in certain creeds and confessions of faith, there appears ta be another turn given to the subject. We may there find many learned words of divinity, concerning an eternal generation —a covenant between the Father and the Son — a purchase made by tjhc son, of a certain number of souls — the Father's obligation to see that the Son be not defrauded of his purchased property, and PLAN OF SALVATION. 167 the like. We may there read coneerning very God of very God~-^ co-eqjial — co-e.vistent — co-eternal — consubstantiaJ, &e. &ce. The plain word of God gives better iustrnetion concerning this matter than those learned names, and all the others that have been used in the sublime and orthodox theology. It teaches us that God is an eternal Being, and that there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three vithnut examination? ^'Does my teacher really believe, says he, that vve ought to receive Christianity without evidence? qr does he hjmself secretly suspect that it is not founded in truth, fl.nd therefore thinks it dangerous to examine, lest its falsehood shpuld become too manifest? Does he really think a doctrine of divinity ought to contradict itself? or does he think the christian dpctrjnes are in fact a system of contradictions, and therefore fishes me to lay by my reason, and cautiously avoid looking into ^hem, for fear their absurdity and inconsistency should so shock my understanding, that I could nqt believe them without doing vio- lence to commoQ sense?" These would be his reflections; and let the reader judge whether the instructions he received do not afford a plain presumption that their author had a secret suspicion, either that the religion of Jfsu« e^nnot bear examination, or that the doctrines of his creed may pradventure be proved not to belong to that religion. PLAN OF SALVATION. 160 Secondly, let us consider the proud and passionate deist, who., from the dictate of his malice against Christianity, is resolved at all events that he will not believe it: What paves the way to this kind of infidelity? I think it is done by the conduct of those very persons, who affect to be such friends to religion, and who are so apt to charge others with secret disafl'ection to the gospel. First, they directly or indirectly discourage the full attention of the mind in reasoning and diligent examination; but it is the want of such attention, or a refusal to examine, that confirms this per- son in his unbelief; therefore they encourage him in the course he pursues. Secondly, they discourage a candid and impartial examination, otherwise they would be willing for their mysteries to be examin- ed, as well as other matters; but a want of candour and impar- tiality is the cause of this person's unbelief; therefore they encou- rage him in that which is the cause of his infidelity, by setting the example themselves. Thirdly, they furnish this enemy of the gospel with very plau- sible arguments, with which he slays his thousands, and diffuses scepticism among his associates. " You cannot be christians, says he, without renouncing your reason, and this the professors of that religion very well know, as you may see by their writings: they are perpetually cautioning their votaries against the diligent exercise of their intellectual faculties, which they call carnal reason and "the almost magical power of metaphysical distinctions. Some of their dearest and most beloved doctrines are plain contradictions, which they them- selves cannot deny; for when we ask them to explain the matter, and clear their dogmas of this charge, they gravely answer, that these are holy mysteries, which it is wicked to pry into, even so far as to make them consistent with themselves. It is very dan- gerous, they say, to penetrate too deeply into those sacred mat- ters, which they call bringing them to the profane eye of human reason: a clear presumption, surely, that they have discovered the sandy foundation of this system, and wish to silence all inquiry, for fear others should make the same discovery." Now permit me to ask, how are we to prevent the spreading of infidelity, arising from the influence of buch specious arguments? By filling our works with ridiculous cautions against a close ex- amination of the christian doctrines, and thus evincing in the face of the sun that the gentleman's premises are true? I presume we fiQuld do nothing that would please him better. From the first rise iro AN ESSAY ON THE of popery to the present day, some professors seem to dread the approach of reason, and deists are glad to have it so: They know it furnishes them with the best arguments they have ever been able to use, and were it torn from them, infidelity must sneak into a corner. While divines continue to undervalue reason, the deist will extol it to the skies: not because he has any more real attach- ment to it than his adversary; but because he knows that while he can keep up high notions of reason, and prove from the words and writings of divines that they are afraid of it, he needs no better ar- gument, and none which will more successfully contribute to the support of infidelity. But let reason be delivered from the shackles of metaphysical sophistry and hypotheses: let common sense be permitted to appear without a veil: let pride, prejudice and party attachments have nothing to do in governing the belief of mankiad: and then let rea- son take her stand upon self-evident principles, without any thing to obstruct her operations: you will see infidels and popish doctors of divinity alike retiring from the contest, or labouriug with all their might to cast dust into the air, that they may hinder the rays of evidence from shining on the world. Let all men thus use their reason, and the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ will rise like the suninthe midst of heaven, and chase the dark mists of error from mankind. But we cannot answer for all the creeds: I suspect some of them would stand exposed in all their deformity, and perhaps a secret conviction of their being subject to it, has given rise to that species of prudence which is so neces- sary to the support of a tenet which cannot bear examination, *'Those things are against reason, and utterly inconceivable;" says Dr. William Bates, "that involve a contradiction; and there is no such doctrine in the christian religion." See Bates on Man's Re- demption, page 136. PLAN OF SALVATION. in SECTION V. The doctrine of redemption stated in the words of several respect- able authors, Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Wesley agree (the latter having ex- tracted the words of the former,) that " men who are condition- ally pardoned and justified, may be unpardoned and unjustified again for their non-performance of the conditions, and all the debt so forgiven be required at their hands; and all this without any change in God or in his laws. " Yea, in case the justified by faith should cease believing, the scripture would pronounce them unjust again; and yet without any change in God, or scripture, but only in themselves; because their justification doth continue conditional as long as they live here. " Justification is not a single act, begun, and ended immediate- ly upon our believing; but a continued act, which, though it be in its kind complete from the first, yet is still in doing, till the final justification at the judgment dayy They add, " that the justified may pray for the continuance of their justification; and that Christ's satisfaction and our faith are of continual use, and uot to be laid by, when we are once justified, as if the work was done." Wesley^s Works, vol. xxii. page ±72, 173, 178. Again: " The pardoning of sin is a gracious act of God, dis- charging the offender by the gospel grant, from the obligation to punishment, upon consideration of the satisfaction made by Christ, accepted by the sinner, and pleaded with God. " I call pardon a gracious act; for if it were not gracious, or free, it were no pardon. Let those think of this, who say, we have perfectly obeyed the law in Christ, and are therefore righteous. If the proper debt, either of obedience or suffering, be paid, either by ourselves or by another; then there is no place left for pardon: for when the debt is paid we owe nothing, except new obedience; and therefore can have nothing forgiven us: for the creditor can- not refuse the proper debt, nor deny any acquittance upon re- ceipt thereof." page 171. Here we have the authority of Mr. Baxter, of Mr. Wesley, and of a very conclusive argument, in support of all I contend for: 173 . AN ESSAY ON THE 1. That Christ did not properly or legally discharge our debt, either by obedience or suftering: for " If the proper debt, either of obedience or suftering, be paid, either by ourselves or by another, then there is no place left for pardon." 2. If Christ properly paid our debt, there was no mercy exer- cised by the Father: " for the creditor cannot refuse the proper debt, nor deny any acquittance upon receipt thereof." 3. The way Christ satisfied justice by his death, was, that he made it just for God to grant sinners a. gracious pardon, on certain conditions: for "The pardoning of sin is a gracious act of God, discharging the offender by the gospel grant, from the obligation to punishment, upon consideration of the satisfaction made by Christ, accepted by the sinner, and pleaded with God." The next autbor I shall introduce is Mr. Whitby, who speak- ing of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, gives us the fol- lowing just observations and arguments: " It renders the death of Christ to procure the remission of our sins vain, and that on many accounts;" 1. Because the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us, doth render his death unnecessary to procure any farther righteous- ness or justification in our bchalfj for if by virtue of this imputa- tion we be as righteous as Christ was in his life, there can be no more need that Christ should die for us, than that he should die for himself, or any other should die for him; yea, then Christ dy- ing only for the benefit of believers, could not have died for the unjust, but only for the just, that is, for them for whom there could be no necessity that he should die, but only that he should live for them; seeing faith in him as a Mediator, performing perfect obe- dience to the law for them, must make them for whom he thus obeyed perfectly obedient, and therefore must have given them a full title to the promise, do this and live. 2. According to this doctrine, there remains no place for the re- mission of sins to believers, for God neither did, nor could forgive any sin in Christ, because he was perfectly righteous, and in him was no sin; if then believers be righteous with the same righteous- ness imputed to tbem, with which Christ was righteous, they must be as completely righteous as Christ was, and so have no more sin, to be pardoned, than he had, and so no more need to be pardoned than he had; thus doth this doctrine destroy Clirist's intercession for us, and also the necessity ol* his salutary passion, according to those words of St. Paul, "If righteousness," that is, "justification come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."— Whitby's Commentary, vol. ii. p. 229, 230. PLAN OF SALVATION. 173 From this quotation the following inferences are fairly drawn, as Mr. Whitby's doctrine: That if Christ's righteousness were imputed to us, we should be perfectly as righteous as Christ. 2. That this doctrine makes his death utterly unnecessary. 3. That it leaves no place, or no necessity for remission of sins. 4. That it destroys Christ's intercession. Now if it be a just inference (which it certainly is) that if Christ perfectly obeyed the law for us, he thereby raised us above the want of pardon; it will follow equally, that if he discharged the whole penalty of the law for us, he thereby raised us above the want of pardon. For the reason why sinners need forgiveness is, that they stand exposed to punishment, as a penalty of justice, which they cannot do after that penalty is entirely discharged; and therefore such a discharge raises them as fully above the want of forgiveness as the imputation of a perfect obedience. 1 must again produce two witnesses together, and two of the best, I presume, that have appeared in the world since the days of the apostles: I mean Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Wesley. The quotations are the production of Mr. Goodwin, but Mr. W^esley has made them his own, by incorporating them into his works, as the reader will find by reading the 23d volume, Bristol edition, 1773. « If Christ had fulfilled the law ia our stead, till the uttermost period of his life, there had been no necessity of his dying for us. There is no light clearer than this. For if we stand before God, by virtue of the perfect obedience of Christ imputed to us as our own, perfectly righteous, we are no more obnoxious to the curse of the law, and consequently have no need of any satisfaction to divine justice, nor of any remission of sins by blood. There needs nothing more to a perfect justification, than a perfect righteous- ness, or a perfect fulfilling of the law: this the apostle clearly lay- eth down. Gal. ii. 21. If righteousness be by the law (whether performed by ourselves, or by another for us) then Christ is dead in vain." Wesley^s Works, page 10, 11. *igain: — "It hath no foundation, either in scripture or reason, to say that Christ, by any imputation of sins was m&dn formally a sinner: or, that sin in any other sense was imputed to him, than as the punishment due to it was inflicted on him. So Bishop Dave* nant makes the imputation of sin to Christ, to stand in the trans,- latioQ of the punishment of sin upon him. And in another place. Z 0i> AN ESSAY ON THE Christ was willing so to take our sins upon him, as not to be made a sinner hereby, but a sacritiee for sin." page 20. From this it evidently follows; 1. That Christ remained per- fectly innocent: 2. That he came under no obligation of justice to sufter, and consequently justice could never demand it of him as a penalty, otherwise justice can demund penalties of the innocent.—' But let the witnesses speak for themselves. " In this sense, Christ may be said to have suffered the penalty or curse of the law. First, it was the curse, or penalty of the law, BOW ready to be executed upon all men for sin, that occasioned his suffering. Had not the curse of the law been incurred by man, Christ had not suffered at all. Again: 2dly, Christ may be said to have suffered the curse of the law, because the things which ho suffered were of the same kind (at least in part) with those which God intended, by the curse of the law against transgressors, name- ly, rfenf/i. But if, by the curse of the law, we understand, either that entire system of penalties, which the law itself intends in the term death, or the intent of the law, touching the quality of the persons on whom it was to be executed; in neither of these senses did Christ suffer the curse of the law; neither ever hath it, nor ever shall be suffered, by any transgressors of the law that shall believe in him. So that God required the death and sufferings of Christ, not that the law properly, either in the letter or intention of it, might be executed, but on the contrary, that it might not be executed upon those that believe." page 2i,22. Now, if the curse of the law has not been suffered by Christ, in the full sense, either in the letter or intention of it; if it never luithy atid never shall be suffered "by any transgressors of the law that shall believe in him;" it is clear that it never has been, and never shall be suffered by either the sinner or his surety: consequently, Christ died to make it just for God to blot out the penally, or de- liver us from punishment, by granting us a gracious pardon. Once more: " In this sense of imputation (and this only) the sins of men may be said to be imputed to Christ, namely, because he suffered the things which he did suffer, in consideration of them: and these sufferings of his may be said to be imputed to us, be- cause we are rewarded, that is, justified and saved in considera- tion of them. But that either our sins should be said to be im- puted to Christ, because he is reputed by God to have committed them, or that his righteousness, whether active or passive, should be said to be imputed to us, because we are reputed by God to PtAN OF SALVATION. i,n have done or suffered the one or the other, hath no foundation either in scripture or reason." page 30, 31. " God hath opened another way for the justification of sinners, namely, faith in Christ, and he never sets up one way against another. Therefore to affirm, that the fulfiling of the law is re- quired of any man, either by himself or by another in his stead, for his justification, is to affirm, either that a man that hath sin- ned, hath not sinned, or that, that which God hath said, he hath unsaid." page 33. Now I infer, if the fulfiling of the law is not required of any man, either by himself or by any other in his stead, those breaches of the law which true believers have been guilty of, have been properly forgiven, and that the demand of the law in those cases, has never been rendered by any one, either by obeying or suffer- ing; otherwise it cannot with truth be said, that the fulfilling of the law is not required of such a man, unto his justification, either by himself or by another in his stead. Consequently, if Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Wesley be in the right, Christ never died to save sinners, by means of a legal righteousness, imputed to them or fulfilled in their stead, but to make it consistent with the na- ture of God to grant pardon: that is, graciously to forbear requir- ing a fulfilment of the law in those eases, either by obeclience or penalty. « Lastly, in case a man hath transgressed the law, and suffered (whether by himself or some other for him) the full punishment of it, he is no farther a debtor to it, either in point of obedience, or of punishment, nor hath any thing to do with the law more or less, for his justification; because the punishment which hath heen so suffered, is of equal consideration to the law, with the most absolute conformity to its precepts. So that as no man is ot ever was, bound to fulfil the law twice over, for his justification: so neither is it equal, that he, that hath suffered in full the penal- ty of the law, which is as satisfactory to it as the exactest obedi- ence, should be still bound to the observation of the law (whether by himself or any other) for his justification; this being all one, as the requiring a second obedience to the law, after a man hath per- fectly fulfiled it once." page 98, 99. Thus, the whole I contend for, is affirmed in the most unequivo- cal manner. It is an easy thing, I know, for a mind blinded by prejudice, to affirm, that the doctrine here defended is false, and that Mr. Good- 0^ AN ESSAY ON THE win and Mr, Wesley have said nothing in favour of it; hut I must request every person of candour and cuniiuon sense, to look back at those quotations, and tell me if it be not declared most eocpress- ly, 1. That if sinners were justified, in consequence of having per- fectly obeyed the law, either by themselves, or by another in their stead, there would be no place for remission of sins. 2, That if they were juslitied, in consequence of a full discharge of the pe- nalty, whether by themselves or any other, it would be of equal consideration to the law, with the most absolute conformity to its precepts, and thereibre would involve the same consequences. — And, 3. That tliis would be all one, as the requiring a second obe» diepce to the law, after a man hath perfectly fultiled it once. This being so fully in point, to establish every thing that can be desired in confirmation of the subject, and that from such high authority, 1 shall trouble my reader at present with the testimo- ny or judgment of only one more writer on the Arminian side. We find a short essay on the atonement, in the Methodist Maga- zine, founded on this motto from Ur. S. Clark " the design of me- 4iation was, that God would testify his hatred and indignation against sin, by consigning the pardon of it, through the blood of the Mediator," <.'God, who is not only a Being supremely excellent in goodness, but a most wise governor, was disposed so to dispense his pardon- ing grace to IV sinful world, as at the same time to encourage men to repent, aud to prevent their presuming on his goodness, and abusing its rich discoveries by greater eorruptionand wickedness." <'What cquld more demonstrate the will of the Divine Being, to advance holiness, and destroy the very seeds of vice, than his sub- jecting, for this end, his only Son to the meanness and labours of a mortal condition, and the suifering of death? "If it be ot^jef'ted, where is the justice of punishing the innocent, that the guilty may go free; 1 answer, there is no injustice in per- mitting those evils to fall on the innocent, which to the guilty are punishnK;nt^ of sin, when important ends of the divine government are hereby answered." Suppose a ki"g? nut of a concern to maintain his authority, and secure the future obedience of his subjects, refuse, even at the re- quest of his only Son to recall banishttd rebels, unless the Son would partake of their banishment, and endeavour personally tp reclaim them to a sense of their rebellion and of their duty, and the prince willingly undertake this^ it it^ certain by living a time with PLAN OF SALVATION. iTy the banished, he suflTers the punishment of their rebellion, though himself innocent; and this, without any injustice, because it is his own voluntary act, and because he hath the satisfaction of reclaim- ing the banished, and as a reward, sees them restored to forfeited favour, and receives himself a share in his Father's throne." Me- thodist Magazine for the year 1811, vol. 34:, page 30, 32, 34. Leaving the reader to make his own comment on this quotation, I will close this section with a few remarks upon our twentieth ar- ticle. The article stands thus; <'the offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone." Here it is unequivocally affirmed, 1. That a perfect propitiation or satisfaction has been made for ain, by the oft'ering of Christ. 3. That this satisfaction is made both for original and actual sin. 3. That it is made for the whole world of mankind. 4. That it is made for all the sins of the whole world, and of course for final unbelief, unless it can be proved that this is not a gin, or not a sin belonging to any man in the whole world. Does our article mean by this satisfaction, that the sentence of the law was executed, by an inflexible demand of justice, and that all penalties were thus legally discharged by Christ for all the sins of the whole world.'' "If so, every sinner in the whole world js as free from all penalties, as God is free from absolute injustice. But we believe all men who die in their sins will have to suffer the penalty, as though Christ had never died for them: I therefore conclude the meaning of the article is, that Christ rendered such satisfaction as made it just for God to pardon any sinner in the world, on condition of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Some appear to think Christ discharged all penalties, except for the sin of final unbelief; but when a sinner submits to the con- ditions of the gospel, is not his former unbelief forgiven, as well as his other sins? If so, they must confess the sin of unbelief has been expiated, because it has sometimes been forgiven after hav. ing been indulged for forty years. Do they mean that it is the last act of unbelief, for which no atonement was made.^ And is this the only act for which sinners are to be punished in a future state? J^o: *' For God shall bring every work into judgment with ever? secret thing, whether it be good, or evil. — Ecclesiastes, xii. 14. iU AN ESSAY ON THE Now it is just and consistent for sinners to be punished eternal- ly, "for the very sins which were expiated by Christ," or it i» not; If it is, then what necessity of his leaving some sins without being expiated, and why recur to this subterfuge to prove the con- sistency and justice of the sinner's condemnation? If it is not, the eonclusion follows, either that all for whom he died will infallibly be saved, or that there is some particular sin for which he did not die and for Mhich alone peniteirt sinners will be punished, without ever having to account or suiter for the generality of their trans- gressions. Thus we should contradict our articles of religion to- gether with the whole tenor of the scriptures. SECTION VI. The testimony of e7nimnt Calvinistic Divines. I propose now to show that our Calvinist brethren themselves are forced into this doctrine, whenever they attempt to give any reasonable account of their views of redemption. To this end I shall take the liberty to give a quotation from Dr. Andrew Fuller, reminding the reader that those passages which directly point to the subject I have attempted to explain, are put in Italics. " The sense of mankind, with regard to the necessity of a Me- diator, may be illustrated by the following similitude. Let us suppose a division in the army of one of the wisest and best of kings, through the evil counsel of a foreign enemy, to have been disaffected to his government; and that without any provocation on his part, they traitorously conspired against his crown and life. The attempt failed; and the offenders were seized, disarmed, tried by the laws of their country, and condemned to die. A respite however was granted them, during his Majesty's pleasure. At this solemn period, while every part of the army, and of the em- pire, was expecting the fatal order for execution, the king was em- ployed in meditating mercy. But how conld mercy be shewn? "To make light of a conspiracy," said he to his friends, would loosen tiie bands of good governmentt other divisions of the army might be PLAN OF SAUVATION. 179 tempted to follow their example^ and the nation at large might be in danger of imputing it to tameness, fear, or some unworthy mo- tive." " Every one felt in this case the necessity of a mediator, and agreed as to the general line of conduct proper for him to pursue. He must not attempt,' said they, * to compromise the ditter- enccs by dividing the blame: that would make things worse. He must justify the king, and condemn the outrage committed against him; he must oflfer, if possible, some honourable expedient, by means of which the bestowment of pardon shall not relax, but strengthen just authority; he must convince the conspirators of their crime, and introduce them in the character of supplicants; and mercy must be shewn them out of respect to him or for his sake. " But who could be found to mediate in such a cause.'' This was an important question. A work of this kind, it was allowed on all hands, required singular qualilieations. " He must be perfectly clear of any participation in the of- fence,' said one, ' or inclination to favour it.' " He must,' said another, ' be one, who on account of his char* acter and services stands high in the esteem of the king and of the public: a mediator in effect pledges his honor that no evil will re- sult to the state from the granting- of his request." « I conceiv e it is necessary,' said a third, ' that the weight of the mediation should bear a proportion to the magnitude of the «rime, and to the value of the favour requested ; and that for this end it is proper he should be a person oi' great dignity, " A fourth remarked, that he must possess a tender compassion towards the unhappy offenders, or he would not cordially interest himself in their behalf. " Finally, it was suggested by a fifth, that " for the greater fit- ness of the proceeding, it would be proper that some relation or «onnexiou should subsist between the parties. " Meanwhile the king and his son, w horn he greatly loved, and whom he had appointed generalissimo of all his forces, had retired from the company, and were conversing about the matter, which attracted the general attention. " My son, said the benevolent sovereign, what can be done in behalf of these unhappy men,^* To order them for execution, vio- lates every feeling of my heart: yet to pardon them is dangerous. If mercy be exercised, it must be through a mediator; and who is qualifted to mediate in such a cause? and what expedient can be 180 AN ESSAY ON THE devised by means of which pardon shall not relax, hut strengthen just authority: speak, my son, and say what measures can be pur- sued? " My father,' said the prince, * I feel the insult offered to your person and government, and the injury thereby aimed at the em- pire at large. They deserve to die without mercy. Yet 1 feel for them. I cannot endure to witness their execution. What shall I sav? On me be this wrong! Let me suffer in their stead. Inflict on me as much as is necessary to impress the army and the nation with a just sense of the evil, and of the importance of good order and faUhful allegiance. Let it be in their presence, and in the pre- sence of all assembled. When this is done, let them be permitted to implore and receive your majesty's joarrfon in my name. If any man refuse so to implore, and so to receive it, let him die the death. " My son!' replied the king, ' you have expressed my heart! The same things have occupied my mind; but it was my desire that you should be voluntary in the undertaking. It shall be as you have said. The dignity of your person and character will render the sufferings of aw hour, of greater account as to the impression of the public mind, than if all the rebellious had been executed: and by how much I am known to have loved you, by so much will my compassion to them, and my displeasure against their wicked con- duct be made manifest^ " The gracious design being communicated at court, all were struck with it. The only diffieully that was started, was amongst the judges of the realm. They, at first, questioned whether the proceeding was admissible. ' The law,' said they, ' makes provision for the transfer of debts, but not of crimes. Its language is, the soul that sinneth it shall die." But when they came to view tilings on a more enlarged Sfo^e, considering it as an expedi- ent on an extraordinary occasion, and pereeiviug that the spirit of the law would be preserved, and ail the ends of good govern- ment answered, they were satisfied. " It is not a measure," said they, " for which the law provides, yet it is not contrary to the law, but above it. [Goodness is more than justice.] " The day appointed arrived. The prince appeared, and suf- fered as a criminal. Returning to the palace, amidst the tears and shouts of the loyal spectators, the suffering hero was embraced fcy his royal lather; who, in addition to the natural affection ^hich he bore to him as a son, loved him for his singular interposi- FLAN OF SALVATION. I8i tioii at such a crisis. < Sit thou,' said he, < at my right hand! though the threatenings of the law be not literally accomplished, yet the spirit of them is preserved, the honour of good government is secured, and the end of punishment is more effectually an- swered, than if all the rebels had been sacrificed. Ask of me, my son, what I shall give thee!" *' He asked for the offenders to be introduced as supplicants at the feet of his father, for the forgiveness of their crimes, and for the direction of affairs till order and happiness should be perfectly restored. " A proclamation, addressed to the conspirators, was now issu- ed, stating what had been their conduct, what the conduct of the king, and what of the prince. Messengers also were appointed to carry it, with orders to read it publickly, and to expostulate with them individually, beseeching them to be reconciled to their of- fended sovereign, and to assure them, that if they rejected this* there remained no more hope of mercy. " When the proclamation was read, many paid no manner of at- tention to it; some insinuated that the messengers were interested men, and that there might be no truth in what they said; and some even abused them as impostors. " My heart,' says one, ' rises against every part of this pro- ceeding. Why all this ado about a few words spoken one to another.'*' " If a third person,' says another, ' must be concerned in tha affair, what occasion is there for one so high in rank and dig^ Hity? To stand in need of such a mediator, must stamp our char- acters with everlasting infamy.' " I believe,' says a fourth, 'that the king knows very well that we have not had justice done us, and therefore this mediation bu* siness is introduced to make us amends for the injury.' " You are all wrong,' says a fifth,' I comprehend the design, and am well pleased with it. I hate the government as much as any of you: but I love the mediator; for I understand it is his inten«> tion to deliver me from its tyranny. He has paid the debt, the king is satisfied, and I am free. I will sue out my right, and rfe- mand my liberty.^'' See the Gospel its own Witness, &c. page 141, 142, &c. &c. Mr. Fuller afterwards introduces Paine's objection, that « the doctrine of redemption has for its basis an idea of pecuniary jus- tice, and not that of moral justice." And in answering it he ob- Aa 19^ AN ESSAY ON THE «ervcs, " A mnrderer owes his life to the justice of his country; and when he suffers, he is said to pay the awful debt. So also if a great character, by suffering death, could deliver his country, suet deliverance would be spoken of as obtained by the price of blood. No one mistakes these things by understanding them of pecuniary transactions. In such connexions, every one perceives that tlie terms are used not literally but metaphorically; and it is thus that they are to be understood with reference to the death of Christ." Page 154. He says again, page 156, " Redemption by Jesus Christ was ac- eomplished, tiot by a satisfaction that should preclude the exercise of grace in forgiveness, but in which the displeasure of God against sin being manifested, mercy to the sinner might be exer- eised without any suspicion of his having relinquished his regards for righteousness.^^ Again: After mentioning some who " have considered the death of Christ as purchasing repentance and faith, as well as all other spiritual blessings, on behalf of the elect; and upon this ground have maintained that God is bound in strict justice, in respect to Jesus Christ, to confer grace and glory on all those for whom he died:" he observes, " The writer of these pages, acknowledges he never could perceive that any clear or determinate idea was conveyed by the term purchase in this connexion, nor does it ap- pear to him to be a doctrine taught in the scriptures. The notion of grace being bestowed, on account of value received, appears to him inconsistent with the freeness of grace itself, and with the perfection of the divine being, to whom nothing can be added or given which can lay him under obligation." He concludes upon the whole, « If we say, a way was opened by the death of Christ for the free and consistent exercise of mercy, in all the methodsivhich sovereign wisdom saw fit to adopt, perhaps we shall include every material idea which the scripture gives us of that important event." Page 157. Now I must appeal to the good sense of the world, and ask if these quotations be not a plain defence and illustration of the sub- ject in question? Is it possible to make them accord with the Antinomian doctrine of atonement? No: they are a positive and express contradiction of it; and afford unequivocal evidence, that even those good men who have been unhappily entangled in the horrors of reprobation, are forced into our system whenever they attempt to give any consistent account of their views of salvation through J#8U8 Christ. PLAN OF SALVATION, ltd Our doctrine is also advanced by the Rev. Samuel Davis, some- time president of the college in New Jersey. Id his first volume of sermons, speaking of God, he says, « His goodnesH is that of a ruler, and not of a private person; ai^d hi» pardoning of sin, and receiving ofteuders into favour, are not pri- vate kindnesses, but acts of government, and therefore they must be conducted with the utmost wisdom; for a Mrong step in his in- finite administration, which aftects such innumerable multitudes of subjects, would be an infinite evil, and might admit of no re- paration." « These things I hope are sufficient to convince your under- standings that divine justice is not that unkind, cruel, and savage thing sinners are wont to imagine it; but that God is just, because God is love; and that he punishes not because he is the enemy, but because lis is the friend of his creatures, and because he loves the whole too well to let particular ofifenders do mischief with im- punity." "It may perhaps be objected," 'That to represent justice under the notion of love, is to aftect singularity in language, to destroy the distinction of the divine attributes, and the essential differen- ces of things.' — To which I answer, 1. That a eatachresis may be beautiful and emphatieal, though it be always a seeming impro- priety in language. Such is this representation, 'divine justice, divine love.' 2. I do not deny that God's executing righteous pun- ishment upon the guilty may be called justice; but then it is his love to the public that excites him to do this; and therefore his do- ing it may be properly denominated love, as well as justice, or love under the name of justice, which is love still. 3. 1 do not mean that the usual names of things should be changed, but that we should affix suitable ideas to them. We may retain the name of justice still, but let us not affix ideas to it that are inconsistent with divine love. Let us not look upon it as the attribute of a ty- rant, but of a wise and good ruler."-/SVrmon on God is Love, vol. i page 4-5 3. 454. Here are two important principles laid down: 1. that goodness and justice operate in constant harmony, and can never be contra- dictory to each other. 2. That " it is his love to the public that excites him to execute righteous punishment upon the guilty be- cause he loves the whole too well to let particular ofifenders da- mischief with impunity." Hence it follows, that all the satisfac- tion goodness or justice wanted in the free-pardon of the guilty, was that the ends of government, and the general welfare should! 18* AN ESSAY ON THE be secured. This is effectually done by the glorious Redeemer, and therefore through him sinners may be freely forgiven. That this was Mr. Davies's judgment in the matter, is very clear from his own words in another place. For, speaking of re- demption, he says, "God being considered in this affair in his pub- lic character, as supreme Magistrate, or Governor of the w orld, all the punishment which he is concerned to see inflicted upon sin is, only such as answers the ends of good government. Private revenge must vent itself upon the very person of the offender, or be disappointed. But to a ruler, as such, it may in some cases be indiffertint, whether the punishment be sustained by the very per- son that offefided, or by a substitute suffering in his stead. It may also be indifferent, whether the very same punishment, as to kind and degree, threatened in the law, be inflicted, or a punishment equivalent to it. If the honour of the ruler and his government be maintained, it' all disobedience be properly discouraged^ H' iu short, all the ends of government can be ansiaered, such things as these are indifferences. Consequently, if these ends should be answered by Christ suffering in the stead of sinners, there xvould be no ob- jection against it." — Sermon on " the Method of Salvation through Jesus Christ." page li-i. Again he says, page 116, "Was it difficult how to reconcile the salvation of sinners, and the public good? that is, how to forgive sin, and yet give an effectual warning against it? How to receive the sinner into favour, and to advance him to the highest honour and happiness, and in the mean time deter all other beings from offending.? All this is provided for in the sufterings of Christ. Let all worlds look to his cross, and receive the warning which his wounds and dying agonies proclaim aloud^ and sure they can ne- ver dare to offend after the example of man. Now they may see that the only instance of pardon to be found in the universe, was not brought about but by such means as are not likely to be re- peated: by the incarnation and death of the Lord of Glory. And can they flatter themselves that he will leave his throne, and bang upon a cross, as often as any of his creatures w antonly dare to offend him? No: such a miracle as this, the utmost effort of divine grace, is not often to be renewed; and therelore, if they dare to sin, it is at their peril. They have no reason to flatter them- selves they shall be favoured like fallen man; but rather to ex- pect they shall share in the doom of fallen angels." Nothing can be plainer from these quotations, than the great and interesting principle under consideration; namely, that Christ PLAN OF SALVATION 186 sever came to give the sinner a legal discharge from all demand* of'tha divine law; but he bore the sins of the whole world in suck a sense only, as should "reconcile the salvation of sinners, and the public good; that is, that God might /or^iue sin, and yet give an effectual warding against it." It is true, Mr. Davies advances some things in other placesj and •ven in the sanre sermon, which I cannot reconcile with the above quotations; but t.iis proves only that the good understandings of our brelhrew .vere so influenced and filled with the light of truth, that they were somstimes constrained to give their testimony in its J^ehalf, though they thereby sapped the foundation of some peculiar opinions which they had unhappily espoused without sufficient ex- amination. President Davies was what some have termed a moderate Cal- vinist. I am convinced, from the character given of him, that he Mas a man of a generous mind, of a true spirit of christian piety, and of an excellent, improved understanding. Some may think this a gulftcient reason for receiving ail his opinions; but I cannot, because this rule of searching after truth was never given by our Heavenly Master, and if we were to follow it, we should be led to receive contradictions, as other men of equal character and abilities have espoused very different opinions from those of his persuasion. Now let me appeal to my friends and fellow labourers, who glory in preaching a free salvation for all the world: and permit me to ask, whether we must be backward in proclaiming the whole truth, while the light of it shines so bright that others are constrained to publish it abroad, notwithstanding its opposition to their system, and its inseparable connexion with ours.'' While they declare that Christ came to vindicate the govern- ment, and thus introduce the sinner to a throne of grace to obtain a free pardon, and yet inconsistently maintain that all for whom he died must inevitably be saved, or else his blood was shed in vain: shall we involve ourselves in alike inconsistency, by saying with one breath, Christ died only to make salvation possible for all, and with the next, that he really discharged all penal sanctions that lay against every sinner in the world? This sui-ely would be »ore than making salvation possible for all, because it would make the salvation of all men as absolutely necessary, as it is for God's law never to demand two penalties, or never to inflict the same penalty twice over. ifiS AN ESSAY ON THE CHAPTER III. THE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF REASON AND REVELATION, IN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINE STATED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER^ SECTION I. »3 brief view of the nature of forgiveness. The mysterj' ofaionemcnt, like that of the Trinity, has been thought too sacred for human reason to examine; or at least, that it is dangerous, not to say presumptuous, for men to labour by sub- tle reasonings to obviate the difficulties in which it seems to be in- volved. We have indirectly acknowledged to our infidel objectors, that our principles dare not approach the light, and their writers have gladly availed themselves of our concessions, to increase the ef- fect of that insinuating ridicule, with which they wage a perpetual war against our benevolent religion. " I am the better pleased with this method of reasouing," says Mr. Hume, in his Essay on Miracles, "as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends, or disguised enemies, to the christian religion, who have undertaken to defend it upon the principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded on faith, not on reason; and 'tis a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure." Hume's Essays, vol. ii. page 198. Thus it appears, that Mr. Hume was very confident, that it is imprudent to bring the christian mysteries to a close inspection, and that those are dangerous friends to the christian religion, or disguised enemies, who attempt to defend it upon the principles of human reason. Are not some christian divines of the same opi- nion? H' so, is there not an agreement of sentiment between them and Mr. Hume? And who is nearest to infidelity, the man who agrees with deists, that Christianity is in danger of being exposed when too closely examined, or he who differs from them in this important point, and says with Dr. Campbell, «We scorn to take 1»LAN OF SALVATION. isr shelter in obscurity, and meanly to decline the combat; confident as we are, that reason is our ally and our friend, and glad to find that the enemy at length so violently suspects her?"* The reason why atonement has appeared to be such a danger- ous mystery, is, that the Antinomian notion of it is founded on a palpable contradiction. Justice and mercif have been considered as two principles in the divine nature, which were contradictory to each other, till they were reconciled by the Redeemer. Thus it would seem, our Saviour came into the world for the purpose of reconciling contradictions. Did the attributes of God contradict each other before sin en- tered into the creation? If not, they could not do it afterwards, unless we say, sin made a change in the Divine Nature: and if they were always opposed to each other, till Christ reconciled them, it follows, that he came from Heaven to change the nature of that Immortal Being, with whom is no variableness or shadow of turning. The divine perfections agreed as harmoniously in the plan of restoring creatures from guilt and misery, after their fall, as in their creation or government before; and as goodness was no more disposed to appoint a plan of restoring God's creatures, which should be contrary to justice, than in tirst forming a plan of gov- erning them, it is evident that justice was as far from contradict- ing its operations in one case as in the other. If justice demanded that sin should never be forgiven, but that all sinners should stand condemned, until it should be unjust to condemn them any longer; and if Christ came to render this demand, it is evident his death was so far from reconciling justice and mercy together, that it confirmed their irreconcilable opposi- tion, and blotted mercy out of existence. But nothing is more evident from the Bible than this soul-cheer- ing truth, that mercy belongeth unto God, and is daily exercised towards the fallen children of men. Among all the dlfterent sectaries in Christendom, I have never heard of any who professedly called this principle into question, or denied its being an essential doctrine of revelation. However we differ in other matters, we all profess to agree in the existence of this gracious attribute, on which we depend for eternal life, and without which we could never hope for pardon. The unmerited * See his Lectures and Dissertations, bound together, p. 429. 188 AN ESSAY ON THE kindness of our Maker, not only diffuses happiness through the heavenly regions, but extends its benign iuiiuenees to the fallen and the guilty. This is evident from the structure of the Heavens and the earth; more so, from the testimony of Moses and the Prophets; and more still from the gospel of Jesus Christ, which having "brought life and immortality to light, has proclaimed a gracious pardon to the world, free for every sinner who will re- pent and believe the record God has given of his Son." The doctrioe of forgiveness is as universally admitted, among chrisiians, as that of the Divine Mercy, and is justly considered as a consequence of it; but the nature of this act ol pardon or justifi- cation has long been a subject of controversy, chiefly, perhaps, because the disputants did not understand each other, and were not fully aware of theambiguiiy of their language, and the indis- tinctness of their conceptions. Let us endeavour to conceive this subject clearly, that we may know what we mean, and what we believe concerning it: till we do this we shall be in danger of disputing about words, and of dis- senting from those, who, when they rightly conceive our meaning, are of the same sentiment with ourselves. The act of pardon is an act of the divine will: it is no act of the sinner's will, nor does it consist in any change produced upon him. It is true, indeed, that the performance of the condition on which the pardon is suspended is an act of the sinner's will: it is true like- wise, that he experiences a gracious change wrought in him, as a consequence of his pardon; but if we say, on the one hand, that the pardon consists in the act of the sinner's will, we say he forgives himself; and if, on tlie other, that it consists in the change produc- ed in him, we confound pardon with sanctilication, and suppose the sinner stands in the same relation to God he did before; seeing we make forgiveness signify merely a change of his nature, which is surely as distinct from forgiveness, as the act of a phy- sician is different from that of a governor. Many justified believers still need the sanctification of their na- ture, but all men before they are justified, need deliverance from the penal consequences of their crimes, as well as from their natu- ral effects: none but God can grant us this deliverance, and that act of his will which remits the sentence, or fori>eais the execution of it, is what we understand by the grant of pardon. The proper and only subject of forgiveness is a rebel who justly deserves the penalty. It is ridiculous to talk of granting pardon to the innocent. And if a sinner be delivered from the sentence any other way than by au act of pardon, he certainly needs no for- PLAN OP SALVATION. 189 giveness, because he has, by other means, obtained as complete a deliverance from the sentence of death, as any act of pardon co Id possibly aftbrd him. If a sinner be now exposed to the penalty, it stands in full force against him, and it would be just for the sen- tence to he executed upon him immediately; if he be not exposed to it, and yet has never obtained forgiveness, it follows that he has been delivered some other way, and upon principles of pure justice will be eternally free from the infliction of it, though no pardon should ever be granted. The principle from which forgiveness flows, is that of benevo- lence. Sinners, by their rebellion, hate forfeited their right to demand exemption from the curse due to the guilty; the death of Christ was not intended to restore that right to sinners, otherwise they would have the same demand they had in a state of innocence, and consequently be as free from the want of pardon* Ood is not bound in a debt of justice to any criminal, however penitent, seeing the claim of innocence is forfeited by sin; and as there is no right of demand in the sinner, there can be no corres- ponding obligation on his sovereign to remit the sentence^ or deli- ver him from the penalty. But it must be carefully observed in the mean time, that al- though God is under no obligation, in his individual relation to the criminal, yet he has graciously bound himself by promise, to par- don all sinners who will repent and believe the gospel. This pro- mise he has confirmed by an oath, and sealed it by the blood of the everlasting covenant. Therefore his veracity, and of course his unchangeable character, is pledged before the whole universe, to receive and pardon all sinners, who will truly submit to the go- vernment of the Lord Jesus Christ: consequently he could not vi- olate those promises and sacred pledges, without involving his character and government in such darkness and contradiction, as would throw the minds of all his innocent children into confusion. In this sense he may be said to be bound by his justice; but this bond arises, not from a restoration of the sinner's right to the demands of innocence, but from his own voluntary goodness, pledging him- self by promise or benevolent engagement, to remit the sentence on certain specified conditions. Every innocent creature, as before observed, has an individual and inherent right to the character and consequences of innocence: of course he has a just demand upon every being, not to de&troy Bb t99 AN ESSAY ON THE his character of innocence by false imputations of guilt, or to pun- ish him as a criminal. But all tliis being forfeited by sin, the re- bel has no demand or claim to the character of innocence, or to be exempted from the penalfy of justice. Neither the death of Christ, nor the promises of God were ever intended to restore the eriginal rights of innocence to sinners in this probationary state: but to entitle them to the privilege of obtaining pardon and salva- tion, on gospel conditions, from the clemency of their gracious so- Tereign. After their probation shall have ended; after every act of bene- volence shall have been completed; and after their intelligent and moral nature shall have been restored and perfectly fitted for the regions of eternal happiness; — then the rights of innocence will be theirs in common with all the heavenly hosts: but we have no evidence to believe any man is in this state till he is fully sealed to the day of eternal redemption. Whether any man be thus fully sealed on this side death, I pre- sume not to decide; but that seal, whenever he receives it, must be considered as the closing point of his probation. Mr. Baxter and Mr. Wesley agree, that "justification is not a single act, begun and ended immediately upon our believing; but a continued act, which, though it be ia its kind complete from the first, yet is still in doing, till the final justification in the judg- ment day. That the justified may pray for the continuance of their justification, and that Christ's satisfaction and our faith are of continual use, and not to be laid by, as if the work was done." Wesleifs fForlcs, vol. 22, page 178. The conclusions I would draw from what has been said, and which I hope to defend in the sequel, are these; 1. That Christ never came under any obligation to suffer, but that of benevolence, pledged by way of promise. 2. That God in Christ never came under any other obligation to any sinner of'Adam's race. 3. That no sinner has any more inherent right to demand par' don from God, than he had to demand the death of Christ, for his redemption. 4. That Christ died to make it just for sinners to be forgiven, and finally saved, on condition of repentance, fiiith and gospel obedience. 3. That even upon the performance of those conditions, Christ's death has not bound God, iu any other sense than as it has been PLAN OF SALVATION. 191 given as a seal of his gracious promise, engagement or covenant with his creatures. We have been told, on the contrary, that Christ has done and suffered all that sinners were bound to do or to suffer: that he obey«d the whole law and suffered the whole penalty, in their stead; and that his tibedience and sufferings are so made over, or transfered to the sinner, by some mysterious imputation, that God really views him as having done all the law required, and as having suffered tlie whole penalty it demanded. This system is clogged with the following consequences: First: it charges God with being an unjust extortioner: for if an obedience has been rendered to the law, pei'feetly equal to its dc:- mand, all penalties are necessarily precluded; unless we say a lavv perfectly obeyed demands a penalty. For what does it de- mand a penalty? Not for disobedience, because it has been per- fectly obeyed: the penalty then must be for obedience or for no- thing at all. If the sinner, by imputation, be really clothed with a perfect righteousness, exactly such as the law demands, it would be forever unjust for any penalty to be inflicted either oc him or his surety. Secondly: clothed in this perfect righteousness, he appeals to inflexible justice as the ground of his justification; he looks up to the law for protection, having fulfilled every precept in his surety; he justly demands an exemption from the curse, and stands in uo more need of pardon than the brightest angel there is in heaven. Thirdly: if God demanded that the whole penalty should be ac- tually inflicted before any sinner should escape, he certainly re- solved that sin should never be forgiven; for if we say an infliction of the whole penalty is no proof that the siu was not pardoned, it may be true that the sins of all that are in hell have been forgi- ven, seeing their suffering the penalty is no proof to the contrary. If crimes forgiven, and those which are not, must be equally pun- ished, it is plain to common sense that forgiveness is a mere name which signifies just nothing. Fourthly: let our objectors admit, for the sake of argument, that the death of Christ did not discharge the penalty, but only- accomplished that which was necessary to make the grant of par- don accord with the general welfare: would it be just for God to grant pardon in this way, or not? If it would, then there was no necessity in justice for Christ to discharge the penalty; if it would not, then we say God ha^ »o authority to forgive offenders, even when it can be done in perfect consistency with good government. 493 AN ESSAY ON THE and with the security of the public welfare. Consequently, that he has less authority than human rulers, who we know have the pre-- rogative to grant pardon to those w ho have been legally condemn- ed when it can be done without jeopardising the general welfare of society. Fifthly: if we say God has authority to grant pardon, when the general good is secured, but that he will not do it, until the whole penalty be endured, these consequences will inevitably follow: i. That God has no Mercy in his nature. 2. That in demanding pun- ishment when the public welfare does not reqnire it, he has no re- gard to the rights or happiness of others as the reason of this de- mand, and of course that he has no regard to the principle of jusr lice or benevolence. 3. That this demand arises solely from a sel- ^sh principle, that is, a principle which has no object in view but its own private gratification. 4. That this private principle or passion is gratified with another's misery, seeing that misery could be abolished without injuring any creature in existence. And •what is the diiference between this principle, and the most con- firmed and unrelenting malice.^ "can you split this hair.^ I doubt, I cannot." Another scheme of redemption is, that Christ came merely to display the love of God to man, and reconcile man to his heavenly Father: that God never actually punishes sinners, because there is no wrath in his nature: but that sin, of its own nature, makes us miserable; and nothing ijbstructs our salvation but our own op- position to God and to holiness: and of course Christ did nothing to satisfy any demand of God, but merely to reconcile the sinner and bring him back to his allegiance. — See a short treatise on the atonement, by Mr. Stone. We cannot receive this doctrine for several reasons. 1. Because it contradicts the scriptures which every where de- clare that God will execute just judgment upon the wicked, and that the end of Ciirist's coming was, "that the world through him might be saved," which surely implies that >Yithout him the world could not be saved. 2. This doctrine, like the other, contradicts divine justice: for if God has no wrath against sin, or no justice to punish it, which is the same thing, it must be because justice is not an attribute of his nature. Sinners deserve punishment, or they do not; if they de- serve it, then it is just for it to be inflicted on them, and therefore t^jsay it is contrary to the nature of God to inflict punishments, is to say it is contrary to his nature to execute justice upon unrelent- PLAN OF SALVATIOrf . 198 jng offenders: if, on the contrary, they do not deserve it, then it fol- Jows that there is no demerit or ill-desert in transgression. And if misery has no just relation to moral evil (as it cannot have if evil does not justly deserve it) we should be constrained to say it is as righteous a thing to punish men for doing good as for doing evil. Thus the dictates of reason and conscience would be contradicted, all moral distinctions confounded, no difference left between right and wrong, and we should find ourselves let loose into the wide fields of atheism. 3. It also destroys the scripture doctrine of forgiveness: for if sinners deserve no punishment from God, or stand exposed to no penalty, there is no sentence to be remitted, and of course a par- don would be a mere sham that could afford them no more securi- ty than they possess without it. Their actions, in a moral view, must deserve punishment, be entitled to reward, or be entirely in- differentj and if they deserve no punishment, to talk of forgiving them would be a ridiculous pretence of granting pardon to those actions which were either rewardable or totally indifferent in their nature. If there be no ill-desert in disobedience, we are not bound either to obey our Maker, or to be just to our fellow creatures; for the sole reason sinners deserve punishment, if they do deserve it, is, that they injure others and act in defiance of moral obligation. And if we be not morally obliged to obey our Maker, he has no right to demand our obedience, and therefore, all his demands upon us would be unjust, because it were demanding of us that to which he has no right. It follows that our obligation to obey, and God's right to punish for disobedience must stand or fall together, and if we deny them, we cut dqwn at one stroke, all religion and morality. We must therefore renounce these two systems, which would make the pardon of sinners impossible or unnecessary; we must reject the notion that Christ died to raise the sinner above the want of pardon, by discharging all claims against him, as well ag this latter one which teaches that the laws of God have no penal sanctions; and we mustmaintain with the apostle that "we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, acco^:- ding to the riches of his grace." Eph. 1. 7. 194 AN ESSAY ON THE SECTION II. The nature of justice and benevolence considered, in their relation to each other. Dr. Reid must be considered as standing among the most dili- gent and candid inquirers after truth: and he had as clear con- ceptions of intellectual and moral subjects, perhaps, as any man that ever lived. His account of justice is so clear, and so impor- tant, that I will give it in his own words, and notice the conclu- sions it will afford us. "To sum up what has been said on this point," says he^^'a. fa- vour, an act of justice, and an injunj are so related to one anotlier, that he who conceives one must conceive the other too. Tliey lie, as it were, in one line, and resemble the relations of greater, less, and equal. If one understands what is meant by one line being greater or less than another, he can be at no lo^s to understajid what is meant by its being equal to the other: for, if it be neither greater nor less, it must be equal. *'In like manner, of those actions by which we profit or hurt other men, a favour is more than justice, an injury is less; and that which is neither a favour nor an injury is a, just action.''^ This statement is very clear, and must recommend itself to eve- ry man's conscience in the sight of God. But when we illustrate moral principles by the relation of great- er, less, and equal, it is necessary to observe thait happiness is al- ways their object. A favour is more than justice: that is, when you do a favour you give a person more happiness, or more of the means which are essential to it, than he has a right to demand of you. "An injury is less:" that is, you injure a person by taking or withholding from him a part of his good things, whereby you make his happiness, or the means of it, less than his right of de- mand. Thus, injustice always tends to enlarge misery, and benevolence to enlarge happiness; while justice, occupying a middle ground, forbids the introduction of misery, and demands the maintenance of happiness in exact proportion to every one's right, without ei- ther forbiding or demanding an enlargement of it, above that standard. Injustice is the only thing that justice ever can forbid, because it is the only thing that ever sinks below her demand: Bhe has nothing to forbid or to enjoin upon benevolence, because PLAN OF SALVATION. 195 tiie essential nature of it is, not only to secure her full demand, but to rise above it, and bestow more happiness than justice had aright to claim. But how, it may be asked, can justice relinquish its demand in behalf of mercy, in the pardon of a criminal? Answer, the de- mand of justice is, that the rights of the innocent shall be secured; benevolence will never grant pardon in any other way but that which secures them; and therefore justice never relinquishes her demand. The office of justice is to defend the public welfare, which this attribute alone can only do by punishing the guilty; but benevo- lence interposes, and pledges herself, not only to secure the public welfare, but also to extend the means of happiness to the guilty. This is doing more than justice alone could do, whereas injustice consists in doing less: consequently the demand of justice is not relinquished, but is completely satisfied, seeing all the happiness 19 secured which was demanded, and even more than was demand- ed. As the object of justice is to defend happiness, it can never be dissatisfied with benevolence for enlarging it, nor with the means that are necessary to accomplish the end. If the innocent voluntarily suft'er a temporary evil, to secure an eternal good to others, this can i>ever be unjust; otherwise we say the innocent have no right to be benevolent, except in those cases in which it will cost them nothing. Justice and injustice are contradictory to each other: the former tending to maintain happiness, and the latter to destroy it: the former including a regard to the general welfare, and the latter a disregard of it. This will surely be granted by every man in the world. Now as justice and injustice are contradictory to each otherj benevolence must of necessity agree with one or the other of them: if with the latter, it is an essential principle of wickedness; and if with the former, it is as impossible for justice and mercy to contra- dict each other as it is for righteousness and wickedness to be the same thing. He who loves the principle of justice, delights to see all crea- tures enjoy the full degree of happiness, which God has given them a right to claim: he who loves the principle of benevolence, delights to see them enjoy their full right of demand, and if they need it, something more: these persons both agree to delight in geQ«ral happiness, and coBsequently they agree in their opposi- 196 AN ESSAY ON THE. tion to that injustice, which if not prevented, would fill the uni-' verse with misery. From what has been said we may deduce the following plaiu and interesting conchisions. There is no possible way for one person to violate justice, but by injuring another; that is, by doing less for him than he has a right to claim. Consequently an act of the deity, or of any other being, which does not infringe upon another's right of demand, is in perfect harmony with the purest dictates of everlasting right- eousness. 2. An act of benevolence, being no injury, but the contrary, stands at the utmost distance from injustice of any thing that can possibly be imagined. There is as absolute an opposition between them, as there is between happiness and misery — light and dark- ness — or any other opposites in nature. To deny this, is to say positively that God never exercised kindness to any living crea- ture, or that, whenever he did so, he was guilty of injustice. For at the moment he bestowed a favour, he had a right to withhold it, otherwise it was no favour at all; but if he had a right to w ithhold it, then it was just for him to do so: consequently goodness consists in giving up a right which justice allows us to retain. Injustice, on the contrary, consists in withholding a right from another, which justice demands us to render, and does not allow us to retain. Any doctrine therefore, which obviously jumbles perfect goodness and injustice together, as though they were the same thing, is most ri- diculous and senseless confusion. 3. As goodness cannot violate justice, when God graciously and freely forgives a sinner, justice is as perfectly satisfied as it would be with the sinner's damnation: because in this case the right of no being is withheld from him, but the loving Parent of all mankind exercises the optional right of goodness, which can dissatisfy no principle but that of unrelenting barbarity and malevolence. 4. The only case in which the communication of happiness, or the diminution of misery, can be unjust, is that of one person con- fering a particular benefit on another, not from the principle of be- nevolence, but from that of partiality: I mean, when the benefit or privilege allowed to one will tend to the injury of others. We will suppose a number of murderers are taken up within this commonwealth, and cast into prison. They all deserve to die, and if they were immediately pardoned and set at liberty, justice would not be satisfied. Why? Because the commonwealth would be endangered; the citizens would be exposed to their unrestrained PLAN OF SALVATION. 497 Olalevolence; their rebellion would be encouraged; the governor would be suspected of a deficiency in the guilty to the innocent. If redemption did notliing towards the diminution of misery, what goodness was displayed in it, unless we say benevolence consists in nothing else than the transfer of punishment from the guilty to the innocent.^ . 2. Our opponents themselves explain the penalty of God's bro* ken Iftw to be "death, temporal, spiritual and eternal." Now God can, consistently with his attributes, diminish this penalty, and infliflt but a part of it, or he cannot; if he can, then it was not ne- cessfiry for the whole to be endured by the Redeemer; if he cannot, it plfiinly follows that all mankind must yet be damned, unless it can he proved "that the Lord Jesus suflered death temporal, spi- ritual and eternal." The word of God assures us that he, having once suffered for sins, now suffereth again no more, but is exalted above all principality and power, on the right hand of the Majesty on high. I never yet heard any one profess to believe, much less attempt to prove, that Jesus Christ suffered everlasting punish-^ nient even for the elect themselves; but this is (confessedly) the punishment which the law required of them, and which consti- tutes the penalty that must be inflicted to the very last mite, before justice can l^e satisfied: therefore the elect must yet suffer death eternal, anrjjredemption has accomplished " a solemn nothing." 3, I woultl be glad to know whether punishment be the only thing that c^n satisfy justice, in its relation to a sinner; or whe- ther benevolence can render any satisfaction, and thus diminish the extent of misery.^ If benevolence can do this, I conclude, if the death of Christ satisfied justice, in its relation to the government^ and God's benevolence satisfied it in its relation to his individual right of punishing, a complete and entire satisfaction is thus ren- dered, and yet we are all dependent on the divine clemency for jusli Ucation, and have no legal deoiaud upon our Creator. PLAN OF SALVATION. 205 If it be said, on the contrary, that nothing can satisfy this at^ tribute but punishment, I would ask again, whether it demand that the guilty should suffer, or whether it be indifferent to justice who is punished, provided the whole penalty be endured? If the latter, it follows that all the devils might now be taken out of hell, and justice would be satisfied, provided as many holy angels were put in their place, seeing it is a matter of inditterence who endures the misery. But if, on the contrary, nothing can give satisfaction but the punishment of the guilty, the sufferings of an innocent Sa- viour would be of no avail, and the redemption of mankind would be absolutely unrighteous, and therefore impossible. 4. If it be granted that goodness can satisfy justice, in its rela- tion to God's individual right, all objections against our system are gone at once: for if Christ died only to make it just for sinners, on certain conditions, to be forgiven, and left the sentence still in force against them, till it should be blotted out by the divine com- passion, it cannot hence be concluded that justice is only satisfied inparlj because the act of goodness in the grant of pardon, renders the satisfaction complete and entire. But if we deny the merit of goodness, and maintain that mere punishment is the only thing which is effectual to a sinner's sal- vation, it would follow, that Christ must necessarily suffer as much real torment as all his ransomed creatures ever deserved, before they could be redeemed or delivered from the sentence. This is re- presenting him to suffer as a criminal, which, to say nothing of the injustice of it, supposes the suft'eriug of sinners, and those of their Saviour, are exactly equal in merit; seeing all merit, availa- ble for the guilty, is supposed to consist only in the degree of mi- sery endured. What was it that rendered the death of Jesus peculiarly meri- torious.^ Was it necessary for sin to be imputed to him, and for him to die a real criminal? just the contrary: he suffered, being inno- cent, for the sake of sparing the guilty, and his whole merit, as a Saviour, consisted in that voluntary goodness which influenced him "that was rich in glory to become poor, that we through his poverty might be rich." • I presume all men will acknowledge that there is no merit in the sufferings of the damned, because they, as criminals, deserve it, and suffer the whole as a penalty of justice. But there was great merit in the sufferings of our Saviour; therefore he did not suffer as acriminal, by becoming guilty in their place, but endured the whole asa burden assumed by voluntary kindness, and this con- stitutes the meritorious efficacy of his death, for our salvation. Dd J06 AN ESSAY ON THE There would have been no peciillar merit in the sufferings of Christ, had he been bound in justice to endure the whole; no dig- nity of person would have increased their merit, because the mere payment of a debt or the discharge of a just obligation, is no more meritorious in a prince or other ruler, than a like action in the meanest subject of his dominions. It is true Christ's peculiar me- rit consisted in the dignity of his person; because he being God over all blessed forever, was far above the law given to creatures, , and was under no obligation to obey or to suffer. Had he been thus bound to suffer, his death would have been of no avail, unless we suppose there is great merit in a person's suffering what justice requires of him, jvhich were to attribute merit to the sufferings of devils: therefore the benevolence of the Lord Jesus, was the foun- tain of his merit, and was the only thing which rendered his death effectual to our redemption and salvation. Now if it be granted, (J.) that our Saviour's goodness was the sinirce of his merit, and (3.) that merit is the thing that satisfies justice in behalf of sinners, it will follow that Christ was not, by imputation, constituted a criminal, or else that there was no merit in his death: for there is no benevolence, and therefore no merit, in a criminal suffering what justice requires of him. Dr. Crisp,had the boldness to declare, on the contrary, that "God makes Christ as very a sinner as the creature himself was." Again, as quoted by Dr. Williams, page 370: "Nor are we so com- pletely sinful, but Christ, being made sin, was as completely sin- ful as we." — And it is well known, that Luther, in one of his un- guarded moments, called Christ* the greatest sinner in the world. See Fletchers Checks, vol. 2. page 339. * "And this, no doubt, all the prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become the greatest Transgressor, Murderer, Adul- terer, Thief, Rebel and Blasphemer, that ever was or could be in the world. For he being made a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, is not now an innocent person and without sins, is not now the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary: but a sinner which hath and carrieth the sin of Paul, who was a blasphemer, an oppressor and persecutor; of Peter, which denied Christ; of David, which was an adulterer, amurderer,and caused the gentiles to blaspheme the name of the Lord. When the law therefore, found him among thieves, it condemned and killed him as a thief. — If it be not absurd to confess and believe, that Christ was crucified be- tween two theives, then it is not absurd to say also that he was accursed, and of all sinners the greatest." Luther's commentary on St Paul's epistle to the Galations, Lou- don edition, 177-i: page 303. PLAN OF SALVATION. 2or As the counter part of tliis, we have been taught to believe that the merits and righteousness of Christ are really transferred, or made over to us by imputation, just as he was made guilty by ha- ving our sins imputed to him. "To deny, therefore, that God imputes righteousness to an elecl. while he is full of unrighteousness; or to suppose that he imputes sin to an apostate, who is sold under sin, is but a decent way of de- nying the imputation of our personal sins to Christ, and the vica- rious satisfaction which he made on the cross. ••To detect the fallacy of this argument," says Mr. Fletcher, "we need only observe, (i.) that God never accounted Christ com- pletely guilty. Such expressions as these. He made him sin for us: He laid on him the iniquities of us all, &c. are only Hebrew idioms, which signify, that God appointed Christ a sacrifice for sin; and that the chastisement of our forfeited peace was upon him: which no more implies, that God put on his back, by an absolute imputa- tion, a robe of unrighteousness, woven with all the sins of the elect to make him completely guilty, than St. Luke, when he informs us, that the Virgin Mary ofiered two young pigeons for her purifica- tion, supposes her ceremonial uncleanuess was, somehow, woven into a couple of little garments, and put upon the back of two pi- geons, which by that means, were made completely unclean. 'Gallio gets drunk, and as he reels home from his midnight re- vels, he breaks thirty -six lamps in the streets, and sends out vol- lies of curses to the number of two hundred. He is brought before you,* and you insist on his going to the house of correction, or pay- ing so much money to buy three dozen of lamps, besides the usual fine for his profane language. As he is not worth a groat, his sober brother Mitio kindly offers to lay down the sum for him. You ac- cept of the vicarious satisfaction, and binding the rake to his good behaviour, you release him at his brother's request. Now sir, would you be reasonable, if you reckoned Mitio completely guilty of getting drunk, swearing two hundred oaths, and break- ing thirty six lamps.^ *And will you defend a doctrine which charges God with a mis- take ten thousand times more glaring, than that you would be guilty of, if you really reckoned Metio an abandoned rake, and Gallio a man of an exemplary conduct? Will you indeed recom- mend still as gospel, an opinion which supposes, that the God of everlasting, unchangeable love, once loathed and abhorred his be- * Mr. Hill being a magistrate, he is here addressed as such. m AN ESSAY ON THE loved Son; and that the God of invariable truth could once say to the holy Jesus, 'Thou art all foul, O thou defiled object of my ha^ tred, there is no purity in (hee;' while he addresses a bloody adul- terer with, 'Thou art all fair, my love, my undefiled, there is no spot in thee?" Fletcher's Works, vol. 2, page 163, IG*, To Mr Fletcher's just and ingenious illustration, we may add the following plain consequences of the Antinomian system of im- putation. 1. If our sins were actually imputed to Christ, to make him completely guilty; we are delivered from the curse, not through the merit of Christ's death, but by virtue of God's act of imputa- tion, whereby we are constituted innocent; and Christ, being as ve- ry a sinner as the creature himself was, is bound injustice to suf- fer the whole penalty for himself, 2. It was just for the Lord of glory to be charged with our crimes, and the guilt vf them absolutely transferred from us to him, or it was not; if it was not, the doctrine we oppose is false, or God is an unjust being; if it was, then he suffered nothing but what in justice he deserved, and consequently there was no more merit iii hi* death, than there is in the death of any other sinner. 3. If this mysterious doctrine of imputation be true, we must necessarily receive the following jumble of contradictions; that Christ w as a sinner and yet a meritorious saviour — that he was guilty and not guilty — innocent and not innocent — that we are guilty and not guilty — innocent and not innocent — that God i^ good, but refuses to be gracious. — and that he is just in the viola- tion of justice. 4. Lastly, if the merits and righteousness pf Christ be actualr Jy transferred to us by imputation, we are all as completely right- eous and meritorious as ever he was, unless our objectors will leap into another contradiction, and say his righteousness is imputed {ind not imputed — his merit made oyer to us and not made over, at the same time. This would not constitute us ransomed sinners, hut gracious saviours of the world, possessing the whole right- eousness and merit of that sacred cliaracter. These conclusions arc too obvious to be denied, and too ridicu- lous to be admitted, by any unprejudiced, reflecting mind; and I hope the lovers qf truth will not receive such inconsiderate and absurd opinions under the popish cover of "holy mysteries," nor \ie dissuaded from a diligent search and inquiry, through the groundless fear that truth will be exposed, and error established, by a close and candid examination; or, as some would express it, by "carnal reasonings and metaphysical distinctions." PLAN OF SALVATION. 20.9 Perhaps our opponents, in reply to the doctrine of this section, ■will declare they never taught nor believed that Christ suffered the entire degree of punishment that was due to sinners; but that he rendered that satisfaction to divine justice, which was equiva- lent to the whole penalty. We answer: 1. If our sins were really imputed to Christ, and if nothing but punishment can render satisfaction for them, he must of necessity suffer the whole that was required, and nothing less could be re- ceived as equivalent; but if there is merit in every act of the re- deemer's goodness, with which divine justice is satisfied, then our doctrine is true, that benevolence was the source of our saviour's merit, Avliich made it just for sinners to have a probation granted them; and that his benevolence in the grant of pardon, is also me- ritorious, and makes it just for sinners (when renewed) to be ad- mitted into heaven. 2. In what sense was the death of Christ equivalent to the pe- nalty.'' Not in the degree of punishment; and I would fain hope no person will say it was so, in the degree of guilt. In merit it was more than equivalent; for I presume there is no merit at all in a f)erson's suffering what he deserves, and therefore a sinner's suffer- ing what he deserves, is not meritorious. Do they mean that the death of Jesus was equivalent to the penalty in the effects produc- ed by it, or in the satisfaction it rendered to the divine nature? I believe in both these respects it was more than equal to the damnation of all sinners: for it not only displayed God's holiness and hatred against sin, which their damnation would have done, hut procured a day of mercy and salvation for all mankind, and opened the way for goodness to diffuse its benign influences even to the guilty, which an infliction of the penalty would never have accomplished. And the divine nature was certainly better satisfi- ed with the death of Christ, than with the condemnation of all re- bels, otherwise they would have been condemned, and the saviour would never have come into the world. God was more glorified, or his attributes were more extensively displayed, by redeeming sin- ners, than by consigning them all to perdition, because his wonder- ful goodness, benignity and wisdom, were manifested in the salva- tion of sinners, and this was done in perfect concord with his jus- tice and impartiality. If by equivalent, our opponents mean that Christ's death, though not equal in punishment to the requirements of the law, yet gave the sinner as absolute a discharge or deliverance from guilt and demerit as he had before sin entered into the world, the conse- 210 AN ESSAY ON THE quence is, that all for whom the redeemer died, are perfectly se- cure and innocent in the midst of all their crimes. We must maintain that this scheme would prove that his death was not equal to an execution of the sentence upon all offenders: for, (1.) how is his holiness or hatred against sin displayed, if he es- tablishes a plan of redemption, which gives his creatures full li- berty to sin without any danger, or possibility in justice, of ever being punished for it? Where is his general goodness and impar- tiality, if a few are thus absolutely saved, and the rest as uncon- ditionally neglected, reprobated and danmed? What becomes of his wisdom, if he puts the reigns of government out of his hands, gives all mankind a sham trial; threatens his elect with hell if they repent not, and invites reprobates to partake of the waters of life freely, when he cannot punish the former, or reward the latter, without being wnjust? Where is his justice and equity, if his innocent creatures were placed in a state from which they might fall and perish forever, and his guilty ones in a state of sham trial, in which they are absolutely secure in the midst of all their abominations? What is this but manifesting a complacency for wickedness, and even reAvarding it with that safety and uncon- ditional assurance of eternal life, which Adam in paradise, and ihe very angels in heaven were not in possession of? And if we say he died for ail mankind, and discharged every de- mand thatjustice can have against any of Adam's race, then all must Lave a sham trial, and be unconditionally saved, in which case sin, in the finally impenitent, will be rewarded, and God's appro- bation of it declared; or else, standing in a state of real probation, all impenitent sinners must be condemned, and the Almighty would thereby display an act of unrighteousness, by requiring the same penalty twice over, or by execuling t!iosc against whom jus- tice had no demand. If Christ by his death satisfied every de- mand that ever justice had, or now has, against (he sons and daugh- ters of Adam, we are all absolutely free from all penalties: otherwise you say justice has been fully satisfied, and not fully satisilcd; has received its whole demand against sinners, and not received it, at the same time. Thus it appears the system we oppose, renders redemption use- less, unjust and contradictory: useless, because it teaches that the whole penalty must of necessity be endured; but (his penalty i* death eternal, which Christ never suffered, and tkerefore all sin- ners are left without hope and without remedy. Unjust, inas- much as it presents a false charge of guilt against the innoceut PLAN OF SALVATION. 211 redeemer, (by imputation,) that he may sufter according to his de- merit. Contradictory, in declaring that ail demands of the law have been discharged, and yet that they continue in full force: that all our guilt has been transferred to a surety, >vho has satisfied every claim in his own person, and yet that we remain guilty children of wrath, who >vill be everlastingly damned unless we repent and obtain forgiveness: finally, that God's law has but one penalty against sinners, the whole of which has been actually en- dured, and yet thousands shall suffer eternal punishment for the very sins that have thus been completely expiated; and we must neither call this the same penalty which the redeemer suffered, nor any other one; but must receive the whole in jumbled confu- sion, without presuming to indulge "the almost magical power of our metaphysical distinctions."* These strange mysteries must be believed and defended, it seems, for the honour of Chris- tianity, and to support the glory of redemption! I hope, however, that a candid survey of the following section will convince the judicious reader, that the dignity and importance of our holy re- ligion, can be supported upon very different principles. SECTION V. The same subject. To understand the scheme of redemption correctly, it is neces- ry to trace the economy of providence, and the principles of mo- is the proper foundation of all just conclusions in divinity, and un- less we bring our views of redemption to this criterion, our infer- ences are drawn in the dark, and we know not what we say, nor whereof we affirm. We will therefore, as the foundation of our superstructure, lay down the following positions, some of which will be admitted without hesitation, and the others I trust, shall be supported by correct and conclusive evidence. 1. The Almighty riiler of the heavens and the earth, being See Mr. Shirley's Reply, to Mr. Fletcher^s Vindication. 2t2 AN ESSAY ON THE. glorious in holiness, and perfect in goodness, enjoys unceasing and infinite felicity. 2. This complete and perfect happiness is not derived from any thing foreign from himself, but results from the harmony and per- fection of all his eternal attributes. 3. He is perfectly free and voluntary in all his actions, because he is omnipotent, and cannot be controuUed by any other power or authority. To deny his free agency, is to ascribe our being and happiness to necessity, seeing if God be not a free agent, they depended not upon his liberty of option, and could not be other- wise than they are. It is to deny that power belongeth unto God; because a power to do any thing, includes a power to leave it un- done, and to affirm a being has power, who is destitute of agency, is an absolute contradiction. 4. There is no immoral principle in his nature, and no error or mistake can ever enter into his infinite mind; therefore God can* not be tempted w ith evil, neither tempteth he any man. It is im- possible for God to lie; he is the same yesterday, to-day, and for- ever: therefore he never has done, and never will do any thing " but what is eternally just, right and kind." 5. This great and immortal being, from the pure benevolence of his nature, was influenced to create various orders of intelligent and moral creatures, that they might behold his glory and partici- pate in his felicity. 6. To this end it was necessary for them to possess understand- ings liberty and moral goodness for if the happiness of deity re- sults from his own nature, it is evident that his creatures, to par- take of the same kind of enjoyment, must possess a degree of the same nature, otherwise we say his nature is essential, and at the same time not essential, to moral happiness. That God did in fact endow his creatures with free agency, is evident from their fall: for if they were not free, it is certain that lliey w ere made wicked, or else w ere driven into sin by some other power; if they were made wrong, the fault was in their Maker, not in themselves; and if they were forced into sin by the agency of another, God only could be the author of it, because there was no other power in the universe. Therefore we are reduced to this dilemma: either to believe that our creator is essentially wicked, or that his creatures were made free, and introduced evil by an abuse of their liberty. *• But why was this agency or active power bestowed upon them ? We must answer that it was essential to the enjoyment of moral PLAN OF SALVATION. 213 happiness, or that it was not: if it was, this good and perfect gift is resolvable into the divine beneficence; if it was not, then we say- God bestovved a useless power upon his creatures, which could do them no good, and which might prove fatal to their tranquillity. If we say he gave it in order to ruin them, we charge him with ma- levolence, and if we say he gave it for no eu«l, we charge him with folly: therefore the only modest and rational conclusion is. that he gave it through benevo-lence, because it was essential to their spi- ritual or moral happiness. 7. To secure and perpetuate the happiness of his children, God gave them a law or moral government, founded upon the attributes of his own nature. For as His felicity results from the perfections of his own nature, the government, to promote theirs, must be es- tablished upon the same principles. His giving them a moral law is, of itself, an incontestable proof of their free agency. For had God intended to regulate all their actions by the force of destiny, nothing more would have been ne- cessary than to subject them to the mechanical laws of matter, be- cause these are entirely sufficient to accomplish the end. Are not the general laws of nature perfectly adequate to the government of those parts of God's creation that possess not the power of ac- tion in themselves, and can only act as they are acted upon.'' And if God intended that angels and men should be governed by the same necessity, would not a moral law be both useless and ridicu- lous.? The winds, and waves, and all the elements of uature are moved by mechanical influence: if the actions of men and angels are all directed in the same way, they need no other law, and are as inca- pable of moral government as a stone or a tree. And what wisdom or goodness is there in commanding or warning a creature against evil conduct, if he either has no power to do wrong or must fall in- to it of necessity.? The absurdity of such a law is obvious to com- mon sense, and it is truly astonishing that men should be disposed to impute such folly to the Almighty. But it may be asked, why did not God govern all living creatures by the law of instinct, as the brute creation are governed.? Could they not enjoy sufficient happiness by voluntarily following the in- stincts of their nature, without any responsibility, and therefore, without any danger of losing their felicity.? They might, it is true, have thus enjoyed the happiness of a brute; but not the happiness of a man^ and much less that of an an- gel. The reason why brutes are not morally aeeountable is, that E e 214 AN p:ssay on the they have no conception of right, or of moral obligation: to bring men and angels to this state, their knowledge must be taken from them, and they must be brought down to the ignorance of brute beasts. I presume the happiness of all creatures, that of a beast not ex- cepted, depends upon knowledge and liberty. Some, however, ap- pear to imagine that beasts, birds and fishes, have no more liber- ty or power than a mill-wlieel, or any other machine; but I know no argument to prove ihis conjecture, but what would equally prove that men have no power. For men have similar instincts, appetites and affections, and are under the same necessity of choos- ing happiness in preference to misery. Man chooses happiness in preference to misery, of necessity; and so, I presume, does every creature in existence; but the means of enjoyment are innumera- ble, and we have the lil)erty or power to use them at our option. The inferior animals have a degree of the same liberty, confined, indeed, within narrow limits, from the imperfection of their know- ledge, which deprives them of spiritual and moral happiness; but although their enjoyments are almost entirely confined to sensation, yet they have a free range through the earth, and air, and water; and we cannot abridge their power, or obstruct the freedom of their choice, without, in the same proportion, diminishing their happiness. But waving the case of beasts for the present, it is sufficient to our purpose that all men are conscious of a degree of power over their actions, and that their highest happiness arises from know- ledge, and is inseparable from a voluntary choice. The exercise of virtue, or the enjoyment of moral happiness against our consent is impossible: because it implies a state of complete slavery. If it be asked, why was not the will inclined to choose all the pro- per means of happiness, as necessarily as it is inclined to choose happiness as its end, in preference to misery; I think the proper" answer is, that it was impossible for creatures to possess moral rectitude, and of consequence, moral happiness, without the liber, ty of option, or, which is the same thing, without a degree of pow- er, which essentially implies that agency of will that can choose one thing or its contrary; — that can perform an action,. or omit the performance of it — that can determine, or omit the determi- nation. If this be true (and that it is »o, I hope to prove directly) it clearly follows that the reason why God did not hinder the intro- duction of moral evil, by making it impossible for his creatures PLAN OF SALVATIOK ^5 to sin, was because it could not be done without making it impos- sible for any creature, to enjoy holiness or moral happiness. God left his creatures free, because God is love; and he-' inglove, hedelighti to see his creatures enjoy that sublime feli- city, which the chains of desii'iy would have deprived them of for- ever. It follows also, from the same principle, that, as the chief hap- piness of angels and men consisted in the voluntary exercise of tJieir faculties, and as it was possible for those faculties to be di- rected wrong; it was necessary for the nature and law of God to be communicated to their understandings, both to inform them how to act, and to furnish motives to good conduct. To this end the na- ture and effects of good and evil were made known to them, accord- ing to their capacity of receiving this knowledge; the divine be- neficence was displayed before them, inasmuch as the law was calculated to promote universal happiness, while justice guarded their liberty by all the warnings and sanctions of supreme autho- rity. But how is it to be determined whether the principle itself be a truth, or a mere hypothesis.^ My reasons for believing it a truth are derived chiefly ij-om the moral attributes of God. Other argu- ments might be produced; but lest they should be thought too me- taphysical, I will content myself with appealing to those sacred perfections which we all acknowledge, and which are supported by the clear evidence of reason and revelation. Why were motives offered, or warnings given to angels or men, but because it was possible for them to act wrong.? And why were they made in a state, in which it was possible for them to act wrong, but because power or agency was essential to their happiness.? That they were not bound to the right by necessity is a matter of fact, as both an- gels and men departed from their first estate by rebellion against their Creator's laws: and if we say they could have been as com- pletely happy in a state of absolute iivtality, as in (hat of moral liberty, it will follow that God had no regard to their felicity, in giving them the power of self determination. And if he had no regard to this, there was no benevolence in the matter, and conse- quently no creature ever had reason to thank his Maker for the gift of moral liberty, seeing it is of no use to men or angels, and has become the cause of general misery. It is a little remarkable that our opponents seem unwilling to own that the creature's free agency was essential to God's glory, and to the perfect happiness of his children, and chose rather to 216 AN ESSAY ON THE insist that sin was necessary to accomplish these ends! We see it is a lamentable matter of fact that moral and natural evil have entered into the creation: the question has long since been started, why did not God prevent it? Some have answered that God pre- destinated or determined that sin shr>uld be introduced because it was necessary for the display of his glory: and therefore "accord- ing to the council of his own will, he fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass." We answer that sin was never necessary, and God never predestinated it; and the reason why he did not make it im- possible forhis creatures to do wrong, was, that the liberty of op- lion was essential to the happiness and perfection of their nature. Had he deprived them of this, he would thereby have suspended the operations of his goodness, and prevented all that sublime and angelic felicity, which results from a voluntary obedience to his commandments. This is the only conclusion that is worthy of God, or that can ever be made to accord with those perfeetione which are every where ascribed to him by the incontestable voice of revelation. Need we now produce particular passages to prove that God is holy, wise and good.^ Every one knows the bible must stand or fall with these essential truths; but if God either forced his creatures into sin, or gave them liberty for no end but to en- snare them, what holiness or justice, or hatred of sin, is herein manifested? If he gave them this power when it was not at all ne- cessary to their happiness, it is ridiculous to say it resulted from kindness; it is equally so, to say it resulted from wisdom, if it was bestowed on them for nothing; or from trnth and sincerity, if he cautioned and warned them against evil, and at the same time secretly contrived or predestinated their apostacy. We must there- fore give up the divine attributes, and contradict the leading principles of revelation, or admit that God bestowed the gift of moral freedom, from the principle of loving kindness, to promote that progressive improvement and felicity, which can never re- sult from either a mechanical or a brutal nature. 8. If then the happiness of God's creatures resultetl from a vo- luntary exercise of their free powers, according to the principles of his divine government; and if they were influenced to good con- duct by moral motives exhibited in that government; it plainly follows that the law must be maintained and displayed in all its purity, and in all its force, that happiness may be perfect and uni- versal. Consequently any violation of il, or any departure from the just principle on which it is founded, is a direct attack upon the general welfare, and an audacious insnlt te its eternal Author^ PLAN OP SALVATION 217 Hence the odious nature and deep criminality of moral evil. It is a. yery dreadful evil, not merely because it has been forbidden, as if it was no evil till the prohibition made it so, but because it natu- rally tends to misery, and is a violation of the essential rights of God, of angels, and of men. 9. It is a mournful truth, but too notorious to be denied, that the inhabitants of our world are involved in the horrors of depravity and guilt. We drink in iniquity like water, and seem bent upon our own destruction. If sin is such a crying evil, our danger must be great; and had not divine goodness interposed in our fa- vour, we could have no hopes of ever ascending to the regions of the blessed. The reason why God executes vengeance upon sinners, is because it is necessary. It is just for them to be punished, because they de- serve it; but justice is executed upon them, not merely because they deserve it, but because it is needful for the security of those creatures whom the divine attributes are engaged to defend. If we deny this, we say the execution of justice is an unnecessary thing, and punishments are inflicted for no other end, but because it is the good pleasure of God to inflict them; which supposes him to be actuated by the spirit oi revenge. If rebels pass with impunity, the whole creation are tempted at once to disbelieve the goodness, justice and holiness of their crea- tor, and moral governor; and nothing can give them that evidence of these attributes which they ought to have, but a full manifesta- tion of God's abhorrence of moral evil. This evidence they had before, by the divine attributes maintaining their happiness, and warning them against evil; but now that the supreme authority is insulted, some new proof must be given, which before was not ne- cessary; because if the sinners now pass with impunity, and no- thing be done to evince the creator's displeasure of their crimes, the former evidence is contradicted, and the creatures of God are thereby exposed to the most fatal delusions and temptations; such as are calculated to destroy the harmony of heaven, and to pro- duce universal misery. To prevent this, the pare nature of God, and the ruinous eftects of sin, must be set in a proper light, for the sake of those creatures whose nature is fitted to the influence of moral motives. For these righteous purposes, and not for the gratification of revenge, are punishments inflicted under any just government in the world: and surely the administration of Al- mighty God is more perfect than that of men, and is infinitely far- ther removed from any private passion or animosity. ^8 AN ESSAY ON THE 10. It plainly follows from M'hsd has been said, that if sinners were not pardoned without a redeemer, it was not because there ivfts no disposition in God to forgive them, but because he had too Ipiuch regard for the general good to let particular offenders pass unpunished; unless the fatal influence of their sin could be by some other means prevented. If he had no disposition to jiardon them, there was no mercy in his nature, and if he had, nothing hindered him from doing it, but his regard for good government and the gen- eral safety: consequently the accomplishment of these ends in re- demption, vvas all that the nature and attributes of God ever de- manded, as an atonement, propitiation, or satisfaction for sin. SECTION \T. The same subject. We come now to consider the formidable objection which deists, and some predestinarian divines will be apt to allege against us. Be pleased to inform us, will they say, how God's hatred of sin could be manifested by inflicting punishments upon the innocent. Before we give a direct answer to this objection, it may not be amiss to show how easily it may be retorted. , First: Let it be observed, that every thing in nature is surround- ed with difficulties, when we attempt to discover why it is so, or how certain effects are produced. The fact may be plain, and may be supported by evidence which cannot be resisted; and yet the maimer of it may remain inscrutable, or at least very inadequate- ly comprehended by the human mind. Consider the Avorks of nature, and tell us how it is (hat he stretcheth the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing? Consider the laws of gravitation, magnetism, vege- tation and dissolution, how are yonder stars and suns suspended in the heavens, and in what manner have the planets been kept in their orbits for thousands of years.-^ How is animal life supported by various kinds of material substances, taken into the stomach, and why must there be a perpetual motion of the heart, and circu- lation of the blood, to keep us from dropping into the dust? How is PLAN OF SALVATION. 219 if, that we see by means of one member of this body, hear by means of another, and taste and smell by means of organs separate from both the others? Why is it that I cannot see \vith my ears, and why is my whole body susceptible of the sense of touch, while the other sensations are confined to different small parts of it? Can any one inform me why I can move my arm, and alter its motion as I please, while I have no power over my blood or heart which continually move independent of my will? or how the members of my body, and other parts of matter, are put in motion at the in- conceivable influence or command of thought, which is immateri- al? This is a mystery so profound, that it is acknowledged to sur- pass all human conceptions, even by Mr. Hume, whose testimony or opinion in this case, is of some importauce, as it shows that the greatest philosophical sceptics are forced to admit the myste- ries of nature while they inconsistently reject those of revela- tion. - "]s there any principle in all nature," says Mr. Hume, "more mysterious than the union of soul with body; by which a supposed spiritual substance acquires such an influence over a material one that the most refined thought is able to actuate the grossest mat- ter? Were we empowered, by a secret wish, to remove mountains, or controul the planets in their orbit; this extensive authority would not be more extraordinary, nor more beyond our compre- hension."* If the creation be thus full of mysteries, and if the connexion between cause and effect, or the manner of operation by which ef- fects are produced, be inconceivable while the facts are obvious, and supported by evidence most conclusive and irresistible; why should it be thought wonderful that we cannot entirely compre- hend the influence of redemption, or tell how the death of Christ produced those great effects which are ascribed to his sufferings in the christian revelation? Secondly: as infidels are inconsistent in complaining of gospel mysteries while they themselves hold others that are parallel, so are our christian objectors in charging our system with being in- definite, while the complaint is so applicable to their own, and can be so successfully retorted. Let us inquire, in the first place, how they will give us a clear and definite account of the connexion between our Saviour's suf- ferings and the "resurrection of the dead." He said, "because I * Hume's Essays, vol. 2, page 104, 105. 250 AN ESSAY ON THE live ye sLall live also: he is called the first fruits of them that slept: the apostles preached tlnough Jesus the resurrection from the dead: and St. Paul says, for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.'' — John.xiv. 19. i Cor. ^y. 20, 2i. Jids, iv. 2. Now if they can understand the clear connexion between the death of Christ, and the resurrection of all mankind from the grave, we will wait patiently to have the matter explained; for to Hs it appears very difficult and hard to be understood. If men will be raised from the dead in consequence of Christ's having died for them and rose again, according to the scriptures; and if, as our opponents tell us, Christ did not die for reprobates; it plainly fol- lows that reprobates will never rise from the dead. But our Sa- viour says, "all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, nnio the resurrection of dam- nation." John V. 28, 29. f Let us inquire again how their system clears up the mystery of atonement, and how they explain the suffierings of Christ, as a cause of the sinner's justification. The scriptures inform us, that he died for our sins, and arose again for our justification. That he gave his life a ransom for all, and made his soul an oflFering for sin. That he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities: that the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. In this we are all agreed: but strange as it may seem, the very men who caution us against explaining away the divine mysteries, adhere to an hypothesis, unknown in the gospel, that was invented to account for the death of Christ, and to explain how the justifi- cation of sinners is accomplished by his atonement. We will sup- pose an objector to state his argument in these terms: 'You urge with great earnestness and assurance, that the end of Christ's death was to vindicate the divine purity in the pardon of sinners, by declaring his righteousness, or evincing his hatred against sin; but suppose all this be granted, your conclusion is not yet secure: for if Christ was innocent^ as you contend, who is able to conceive how God's hatred of sin was manifested, by inflicting punishments upon the innocent? But admit our doctrine, that he becameguilty and suffered the penalty as such, and it is easy to see how his hatred of sin is manifested, because he punished the sins of all his people in their surety,who voluntarily became guilty in their place.' PLAN OF SALVATION. 521 In answer to this, 1 propose to prove these three things: First: that though it were true that no man could have any conception of the manner how Christ's death made our salvation accord with the glory of God, yet we should be bound in reason to believe the fact, notwithstanding our incapacity to comprehend the manner of it. Secondly: that the Antinomian hypothesis, far from clearing this mystery, makes it more obscure, and even involves it in contradic- tions. Thirdly: that our view of the matter, though it does not explain the mystery of redemption fully, or enable the human mind to have an adequate conception of it, yet it makes the subject of atonement more intelligible than the other system, because mere consistent with itself, and with the nature of God. First: Suppose we had no conception how the death of Christ declared God's righteousness, or manifested his hatred of sin, would it be a fair conclusion, to infer that we ought to disbelieve the doctrine of redemption, until the manner of it, or the connex- ion between cause and eftect, should be made clear? I conclude it would not, for the following reasons: 1. It is possible for us to have full evidence of a fact, or of cer- tain effects produced by some cause, witheut knowing either the cause or the manner of its operation. Instance the ebbing and flowing of the tide: whether it be produced by the immediate volition of some active agent, or by the mechanical influence of some other part of the material creation, I presume remains a secret to this day: at least it remains so to thousands who are capable of know- ing the fact, by the most irresistible evidence. 2. We may know both the cause and the effect, and yet have no conception of the connexion between them: witness the power of the mind over the menibers bf the body, which Mr. Hume ac- knowledged to be ai inconceivable a mystery, as our actions would be, "were we empowered by a secret wish, to remove mountains, •rcontroul the planets in their orbit." While I move my hand over this paper, I am certain of the effect, that my hand does move, and equally certain that I am the cause of it, because I am con- scious that it moves by the volition of my will; yet the connexion between my volition and the motion of this piece of matter, or the manner how the effect is produced, remains a secret, of which I have no conception. 3. We may know the cause, the effect and the means made use •f, and yet have no conception of the manner how the means ope^ Ff 332 AN ESSAY ON THE rate, or why snch means are necessary to produce the effect. Wit- ness the thousands who have been restored to health, by the in- fluence of various kinds of medicine, who knew the agent, the means used, and the effect produced, and yet had no conception of the secret operations by which their health was restored, and were unable to tell why such particular kinds of matter were necessary to produce the effect, rather than others, or how the healing influ- ence operated, to remove their disorders. The creation of the world, is a mystery of this latter kind. We have full evidence of an Almighty being, as the cause: by the evi- dence of our senses Me ascertain the existence of a material uni- verse as the effect pf his power: and by revelation we are assured the world was created by means of his word. "God said let there be light, and there was light." "God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. And upholdeth all things by the word of his power." Heb. i. 23. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. All things were made by him; and with- out him was not any thing made, that was made." John i. 13. Now will any man imagine that he can comprehend how God by his word produced the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land? And will any one do violence to his reason, and re- ject all the evidence we have for the cause and the effect, because the manner of his operation is incomprehensible by us? Wifl he deny the existence of God or the existence of the world, because he cannot understand how the world was madc^" As little reason has any one to disbelieve oiir redemption by Jesus Christ on ac- count of his incapacity to conceive how this salvation is accom- plished, or why such particular means are to be used. The cause or agent in this work was the same that created the world; the means made use of were his assuming our nature, and submitting to suffer and die, even the death of the cross: the effect produced was, a full display of the glory of God, in the grant of pardon to penitent sinnei-s. For all this we have abundant evidence; and if we had no more conception how his death exhibited the evil of sin, and the purity of the divine nature, than how light came into being, when God said let there be light, our ignorance would afford no more evi- dence against the truth of redemption, than against the creation; and therefore we are bound to reject this infidel pka, or leap at ouce into atheism, seeing the objection bears equally against the PLAN OF SALVATION. 323 creation of the world, as against its redemption by our Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly; The Antinomian hypothesis, far from clearing this mystery, involves tlie subject in darkness and contradiction. It were easy to show, that the practice of inventing hypotheses to account for the works of God, has had the same tendency in all fLges: it has never improved human knowledge, but on the contra- ry, has bewildered the understanding, and led to conclusions the most absurd, and inconsistent that can be imagined. It may not be improper to mention one or two cases, and show their similarity to the present theory of our objectors. It is impossible for us to conceive hoiv God created the world out of nothing; and hence the fact has been denied, and theories have been invented to account for its existence. It has been arbitrari- ly taken for granted, that small particles of matter, called atoms^ have existed eternally; that they arranged themselves together by chance, and that it is only by chance that this great universe con- tinues in being. The answer to this is the same that is to be given to other hy- potheses: First, There is no manner of evidence for the principle which is taken for granted: Secondly: The principle, if true, would not assist our concept tions, but would leave the subject as mysterious as it was before. Thirdly: It contradicts the immediate dictates of our intelli- gence, " that nothing can begin to exist, or be put into motion, without a cause adequate to produce the eftect, and that from the signs of power and wisdom in the eftect, we may certainly know that those attributes exist in the cause which produced it." Again: The fact is clear, that we perceive external objects by means of our senses; but the manner of it is inconceivable: hence the hypothesis has been invented, that ideas come from external ob- jects, through the organs of sensation, which ideas the mind imme- diately perceives when seated in the brain. This has been thought to account for the fact, and to show how we perceive the various objects around us. We are told that two grand axioms in Sir Isaac Newton's Philo- sophy were these: 1. That in accounting for any phenomenon or event in nature, " the cause we assign must be shown to exist :" and secondly, " it must be adequate to produce the effect." Now I think Dr. Reid has made it very clear, 1. Thatnoevi dence has been produced, that there are ideas in the brain : Secondly: That such ideas, suppose their existence to be ad 334 AN ESSAY ON THE mitted, do not account for our perception of external objects, or enable us to understand the manner of it any better than we do without them: and thirdly: That the theory contradicts com- mon sense, and led bishop Berkley and Mr. Hume by regular and consequential reasoning, to disprove and disbelieve the existence of a material world.* The atonement made by our Redeemer, like all the other workg of God, has something in it, surpassing our limited conceptions. The fact is clearly revealed, " that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners:" we are fully informed who the Author of our salvation is, and also concerning the means he made use of, and the ultimate end of his sufferings; but how the means he uses produce the effect, or accomplish the end intended, is not so easi- ly understood. Here we must be content with a partial concep- tion, aided by metaphors and similitudes, without giving them a literal application; we must be content in a state of ignorance, where God has not given us the means of knowledge, lest Me run into dangerous errors, which are far worse than ignorance. But alas! the professors of Christianity have followed the ex- ample of the scholastic philosophers, and the effect has been the same. They have formed an hypothesis, to explain how the death of Christ made atonement for the sin of man, which instead of mak- ing the matter more clear, has involved it in tenfold obscurity, and led thousands to attribute the principles of moral evil to the Almighty. The hypothesis is. That Christ by imputation, became guiltyj and that God punished him as a guilty being, who, having assum- ed the obligation of sinners, stood obnoxious to the whole penalty of justice in their place. Though this hypothesis, like most otJiers,at first vieM', has some appearance of plausibility, yet I think it is not difHeult to make ap- pear, (1.) that we have no evidence that the principle is true: (2.) if it were proved, it would still leave the subject of atonement as inconceivable as it was before: and (3.) that it is opposed to the clearest evidence, and involves the doctrine of redemption in obvi- ous and self-evident contradictions. 1. What evidence have we that the Lord Jesus Christ became guilty, and stood obnoxious, in law and justice, to penal sufferings.^' * See his Essays on the Intellectual Powers, Essay II. American edition, vol. i. chap. xiv. pj^ge 302, PLAN OP SALVATION. 225 The scriptures assure us "that he was without sin: that he was jnanifested to take away our sins, and in him is no sin: and that he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." Heb. iv. 15. 1 John, iii. 5. 1 Peter, ii. 22. The prophet represents him as dying innocent, as a lamb that is led to the slaughter. He himself looked round upon the Jews, and from the consciousness of heavenly integrity said, « which of you convinceth me of sin." Pilate's wife, being warned in a dream, sent unto him, saying, ''have thou nothing to do with that just man." And Pilate washed his hands, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person, see ye to it." Matt, xxvii. 19, 2^ Accordingly the apostles upbraided the Jews with their wick- edness, iu crucifying the innocent redeemer, and said, "ye denied the holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses." Acts. iii. 14, 13. Itis acknowledged on all sides, that our Saviour was innocent be- fore he came to redeem fallen men. Now if he voluntarily departed from a state of innocence to a state of guilt, he brought this guilt upon himself by an act M'hich depended entirely upon his own will: and yet we believe the thing be did was perfectly right and good: then it is right and good for an in- nocent person voluntarily to do that which brings him into a state of guilt. If it be said, Christ was not really guilty, but tie guilt of others was imputed to him, I must take the liberty to ask a few plaia questions. Did Christ impute the guilt of others to himself? If he did, are we to understand by it, that he chose to ha^ e their guilt transfer- red to himself.'' If so, did his choosing it really make him guilty or not.^ If it did ^not, he really remained innocent, and they re- mained guilty as before; if it did, I M'ould ask again, whether his thus becoming guilty of their crimes rendered them innocent or not.^ If they were rendered innocent they were from that mo- ment raised above the want of pardon as effectually as innocent Adam was before the fall: but if the Saviour became guilty, and yet they remain equally so as before, then we say justice was sa- tisfied by having additional guilt produced: inasmuch as Christ brought new guilt into the creation, without diminishing the old. There is no way to avoid this conclusion but by saying Christ took fart of their guilt, and left the remainder on themselves: and if so, they still need pardon for what remains^ because Christ only ap- 226 AN ESSAY ON THE peased the divine vengeance, for the proportion of guilt which he received. Again: If Christ did not choose to become really guilty, in what sense did he impute guilt to himself? If he believed he was guilty, when he was not, he deceived himself, and if he professed to be so, when he was not, he deceived others: if then he was not really guilty, did not believe himself guilty, nor profess to be so, in what way can it be imagined that he imputed sin to himself? And if the Father accounted him guilty, when he was innocent, was not this imputation contrary to truth? Or does a false charge presented against an innocent person really make him guilty? If it be said, it is blasphemous to ask these questions, or to an-^ swer them; and that it is enough for us to know that Christ con- sented to become guilty, because it was necessary to the redemp- tion of his people; I must reply, that this is nothing more than tak- ing the hypothesis for granted. What proof is there that Christ ever consented to become guilty, or that his becoming so was ne- cessary to our redemption? We have sufficient evidence, indeed, that he consented to take upon himself the form of a servant, and to die, the just for the un- just: we have sufficient evidence likewise that all this was was neces- sary to our redemption: but this is so far from supposing him guil- ty, that it plainly supposes the contrary, unless we choose to con- found the distinction between the just and the unjust. 2. The theory of our opponents, if admitted, would not ac- count for the necessity of atonement, or explain the manner of it, any better than we understand it without such assistance. They say it is hard to conceive how the sufterings of an innocent person can prove God's opposition to sin. We reply, it is equally hard to conceive how his hatred against sin is manifested by impu- ting guilt to an innocent person. The latter case affords no aid to our conceptions; for surely if it is difficult to conceive why the in- nocenf should suffer, it does not mend the matter to charge the in- nocent with being guilty when he is not so, and thus add a false accusation to his other sufferings. 3. The hypothesis, far from clearing the mystery, involves the subject in darkness and contradiction. Though we are unable to conceive adequately of the atonement^ in our present state of being, yet we clearly conceive that it ac- cords perfectly with every righteous principle for the innocent to suffer, when the pain is voluntarily endured from the dictate of benevolence. And as we know the greatest works of benevolence PLAN OF SALVATION. 22^ performed in this world, cost the agent very considerable suffer- ings, of one kind or another, why should it be thought incredible that the redemption of sinners, an act of benevolence that trans- ported the heavenly hosts, should cost its gracious Author an un- common degree of misery? But the sentiment we oppose can never be reconciled with right- eousness; for though it is right for an innocent being to suiter through voluntary kindness, yet to charge an innocent person with guilt, and then to punish him as a criminal, is a plain violation of truth and justice. The imputation is false, and the innocent person cannot be punished as a criminal under sentence from such a charge, without unjustly violating his right both to the charac- ter and consequences of innocence. Thus the contradiction follows, that justice is satisfied by the violation of justice. Thirdly; our view, though it does not furnish us with a full and adequate conception of atonement, is nevertheless more definite and intelligible than the opposite. 1. Our Saviour, by assuming human nature, (sin excepted) and submitting to suffer the agonies of the cross in that nature, on ac- count of sin, and as an expedient through which sinners were to ap- ply for mercy, plainly proved, that though God isagracious Being, and we are his offspring, yet he is so far from being moved by a partial fondness to tolerate our iniquities, that if we or any other creatures were as near to him, as the humanity was united to God in Jesus Christ, he would not depart from the principles of his go- vernment to deliver us from punishment. This was plainly signi- fied by our Saviour's death, which was therefore endured as a proof of the purity of the divine nature. God hereby proved before all worlds that though he was disposed to receive human sinners to favour after their rebellion, yet this was so far from arising from a connivance at iniquity, or from a fondness for them to the neglect of other creatures, that if human nature was so near to him as to be, as it were, a part of himself, it slwuld not be delivered from punishment through partiality, or through a neglect of just and impartial government. 2. He displayed the destructive nature and demerit of sin, by exhibiting the dreadful effects of it in his own body on tha cross. We may safely admit that he voluntarily endured the penal consequences of sin in a considerable degree, to show what awful miseries are incurred by disobedience; but never will we admit, I hope, that he consented to deserve this miiery, or to take any part of our guilt upon himself. 3SW AN ESSAY ON THE His groans, and "strong cries and tears" on Calvary, spoke a language which may have been understood far better by angels than by men; and demonstrated that God is a Being ot'such unsul- lied holiness, and of such abhorrence to moral evil, that the dire- ful consequences of it shall beheld up by his beloved Son, between heaven and earth, as the only medium through which forgiveness shall be granted. Let all creatures in the universe look to the cross of Jesus, and learn that the pure laws of Almighty God are not to be broken with impunity: no mercy can be shown, but through the medium of "God manifested in the flesh, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," and what creature will presume that God will sacrifice himself at every turn, or whenever any part of his subjects shall choose to enter upon a course of rebellion? This glorious expedi- ent to save sinners, shows such love and condescension on the one hand, and such a jealousy for the security of good government on the other, that it appears calculated to astonish heaven, and cause •very thinking man upon earth to rejoice with trembling. We have cause to rejoice that our Redeemer has opened the way to heaven before us by his own blood; and to tremble, lest we be found among the number who neglect so great salvation, and for whom "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearlul looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries." 3. Our gracious Creator,by appointing the death of Christ as the only medium of access; by demanding suitable humility and submission on the part of the sinner; and by refusing to grant pardon to those under the gospel who refuse to avail themselves of the sacrifice of Christ as the foundation of their hopes, and to implore mercy through his merit and intercession; has displayed his divine authority and unchangeable purpose to hold the principles of moral government, and make every rational crea- ture submit to them, or feel the consequences of disobedience. Thus he gives incontestable evidence of his regard for right- eousness; whereas, had Christ by his death discharged all clainuof justice against the sinner; God would have proved in the face of heaven that redemption was designed to unnerve the principles of his govei'nment, and to raise ransomed sinners above all obliga- tions of law, during the whole of their probation. By establish- ing a plan of redemption, which should give them a legal indul- gence in their iniquities, he would demonstrate his want of holi- ness, i^udif he were to demand and execute the penalty twice over PL\N OF SALVATION. 359 first on their surety, and then on themselves, he would thereby prove his deficiency in equity and moral justice. Hence it appears, that the hypothesis invented to account for redemption, far from assisting our views of God's hatred against sin, represents him as devising an expedient which brings him in- to an inextricable dilemma: either to raise his creatures above all law, by granting them indulgences in sin, or to exhibit a proof of injustice by inflicting the same penalty twice over. 4. As the death of Jesus Christ, proved the great extent of God's benevolence, and at the same time evinced his love of righteous- ness and hatred of sin; — -as it maintained the divine authority, and the sinners obligation to his law, and thereby exhibited the equity and impartiality of his supreme and holy administration; — the moral character of God was fully manifested, and his attri- butes harmoniously exercised in the plan of saving sinners through a Redeemer. Though the grant of pardon to rebels was a new act, which his creatures had never before witnessed, yet he makes it manifest to them that he has adopted no new principle of action; that no change has taken place in his nature, but that the pardon of sin- ners through a Redeemer flows from the same attributes which were before made known, and by which his creatures had been governed from the beginning. Hence the obedient part of the crea- tion are guarded against delusion, and their welfare is secured, because there is nothing in this plan of saving sinners that is cal^ culated to weaken their confidence in God or his government; but on the contrary, his attributes are exhibited more extensively than before. From what has been said, I must take the liberty to draw two general conclusions. 1. According to our view of atonement, the redemption of sin- ners by our Lord Jesus Christ flowed from all thd divine attri- butes in harmony: it was done for the sake of showing mercy to the guilty and the miserable, which was a display of benevolence: it was done for the sake of guarding his creatures from falling in- to error concerning his nature, or his act of administration in res- toring sinners, which was a display of his moral attribute of truth: it was done for the sake of guarding the native happiness of his creatures, and of showing that no partial fondness had any influ= fence to diminish his sacred regard to universal right, which clean- ly manifested his justice. 330 AN ESSAY ON THE 2. The theory of our opponents, supposes redemption to flow from some principle in the Deity, vvliieh contradicts every known attribute of his nature: (1.) It supposes him to have no disposition to show favour to the fallen, but absolutely to execute full ven- geance for every crime, which contradicts his mercy or benevo- lence: (2) It supposes him to impute guilt to the innocent Redeem- er when he is not guilty, which must be a false charge, and there- fore his truth is contradicted: (3.) It supposes him to liave arrest- ed the Redeemer upon tliis false charge, and to have legally punished him as a criminal, and thereby to have violated his right to the character and consequences of innocence, which plainly contradicts his jujitice. And after all this is done, he is supposed either to raise sinners above all obligations to his law, or else to impose the same obli- gation over again that has been to all intents and purposes dis- charged, by the legal condemnation and execution of the surety in the sinner's place. What a character, to be displayed to the view of the universel It exhibits a scene well calculated to inspire all intelligent crea- tures with gloomy apprehensions, that God is about to abandon every moral principle of his nature, and to act upon those of false- hood, injustice and arbitrary malevolence. And all this is to be done, it seems, to satisfy divine justice! I pray God to deliver all men from such dangerous and ruinous delusions, and enable tkem rightly to contemplate the immutable perfections of his nature, as they were exhibited by him who diedy the just for the unjust, and who "has entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." As to the objection, that Christ died upon an uncertainty, with- out being assured of a single soul of Adam's race, the answer is easy: The salvation of all who die in infancy is secured through the Lord Jesus Christ, and the way is opened for all who live to years of ma- turity. Will any one say the merit of our Saviour's work is really diminished by the numbers who neglect this great salvation? Doesit depend upon them, or their conduct, whether the plan of redemp- tion be complete or not? If so, the Saviour must secure theirabsolute salvation, so as to make their perdition impossible, in order to keep them from destroying his own merit! Their will must be con- trolled by an irresistible power, lest they should choose to conti- nae in sin, and thus their Redeemer would be robbed of his glory! PLAN OF SALVATION. 23 i The truth is, that as we advance in this controversy, it appears more and more evident to every reflecting mind, that the Antinomi- an scheme must be received in all its parts, or must be demolished from the foundation. The single point of legal atonement, supports the whole system of predestinarian orthodoxy, and one or other of these three things must be our inevitable portion: either (l.)to re- ceive the entire system of Antinomianism, or (2.) to contradict ourselves, or (3.) to disprove and abandon the notion of Christ's death having legally discharged all penalties in behalf of sinners, which is the chief corner stone of the ("fulsome'*) building. Had it been our Saviour's purpose to save mankind by force, or any particular part of them, he doubtless had power suflicient to accomplish his design, without dying on the cross; and had such a compulsive system been consistent with the moral attributes of God, I have no doubt but he would have done so: he would have changed every man from sin to holiness, or rather, from bad pro- pensities to good ones, by an absolute and irresistible influence; but the actions of a person thus compelled could have no relation to morality, and therefore God's moral perfections demanded that they should be saved, if at all, in a way that should not destroy their agency: for this reason our Saviour's atonement had rela- tion to the moral attributes alone, and therefore his plan must be so laid as only to influence sinners by motives, and leave them to the liberty of choice. ./ The merits of Christ wM-e never intended to secure the salvation of any definite number of men, as the predestinarians do vainly talk: but to open the ivay to heaven, and make the throne of grace accessible to all mankind. " By whom also we have access into this grace wherein we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Rom. v. 2. <-And an highway shall be there, and it shall be called the way of holiness." Isa. xxxv. 8. "Jesus saith unto him, Jom the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John xiv. 6. "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new ami living way, which he hath con- secrated for us through the vail, that is to say, his flesh; let us draw near with a true heart," &c. Heb. x. 19, 20. Thus it appears the blood of Christ was intended to open a way through the wilderness of sin where there was no way, that sin- ners might have access to the throne of grace. SAS AN ESSAY ON THE This work is accomplished: the May is open: we are under great obligations to God our Saviour for this invaluahle privilege: and surely our refusing to walk in the way, does not diminish the merit which opened it, aod Christ is under no necessity of forcing any man to heaven, for fear of losing his merit, or the glory of his performances. We might as well say God was under the necessity of forcing all men and angels to continue upright, for fep,r of lofiing hji^ merit aad glory iu their creation. SECTION VII. The same subject. Ouaprinciple of atonement not only is more definite and inteU ligible than that of our opponents; but also accords better with the providence and the works of God, 1. It agrees better with the state of man in the present world* If Christ died to discharge every penalty of justice in behalf of the human rape, Mheuce is it that the wrath of God still abidetU on all impenitent sinners, and that th •^' are condemned already, by the very sentence that w as executed on their surety? All this is darkness and confusion upon the x\ntJnomian scheme; but upon Qur plan the incongruity at ouce disappears. Because if Christ died to procure a day of grace for us: if we are to stand our trial here for a future state of reward or punishment, the calamities of the present world are adapted to our condition, and accord per- fectly with the wise and benevolent designs of providence, 2. It agrees better with thesimplicityof the gospel. We learn from the scriptures, iliAt Christ died for our sins, and >et those who re- pent not shall die for their own sins, and every man shall bear his Qwn burden. That he bare our sins in his own body on the tree; and yet the soul that sinneth it shall die, and God, without respect of jiersons,judgeth according to every man's work. These are irre- concilable contradictions upon the plan of legal atonement which we oppose; but nothing can be plainer or more consistent, if it be true (,hat Chirst died to give us the privilege of obtaining pardon, or in other words, that the redemption through his blood consists in the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of liis grace; aii4 PLAN OF SALVATION. 238 not in a legal exoneration from the curse of the law, upon prin- ciples of eternal justice. Our doctrine makes the day of grace and the day of judgment harmonize in the divine economy. It recon- ciles the dift'erent offices of the Lord Jesus, as the Saviour and the Judge of human kind. It exalts the merits of Christ, and yet maintains the accountability of man; and shows that they are per- fectly consistent with eac!» other. If the sinner repent not, it is just for him to be condemned: and if he repent and believe the gospel, it is just for him to be forgiven, because universal right has been secured by a display of the divine attributes in Jesus Christ. What stronger evidence could be given of God's love to hijB creatures on the one hand, and his regard for holiness and justice on the other, than for his only begotten son to assume our nature, lead a life of spotless purity among the disaffected part of his creatures, submit to the dreadful effects of moral evil, and hang bleeding I)etween earth and heaven, a spectacle to angels and to men? The great design of God in this astonishing event, was to exhibit a grand and awful argument or proof to all worlds, that sin is such a dreadful evil, so destructive in itself, and so hateful to the pure nature of Deity, that no sinner can be forgiven, however penitent he may be, but through the intercession of that Redeemer, who exhibited ihe direful effects of sin, in his own bleeding body on the tree. He that was rich in glory, became poor: the son of God, whose right hand formed the stars of heaven, takes upon himself the form of a servant, and becomes obedient unto death, even the death of the cross! Behold him, ye heavens! and hear him groan his last! his agonizing spirit as it were abandoned by earth and heaven, cries out in the bleeding anguish of distress, " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me! His sweat became as great drops of blood falling to the ground; while his soul was ex- ceeding sorrov/ful even unto death!" With all the innocence and parity of heaven in his nature, he is wounded, and bruised, and mangled with thorns and nails; while a burden of grief intolerable, presses down his spirit. Sin, the original cause of all misery, is held in such unchangeable detestation by the Creator, that to discour- age the practice of it, and to exhibit iis dreadful horrors, the Lord of Glory expires under that misery which is its native production. This is the great proof of God's unchangeable perfections: and the very end for which the Redeemer thus suffered, was, " To de- clare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, 234. AN ESSAY ON THE his righleousiiess, that he might be just, and the justiiier of him which helieveth iu Jesus." The Almighty gave proof of his holy attributes, before sin enter- ed into the creation, by those rewards, uhich evinced his appro- bation of righteousness; and by those threafenings or penalties annexed to his laws, which declared his abhorrence of moral evil. But after sin is entered into the world, what must be done? Can angels do any thing to justify the government? No. If a thou- sand of them were sacrificed for man, this would be so far from proving God's regard for holiness and justice, that it would be a demonstration of injustice and partiality. No being less tban God can do any thing for the redemption and salvation of fallen crea- tures. Divine mercy pities fallen men, and is disposed to pardon all that will submit to proper government, whereby they may be qnalitied to become members of the peaceful society of heaven; but as an evidence to the whole creation, that this pardon does not re- sult from any disposition to connive at a spirit of rebellion, God takes npon himself the mortal nature of man; in that nature he exhibits a shining example of the most pure andheavenly virtue: in that nature he opposes sin in all its secret windings in the heart and life of man; and in that nature he takes upon himself the bur- den of our sins, not by becoming guilty, but by submitting to bear the excrutiating effects of sin, in his own body on the tree. Eve- ry groan he utters, cries aloud to earth and heaven: behold ivhat vianner of love the father hath bestowed upon man: Behold (he horrid nature and tormenting influence of moral evil! Behold the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the God of all the armies of heaven, thus concealed in humanity, and bleeding on the cross! Behold the Lamb of God ivlio taketh away the sins of the world! Behold these wounds and bruises, sweat, and blood and tears: liear those strong cries, and witness those dying agonies, as a c?c- ■ monstration of God^s righleousiiess — and see all nature corro- borate the amazing argument! The veil of the temple is rent from the top to the bottom; the mountains tremble, as if shaken from their foundation; thegraves are opened; the sun blushes as in sack- cloth, and hides his shining face in darkness; while the very an- gels, it may be, suspend their song; and all the heavenly regions are brought to pause in holy and astonished silence, while God breaks down the dreadful barrier; condemns sin to eternal infa- my, and opens the gates of mercy to mankind! This was a pro»f of the divine goodness and holiness, which none but God could give: for if Christ was am^re creature, be wa.s PLAN OF SALVATION 235 under an obligation oi'perpettial obedience to the law for himself: if he voluntarily left his own duty, which the law required, to go and do that which it did not require of him, it was a proof of disobedimce to God's government: if he was a sinner, he deserved what came Upon him: if he was an innocent and holy creature, and if God pun- ished him as a criminal, it would prove nothing but injustice and partiality. But if the eternal God himself, who was under no obligation to the law given to crcTatures, voluntarily came under it that he himself might redeem them that were under the law, his regards for righteousness are gloriously displayed, as well as his compassion for miserable offenders. This argument is urged with peculiar force and propriety, by Mr. Joseph Benson, who revised and finished Mr. Fletcher's "Vin- dication of Christ's Divinity, inscribed to Dr. Priestley." "According to the apostle," says he, "one principal end of the death of Christ was to demonstrate God's righteousness — that is. the purity of his nature, implying his infinite hatred to sin, the au- thority of his law, which denounces vengeance against the sinner, and the equity of his government, — or, in one word, his justice. ♦Justified freely says he by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth a propitiation, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteous- ness, by or on account of the remission of past sins, through the forbearance of God, for a demonstration I say of his righteousness in this present time, that he might be just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus,' But surely, if satisfaction can be made for the injury done to the glory of God by all the sins of all man- kind, and their salvation from eternal destruction into everlasting life and happiness, can be rendered consistent with the divine at- tributes in consequence of their repentance upon such easv terms as the giving up of one mere man to temporal death for two or three days; — whatever inference the intelligent creation of God may draw from hence in favour of his clemency, they can draw none in favour of his righteousness or justice: but on the contrary, they will find their ideas of it contracted; and will be inclined to suppose, both that sin is no verij great evil, and that God is not much displeased with it; inasmuch as \\id forgives the complicated and aggravated guilt of so many myriads of sinners, merely be- cause one mere man, like tliemselves, dies for them. Surely to talk of God's righteousness being demonstrated by such a selienie as this, — that he might be and ajjpears to be just, while he is the mcrfciful justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, would be highly absurd aud_ ridiculous." — Uational Vindication, vol. 1, j^cg^ 119- 236 AN ESSAY ON THE As this argument of Mr. Benson not only supports the divinitjr of our Saviour, but proves that the end of his suffering was (o de- mousti-ate the equity of God's government, by displaying the great evil of sin, and the Almighty's displeasure against it, his conclu-. sion stands upon the very principle defended in these pages, and therefore the al)ove quotation is another proof of the respectable authority and antiquity of this doctrine, and that it is not a novel- ty, never before heard of in the christian world. 3. Our view of redemption is better calculated than the op- posite to influence the minds of angels or men, and to reconcile all things in Christ, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven. If the Lord Jesus died, not to give man a right to demand his li- berty, but to open a way of salvation, to bring him nnder a gra* cious government, or covenant of mercy, and thus to introduce men into the society of angels, not by constituting them innocent with Antinomian imputations, but by purifying them unto himself, a peculiar people, zealous of good works: — how does the wisdom and goodness of this economy shine forth and influence the very angels to rejoice, and give glory to God in the highest! Jesus displays the glory of God before them, and secures the influence of the divine government: through his name sinners are pardon- ed and saved, and not till his grace has given them a moral fitness for that salvation; therefore the interests of heaven and earth completely centre in the Lord Jesus Christ, and angels rejoice at the salvation of sinners, and gladly own them as their brethren. "In this our first period of existence," says Dr. Beattie, " our eye cannot penetrate beyond the present scene, and the human race appears one great and separate community: but with other worlds, and other communities, we probably may, and every argument fof the truth of our religion gives us reason to think, we shall be con- nected hereafter. And if, by our behaviour, we may, even while here, as our Lord positively affirms, heighten, in some degree, the felicity of angels, our salvation may hereafter be a matter of im* porlauee, not to us only, but to many other orders of immortal be- ings. They, it is true, will not sutler for our guilt, nor be rewarded for our obedience. But it is not absurd to imagine, that our fall and recovery may be useful to them as an exujnple: and, that the Di* vine grace manifested in our redemption may raise their adoration and gratitude into higher raptures, and quicken their ardour to inquire, with ever new delight, into the dispensations of infinite wisdom. This is not mere conjecture. It derives plausibility front PLAN OF SALVATION. 257 many analogies in nature, as well as from Holy Writ, which repre- sents the mystery of our redemption as an object of curiosity to su» perior beings, and our repentance as an occasion of their joy." — BeattiePs evidences, page 133. This subject is father illustrated by Dr. Porteus, late bishop of London. «It is, I believe, generally taken for granted," says he, "that it was for the human race alone, that Christ syftered and died; and we are then asked, with an air of triumph, whether it be conceiva- ble, or in any degree credible, that the eternal Son of God should submit to so much indignity and so much misery for the fallen, the wicked, the wretched inhabitants of this small globe of earth, which is as a grain of sand to a mountain, a mere speck in the universe, when compared with that immensity of worlds, which the sagacity of a great modern astronomer has discovered in the bound*- less regions of space. "But on what ground is it concluded, that the benefits of Christ's death extend no farther than to ourselves.'* As well might we sup- pose, that the sun was placed in the firmament merely to illumi» nate and warm this earth that we inhabit. To the vulgar and the illiterate this actually appears to be the case. But philosophy teaches us better things. It enlarges our contracted views of di- vine beneficence, and brings us acquainted with other planets and other worlds, which share with us the cheering influence and the vivifying warmth of that glorious luminary. Isjt not then a fair analogy to conclude, that the great 'spiritual light of the world,' the fountain of life, and health, and joy to the soul, does not scat- ter his blessings over the creation with a sparing hand, and that the Sun of Righteousness rises with healing in iiis wings to other orders of beings besides ourselves.'' Nor does this conclusion rest on analogy alone. It is evident from scripture itself, that we ar« by no means the only creatures in the universe interested in the sacrifice of our Redeemer. We are expressly told, that as by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible; and by him all things consist: so by him also was God pleased (having made peace through the blood of his cross) to reconcile all things unto himself, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven: that in the dispensation of the ful- ness of times, he might gather together in one, 'all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are in earth, •vea in him.'* » Col. i. 16, 20. Eph. i. 10. H h 538 AN ESSAY ON THE "From intimations such as these, it is highly probable, thatia the great work of redemption as well as of creation, there is a vast stupendous plan of wisdom, of which we cannot at present so much as conceive the whole compass and extent. And if we could assist and improve the mental as we can the corporeal sight; if we could magnify and bring nearer to us by the help of instru'- ments, the great component parts of the spiritual, as we do the vast bodies of the natural world; there can be no doubt, that the resemblance and analogy would hold between them in this as it does in many other well-known instances; and that a scene of wonders would burst in upon us from the one, at least equal, if not superior, to those which the united powers of astronomy and of ap- tics disclose to us in the other. "If this train of reasoning be just; if the redemption wrought by Christ extended to other worlds; if its virtues penetrate even into keaven itself; if it gather together all things in Christ; who will then say, that the dignity of the agent was disproportioned to the magnitude of the work; and that it w as not a scene sufficiently splendid for the Son of God himself to appear upon, and to display the riches of his love, not only to the race of man, but to ma ny other ordersof intelligent beings." Porteus^s Sermons,pag'e274i,2V5. The above sentiments may apjjear alarming to those who may be disposed to limit the Holy One of Israel; but as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy towards his creatures: <'my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways, saith the Lord." As the sentiment of those respectable au- thors accords with the perfections of God, the analogy of nature, and the testimony of revelation, we are surely warranted in yield- ing to their conclusion, so far at least, as to believe that all God's upright creatures receive advantage by the display of his glory in the plan of redemption by our Lord Jesus Christ. Are they not in- terested in the divine attributes as well as mau? And if redemption displayed those attributes beyond every thing that has appeared since the creation, how can it be imagined that the bene- fit of this wonderful event should be confined alone to us and our children? Are the angels of heaven indifterent spectators.? Or are their interests closely connected with ours in that common Sa- viour who came to reconcile all things unto himseH? Whether the following scriptures do not establish this doctrine, I leave the reader to judge: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgive- ness oi* sins, according to the riches of his grace, having made PLAN OF SALVATION. 239 known unto us the mystery of Lis will, according to his good plea- sure, which he hath purposed in himself: [namely] that in the dis- pensation of the fullness of times [when all the times and dispen- sations of his grace and providence shall be full or completed] he might gather together in one. all thiugs in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are in earth, even in him. Eph. i. T, 9, 10. In whom we have redemption through his blood, [and what has that redemption accomplished] even the forgiveness of sins, in his name who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are inearth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist; and he is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence: for it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell: and (having made peace through the blood of his cross) by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven. Col. i. 14, 15, &c. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is na- med. Eph. iii. 15. O for this love let rocks and hills, Their lasting silence break; And all harmonious human tongues, The Saviour's praises speak. Angels, assist our mighty joys, Strike all your harps of gold; But when you raise your highest notes, His love can ne'er be told. SECTION vm. The two systems of redemption^ tested by the native consequences which flow from them. As no doctrine, founded in truth, will be discredited by exami- nation, or be put out of countenance by an exposure of its genu- ine consequences; we desire that our views of atonement may be 3*0 AN ESSAY ON THE gcrutinized, and traced in all their native tendency*, not doubting the more clearly truth is seen, the mare conviction it will car- ry to every candid mind. I purpose, in this section, to exhibit some other eft'ects of the two opposing systems, that we may judge of them by their fruits. 1. In what a consistent, and soul-cheering light does our plan represent that Eternal Being, who is love in the abstract, and of whose goodness there is no end! It represents him as exercising his jwwer, and wisdom^ and justice, in perpetual subserviency to his pure and everlasting kindness. Why did he lay down a plan of salvation, by a demonstration of his righteousness througli a Redeemer.'' That, everlasting felicity miglit flow to mortal men. Why does he determine that justice and holiness shall be display- ed and satisfied by the punishment of obdurate and incorrigible sinners.? That the principles of moral order may not be deranged or interrupted, through which the benignity of God supports the unceasing happiness of heaven. Why does he govern his children by moral motives, and not by a compulsive or irresistible influence? That they may be assimilated into the Divine nature, and enjoy that ineffable tranquillity which is inseparable from a voluntary cjipice, Why does he give some of his servants one talent, some two, and others five? That his manifold wisdom may be display- ed, a pleasing variety be maintained through the spiritual as well AS the natural world, that all hjs children, the constitution of whose nature is such, that few sources of delight are more reviv« ing to them than variety, may thus behold his wonderful works, and exercise tlieir different gifts for the mutual benefit of all. Here is no reprobation or free-wrath; no partial or humorous fondness for one to the neglect of another; no double dealing, dis-. simulation or hypoeris;^ the parts all taken together exhil)it one general scheme of benevolence, transporting to an intelligent na^ ture. and every way worthy of God. Dr. Clarke, speaking of the Supreme Being, says, "a general definition of this Great First Cause, as far as human words dare attempt one, may be thus given. The eternal, independent, and self-existent Being: the Being whose purposes and actions spring from himself, without foreign motive or influence: He who is ab- solute in dominion: the mo»t pure, most simple, most spiritual of all essences: infinitely benevolent, beneficent, true and holy: the cause of all being, the upholder of all things: infinitely happy, because infinitely good; and eternally self-sufticient, needing no* thing that he has made. Illimitable in his immensity, jncoijceiva* PLAN OF SALVATION. 341 We ill his mode of existence, and indescribable in his essence: known fully only to himself, because an infinite mind can only be com- prehended by itself. In a word, a Being who, from his infinite wisdom, cannot err or be deceived; and who, from his infinite goodness, can do nothing but what is eternally just, right, and kind." Comment on the first of Genesis. In the mouth of those three witnesses, Mr. Wesley, Dr. Clarke, and the apostle John, let the truth be established, that Godis love: or, in other words, that goodness is the leading principle of his conduct towards his creatures, from the beginning of the creation to eternity, and that no other attribute of his nature ever did, or ever will, contradict for a moment, that glorious and amiable perfection which is the fountain of all happiness, and without which, our Creator would be an object of terror and dismay, and would have nothing attracting in his nature. Power and wisdom have no charms but what they derive from benevolence: remove them from under its influence, and they are objects of indiffer- ence, or of disgust and detestation. The Devil possesses both wisdom and power; yet he is an object of our just abhorrence, for this reason only, that his faculties are no longer directed by love and kindness, but by injustice and malevolence. "Remove goodness from all the other divine attributes," says Dr. Brown, "and suppose the Supreme Being unconcerned for the happiness of his creation, and say, whether his nature would then appear as amiable, adorable, and transcendently excellent, as it uow appears to every reflecting mind. And if goodness constitute the supreme glory of the divine nature, that which gives to every other perfection its true beauty and light, and completes the real character of Deity; is it possible that any human excellence or advantage should compensate for the absence of this primary vir- tuet" Brown's "Natural Equality of Men," page 163. 2. As our doctrine glorifies God, on the one hand, so, on the other, it opposes every thing that is contrary to his nature. Nothing can be more discouraging to sin of every description: for it repre- sents sin as the parent or first cause of all misery; — as waging war against the nature of God; — as being unjust, unreasonable, inex- pressibly detestable;— .and as assaulting the peace and happinesB of the whole intelligent creation. If the Lord of Glory came down from heaven to restore our lapsed powers; if he offered himself without spot to God, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, for our redemption; and if we continually re- sist all the influeaces of his grace, multiply our crimes, and conti- 84? AN ESSAY ON THE Bue to injure ami ruin our moral faculties till our probation is over — what can we expect but sudden destruction, seeing there re- maineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the ad- versaries? If we reject the offers of pardon, and harden our hearts to the last, as Sure as God is eternally good, just and holy, we shall J>e banished from his presence and the presence of his holy angels, into the pit of destruction, with the fallen spirits who have obsti- nately prepared themselves for those regions of confusion and des- pair,by treasuring up Mrath against the day of wrath, and revela- tion of the righteous judgment of God. 3. If all the divine perfections, the principles of God's moral government, and the common interests of the heavenly regions, stood jointly opposed to man's salvation, till they were reconciled to it in Jesus Christ; — what can be imagined more adapted to the wants of men than our doctrine, or better calculated to influence them, with all humility of mind, to depend upon Christ for salva- tion? If they expect or endeavour to attain it any other way, than this which is procured by his meritorious death and intercession, they might as well undertake to demolish the throne of God, or to change his immutable nature. It is evident that Christ, with us, is all in all: we are dependent on him for wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Our Saviour has died for us; but it is not to give us a legal discharge, and put the government out of his own hands; he still keeps us in a state of proper dependence, and we must approach in his name, as humble suppliants, for par- don, and for all things needful for life and godliness. Whereas the opposite system encourages lawless presumption^ by assuring the elect they are such eternal favourites of God, that his decree secures their salvation as absolutely as the pillars of hea- ven are secured. Their sins can never alter the decree; therefore they may rest safe and satisfied in the midst of their iniquities. But he whose name has been called Jesus, shall save his people from their sins: consequently he who trusts to be saved in his sins, is not depending upon Christ for salvation. As the plan of our Redeemer is to purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works;— as this is his method of saving sinners, — it is ridiculous for any man to look for salvation some other way, and call this depending upon Christ. And if they say the unchangeable decree of God secures their sanctification as absolutely as their glorification, this alters not the matter: for behold an elect sinner indulging his evil nature PLAN OF SALVATION. 243 with presumptuous unconcern: while Christand the'gospel are call- ing him to repentance and amendment, with assurances of aftording him every necessary aid, he replies, and very consistently upon the predestinarian hypothesis, that the decree of God is unaltera- bly fixed, and the precise time of its operation; therefore when the time comes, he will be dra^vn out of his sins as sure as God is omnipotent: as he does not feel this irresistible operation at pre- sent, he waits patiently and rests very securely, assuredly gather- ing that the day of power will approach in due season, and des- troy his sins by as absolute an influence as was felt by the Egyp- tian host when they were overwhelmed in the mighty waters. Now who does not perceive that this man is depending, not upon Christ, who says, now is the accepted time, and now is the day of salvation; but upon the original act of predestination. The decree is his de- pendence; and if it should fail him, or prove to be an Autinomian chimera, he will fall as "a foolish man who built his house upon the sand: but whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, (that is,dependeth upon me for salvation,) I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock; atid the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house: and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock." Matt. vii. 24. Here it will be objected, that Arminians are the men who are deficient in a proper trust upon the Saviour, because they do not expect him to draw them to heaven by a force which cannot be re- sisted. The notion that final salvation or damnation will turn in any degree upon the creature's agency, has been thought to rise from the natural pride of man's heart, and that a christian can- not be truly humble till he is brought to believe that it is impossi- ble for him to take a single step towards heaven, but as he is im- pelled by an irresistible power. While governed by the Armini- an belief, he depends, in part at least, upon himself; whereas a truly humble christian depends solely upon Christ to do every thing that is necessary to his salvation. Answer: 1. This objection supposes that humility is inseparable from the belief, that we are destitute of agency, or that our will is con- trolled irresistibly: for if humility may exist separate from that belief, it is not essential to humility, and of course an Arminian may bo truly humble with the full belief that there is something for him to do which ho may neglect, and the neglect of which will forfeit his salvation. It also follows, if such a belief and a spirit of humility be not essentially connected toi^othcr, that a Calvin- 244 AN ESSAY ON THE ist may be as proud with his belief, as if he believed the Armini* an doctrine. And if a man can be truly humble, and repose a true coniideuee in his Saviour, without that belief, he does not need it to produce those effects, because they are produced without it, and entirely independent of its mighty influence. But if it be affirmed, that the predestinarian faith and christian humility are inseparable from each other, these consequences will follow: First, that all sinners, M'ho can but persuade themselves that salvation depends not at all upon their doings, but that Christ mast do all for them, and do it irresistibly, are thereby brought into a state of true christian humility, and gospel confi- dence in their Saviour. Secondly, that the angels who sinned, and Adam in Paradise, were destitute of true humility and a right de- pendence on God, unless they believed their standing depended not upon any action of their own, and that every thing necessary to their perseverance in righteousness would be produced by the irresistible operations of omnipotence. If they believed this, their belief was either true or false; if it was true, then their apostacy did not result from the neglect of any thing depending upon their own power, but from some volun- tary act of their Creator; if it was not true, and yet they must be- lieve it in order to continue humble, we say their humility v»'a3 maintained by believing a falsehood. Thirdly: That a christian to continue truly humble, must not labour to keep himself in the love of God] for every attempt of the kind arises from a belief that he has power to do something neces- sary to his salvation, v.hich belief is supposed to destroy his hu- mility. For if he believes he has no power to do any good thing and still tries to do many good things, you say his christian obe- dience consists in trying to do what he at the same time believes to be impossible. If an irresistible power is to do for him, and in him, everij thing that is necessary, he cannot surely aim at doing any thing else, without labouring to do that which is unnecessary; a kind of work that holds a close connexion with the popish doc- trine of supererogation. And if he only labours to do the same things which the irresistible power is to produce, does this arise from a belief that his exertions will make the force more than irresistible, or from a conviction that it may be resisted, and that it is really necessary for him to labour for the meat which endur- eth unto everlasting life? John vi. 27. The truth is, that a gospel trust upon Christ is the trust of a servant who feels his responsibility, and his need of divine sup? PLAN OF SALVATION 545 portj but who does not depend upon the Master to obey his own commandments, or to deliver him from the obligation and necessi- ty of obeying them. True humility arises, not from a belief that we have no power, but from a conviction of our dependance upon God for the power" we possess, and for the continuance of it, together with a convic- tion of our obligation to use that power according to the directions of him who gave it, and of our natural proneness to use it wrong. Did any man ever feel humbled and debased from considering his inability to create new worlds, or to eontroul the planets of heaven? And when a child has a little strength to walk, but cannot move forward without leaning upon his father's arm, does he not feel his dependance more than a person feels his dependance upon the earthy while it supports him by a law of nature which he cannot resist? A christian humility consists in a conscious sense of his weakness, which necessarily supposes some degree of activity or povyer, without which it can have no existence, for certainly where there is no power there can be no weakness, because the meau» ing of the word is, a small degree of power. 2. The objection supposes that the work of a christian in doing the will of God, which is using his power to the end for which it was given, has a native tendency to produce pride; to keep him humble, they say, he must be able to do nothing, but Christ must do all: if you permit him to work out his own salvation, he will feel his importance, and be proud of his own performances. That men may be, and often are, proud of their own works is granted; but this only happens when they lose sight of their extreme weak- ness and perpetual dependance on God: bring them to a sense of this, if you would subdue their pride, and never charge God fool* ishly, by supposing that pride naturally rises out of the proper ex* ercise of those faculties which he has given to his creatures. I am apt to think it rises from very different sources: are men never proud of any thing but what is produced by their own works? are they not proud of their natural beauty, wit or noble birth, things which have not been produced by their own activity? Suppose two men have been exalted to offices of the highest trust and honour in a nation: one has been gradually raised on account of his integrity and good conduct; the other, without any regard to his works, has been suddenly elevated to this honourable height: which of those men would be the more likely to be high- minded on account of the great favour he had received at court? The one, you say, has all his works to boast of, and th« otter hd« I J 246 AN ESSAY ON THE received his gratuitous election without either works or condi- tions: yet it is evident from the common experience of mankind, that the antlnomian courtier will be more apt to have exalted no- tions of himself than his neighbour, who had been thus favoured on account of his integrity and good conduct. The truth is, when men know they are favourites, it is very common for them to value themselves highly upon it, though the partiality exercised towards them be not founded upon any of their works. It is enough that they have the preference to others, Hvhom they are fond to consider as inferiors, for no other reason but because they have not heen so highly exalted. And if I might be indulged in s,uch a speculation, I would even venture to pre- sume it not impossible that thousands of the elect in Zyon have reflected upon the amazing fondness of their prince, upon their being preferred to the rest of mankind, as the eternal favourites of God, with d secret gratification very like to that complained of in the presenl objection- s'. Do not all men till the ground, or exercise themselves in Other works of industry, from a conviction that their performances are needful to Ihe sustenance of life.^ They know they are de- pendant on God for a harvest; but they believe at the same time, that their own works are so necessary, that a neglect of them will bring poverty or death, and idleness will cover man with rags. — Will this conviction, and consequent diligence, necessarily pro- duce self-confidence? or is the diligent man more apt to be proud, who expects to be preserved in a way of industry, than he who ne- glects his business, and hopes to be supported some other way.^ I presume our opponents will not deny that the God of nature has suspended our preservation upon the condition of industry, and that a total neglect of it will speedily terminate in death: if they say, therefore, that the performance of conditions, from a convic- tion of their being so essential, that a neglect of them will deprive us of the blessings connected with the performance, naturally or necessarily leads to pride, they accuse the God of nature and pro- vidence with an egregious blunder in his arrangements, seeing, according to them, the present constitution of the world has a na- tive tendency to encourage haughtiness and selfish independence. 4-. Our doctrine gives every encouragement to sinners, at the same time that it discourages sin, and every vain presumption. It teaches that goodness is the leading principle of the Divine Creator towards all mankind: that there is nothing in his nature which delights in our mis-ery: that the redemption which is in PLAN QF SALVATION. S^r Jesu^ Christ has opened a door of salvation for all men: and that everlasting happiness is secured to all who die in infancy, to all heathens who/ear God and ivork righteousness, (according to the light they have,) and to all christians who repent and believe the gospel. Acts X. 34. Mark i. 15. The other very naturally leads to presumption or despair. The fancied elect may presume upon absolute security and inamissi- ble salvation; but the reprobate is destined to the regions of dark- ness, and may bemoan his bitter fate in vain. Our opponents teJl us, however, that we know not who are elected, and who are not. What then? This only leaves us doubtful whether we mu£t pre- sume or despair, and when the point is settled in our minds, on one iide or the other, its corresponding consequence follows as natu- rally as light flows from the sun. But it is said that our notions are discouraging to the penitent, because we say salvation is sus- pended upon his own works, while he feels, in fact, that he can do.nothing. We answer, the man who is not satisfied till he has an assurance that his future salvation or destruction depends not at all upon his doings, is pleading for as great encouragement as any sinner in the w orld could desire: namely, such as shall assure him there is no danger in wickedness, and no benefit in refsrma' f ion, for the salvation of a man's soul. Our doctrine gives every encouragement, excepting such as shall influence men to presume upon impunity in their disobedience. The Spirit is ready to help our infirmities, and is given to every man to profit withal; there- fore we have every' thing to revive our hopes, provided we be will- ing to depend upon Christ for salvation, and not upon our vaiu delusions. 5. The necessity of a change of heart, or of gospel holiness, na- turally follows from our view of redemption: for if Christ died to open the way for men to be saved upon certain conditions, and if those conditions are, a submission to the divine government, and a conformity of our souls to the holy nature of God, it plainly follows, that except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. John. iii. 3. If the death of Christ alone fully satisfied the divine attributes in the actual salvation of sinners, then nothing else is ne. cessary to their salvation; and neither repentance, faith nor holi- ness are needful to make their final happiness accord with the jus- tice and purity of God, since as our opponents tell us, every attri- bute was satisfied with their salvation, by the death of Christ, and by nothing else. Here stands a sinner for whom the Redeemer suf- fered on the cross: would the attributes of God be satisfied for him g48 AN ESSAY ON THE to be taken to heaven in his present impenitence or not? If they would, a change of heart is not needful to make a sinner's glorifi- cation accord with the divine nature; if they would not, then some- thing is still necessary to reconcile God to our admittance into his everlasting kingdom. Consequently our doctrine is true, that Christ's death rendered such satisfaction as reconciled the divine justice and holiness to man's probation, and to the free offer of eter- nal life to every man; but that the act of God, in the grant of par- tlon, and the operation of the Holy Ghost, in our sanctification, are no less essential than his death, to satisfy them in our final aecep. tance, or glorification at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Hence it appears that ours is the only system which makes a change of heart and gospel holiness essentially and indispensably necessa» ry to salvation. SECTION IX. Our system harmonizes the doctrines and clears up tnany difficult passages of revelation. The principle defended in these pages unites and harmonizes the leading and essential doctrines of Christianity. It may be con- sidered as the Key.stone in the solid arch of revelation, or as the centre point of union, where "mercy and truth have met together," and where "righteousness and peace have kissed each other." At the head of the following columns stands the Key-stone, which unites and supports the great doctrines on the right hand and on the left: take this away and the whole building falls in ruins to the ground; or in other words, those leading principles of revela- tion will be found utterly inconsistent with each other. THE KEY-STONE. Christ died to procure a gracious probation for men — to open a way through which they might all be saved-— to make the throne of grace accessible, by making it just for God to grant assistance, pardon, sanctification and eternal life to all but the finally impenr itent:— but he did not die to make the throne of justice accessible PLAN OF SALVATION. g^^ to the sinner, by discLarging every legal demand against him, and thus authorizing him to sue out his liberty and claim an exemn- lion from all penalties as his lawful right. FIRST CLASS OF TRUTHS. 1. ChrisVs death ^ives US the privilege to come boldly to the throne of grace. 2. Without Christ it is in vain for us to plead {'or pardon before the throne of grace. 3. It is unjust for men to be fcrgiven without a Redeemer. 4. A Redeemer is essential to a, sinner's salvation, [and] 5. Christ is the gracious Sa- viour of mankind, who delights to extend mercy unto them, and blot out their transgressions. 6. Our Works of righteousness cannot procure our salvation; but it is accomplished by the grace of God i/n Jesus Christ. V. Christ has actually deli- vered all mankind from the eurse of the law. [in the irrevo- cable form in which it stood without a Redeemer.] 8. Christ's death made it just for God to grant pardon to sin- ners. 9. Christ tasted death for every man, and bare our sins in his own body on the tree, i P. ii. 2^, SECO-NP CLASS OF TRUTHS. 1. God^s mercy, in the grant of pardon gives us the privilege to coine boldly to the throne of judgment. 2. Without pardon it is in vain for us to plead the merits of Christ before the throne of judg- ment. 3. It is unjust for men to be saved through a Redeemer2f;iYA- out obtaining forgiveness. 4. God^s mercy in the grant of pardon is equally essential to a sinner's salvation. 5. Christ is the moral govern- or of mankind, who delights to maintain impartialjustice among them, and finally to judge and reward them according to their works. 6. Without works of right- eousness, the grace of God in Jesus Christ will not save any man. 7. No man is actually deli- vered from the curse of the law [in its revocable form through a Redeemer] till he obtains the forgiveness of his sins. 8. The gran* q/'j7arrfon makes it just for sinners to be admit* ted into heaven. 9. Every man shall hear his own burden. Every man shall give account of himself to God. Gal. vi. 5, Rom. xiv. 12. 350 AN ESSAY ON THE 10. The Lord is not strict or 10. The Lord is of purer severe to mark what is done a- eyes than to behold iniquity: he miss; but is long suffering to us will by no means clear the ward, not willing that any guilty; but will bring every should perish, but that all should work into judgment, with eve- come to repentance, ry secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. As all those scripture doctrines are reconciled by the principle above mentioned, so are many obscure passages made clear, which upon the opposite system are either contradictory or unin- telligible. How innumerable are the instances, for example, in which we find the apostles declaring that good ivorks are so essential to our salvation, that without them we shall never be admitted through the gates into the city; and yet assuring us it is a dangerous delu- sion for any man to expect salvation by the works of the law? — Now unless we take our stand upon some principle which will unite those scriptures, we may dispute forever, and come no near- er to a conclusion: each disputant will have many passages on his side, and while we neglect a reconciling principle, our controver- sy does nothing but afford a presumption to infidels, that the bible is at war with itself, and can never be brought to support any re- gular and consistent system of theology. AVhenee is it that St. Paul sometimes tells us, our salvation is of grace, through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast; and at other times, exhorts us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling? The solution is easy. If we attempt to work ourselves to the throne of justice, to merit salvation, or obtain it as a legal right, our works are an abomination in the sight of God; but if we, through divine assistance, work in order to ap-. proach the throne of grace, made accessible by the blood of Jesus, our labour shall not be in vain in the Lord. If works could take us to the throne of justice for deliverance, they would not obtain our salvation through grace, but of debt: those, on the contrary, which conduct us to the throne of grace, would not obtain our salvation as a debt, but as a voluntary act of divine compassion. For after we approach the throne of grace, God is not bound to receive us, as the Antinomian atonement supposes, only as he has bound him- self by promise, from the free grace or benevolence of his nature. Thus the apostle argues: Now to hiin that worketh [in order t© approach the throne of justice] is the reward not reckoned of PLAN OF SALVATION. 251 grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not [to obtain a le- gal exoneration from the curse] but believeth [with the heart unto righteousness] on him that justifieth [or forgiveth] the un- godly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. His faith, work- ing by love, and including a proper submission to the divine go- vernment, is accounted for, or through an act of goodness is ac- cepted instead of perfect righteousness: therefore, the apostle concludes the reward is not of debt, but of grace: why so.'' because it was pure clemency or grace that accepted him upon the terms of believing. Had he come with a perfect righteousness either inherent or imputed, that righteousness alone would be a com- plete ground of his justification, and there would be no truth in saying either that faith was accounted for righteousness, or that it would be any act of grace to accept him in this way, because his spotless righteousness would give him an unquestionable right to demand deliverance as a debt. Rom. iv. 4. The apostle says again, "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace, otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Rom. xi. 5, 6. Here is a very convincing argument in support of the principle he had before advanced; namely, that there is no medium between looking for a free pardon from God's benignity and expecting to re- ceive salvation as a debt. He proves that those w ho deny this con- elusion are involved in palpable contradictions. For, says he, if this deliverance or salvation is bestowed by grace, or favour, then it is not received upon the ground of a legal righteousness as a debt, for this would prove that there was no benevolence or grace in the matter. Deny this, and you say grace is no more grace; that is, that it is grace and not grace — a favour and tlie mere payment of a debt, at the same time.. But if it be of works, or a legal righte- ousness exactly answerable to every demand of the law, then is it no more of grace, because it is obtained upon principles of inflexi- ble justice, and there is no favour bestowed in only rendering that which is proportional to your legal right. Will you deny this, and say salvation may be received upon the ground of tliis legal right- eousness, and yet be of grace.'' if so, you say work is no more work, that is, thai it is received upon the ground of a just or legal de- mand, and not received upon this ground at the same time. These •«33 AN ESSAY ON THE manifest contradictions are unavoidable upon any other princi- ple but that which is defended in these pages, and as St Paul pointed out these consequences in his epistle to the Romans, it is a little remarkable that his Mritings should be considered friend- ly to Antinomianism: more so, that this epistle should be so un* derstood; and more still that this very text should be thought a main pillar of predestinarian or imputed righteousness. He assures them that no man will receive salvation who expects it as debt, because God's method of saving sinners is ir a way of mercy. Christ is his elect or chosen one, and whoever receives him by faith, and receives pardon in his name, is elected, chosen^ or approved of God in Christ, as a child of God and an heir ac- cording to the promise. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; [because they sought it not by faith, but by the works of the law. Chap. ix. 32.] but the election hath obtain- ad it, [because they sought it not as a debt but as humble suppli- ants; they received it as an act of grace, freely vouchsafed to all that will receive it in this way,] and the rest were blinded. That is, they were blinded with the vain delusion which the apos- tle is here labouring to remove, and this was the reason they re- ceived not that which they sought after. Had they abandoned the notion of a legal righteousness as the ground of their justifica- tion, and received pardon from the mercy of God in Jesus Christ, they too w ould have been a part of the election who hath obtained it; but they hardened themselves in prejudice against the truth^ and of course loere blinded; because he that runs away from the light must necessarily walk in darkness, and " this is the con- demnation that light is come into the world, and men love dark- ness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." Another scripture, worthy of particular notice, we find in Acfjs iv. 27. " For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod aud Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do what- soever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be doue.'^ Again: " Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." Acts ii. 23. From these passages we learn the following particulars; 1. That God from his fore-knowledge of man's apostacy, had de- termined, according to his counsel or w isdom, that certain things should be done. 2. That the Lord Jesus was appointed to exe- 4ttte his counsel or determination. 3. That the Jews aud Gen- PLAN OP SALVATION. 353 tiles, though their malice was over-ruled, to subserve the purpo« ses of the Divine wisdom, were very wicked in taking and cruci- fying the Redeemer. 1. Our Heavenly Father determined, according to the counsel, or wise purpose of his own will, that all things should be done that were necessary for the redemption of mankind. 2. The Son of God was anointed, or set apart to execute this gracious determination, and to do every thing that was necessary to its accoL'^plishment. I hope no person will say the Jews were appointed to do whatsoever God's hand and council determined he* fore to be done. This were to suppose God commissioned them to perform the work of our redemption. If any shall declare that it was necessary for the Jews to crucify the Lord of Glory, they must suppose those sinners did at least a part of the work that was es- sential to the redemption and salvation of mankind, without whose assistance the work would not have been complete! God says he has no need of the sinful man: our Saviour says: No man taketh my life from me; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again: while the prophet in his name declares, I have trodden the wine-press alone, and of the people there was none with me: I looked, and there was none to help; therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me. Isaiah Ixiii. 3,5. 3. It follows, that neither the treachery of Judas, nor the malice of Jews or Gentiles was necessary; but that their crime was enor- mous in arresting the Redeemer, and nailing him, 6?/ their wicked hands, to the cross. He was innocent, and did not deserve to suf- fer: and though he had a right to suiter, yet this right was in him- self alone, and no mortal had any more authority over his life than over the life of angels. Some pretend that the conduct of those men was unavoidable, because their actions were fixed by an immutable decree; but if God predestinated their wickedness, that decree resulted from his goodness or justice, or else it was unjust: if from the former, the thing which the Jews did was perfectly just and good, because it was the necessary eftect of a decree that proceeded from those at- tributes. I hope nobody will say the decree arises from goodness, and yet the thing is not good which it produces. If, on the con- trary, we say the decree was unjust, we charge God >vith malevo- lence, and contradict the most essential principles of revelation. I am aware of the sophistical evasion often used to conceal the force of this conclusion: It has been said, "Though God decrees all the actions of men, yet he does not decree the sitifulness of their Kk 35i> AN ESSAY ON THE actions, which consists in the principle or motive that influences the agent." In answer to this, we would inquire whether it be possible for men to perform all their wicked actions from good motives, or not? If it is possible, it plainly follows, that men might so perform them, and consequently, murder, adultery, theft and blasphemy might prevail as they now do, nnd yet there should be no sin in the world! if it is not possible, the inevitable conse- quence is, that there are many actions that cannot be performed by an intelligent being, but from bad motives, and of course God must predestinate the motives which influence them, in order to secure or bring to pass their wicked actions. Here stands an innocent man, we will suppose; who never did me an injury: I have no right to take away his life. Would it be possible for me intentionally to murder this man with a good mo- tive or uot.^ I have a conviction that I ought not to kill him; to say I might have a good motive in doing what 1 feel I ought not to do, is a contradiction, and confounds the distinction between right and wrong. If I have a conviction that it is wrong, it is impossible for me to do it without intending to do wrong: the action cannot be done with the consent of my will, withoutarising from this wrong intention: consequently, if I should be moved to do it by the ir- resistible influence of a secret decree, the evil intention is no less predestinated than the action which arises from it. Other argu- ments might be ottered against the pitiful sophistry here opposed; but it is so futile and ridiculous that it deserves no farther isves-- tigation. The plain sense of the passage above quoted (and the literasl meaning of the original, according to Mr. Fletcher) is this: "for of a truth, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, where gathered together against thy Holy Child Jesus, Avhom thou hast anointed to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. It was God's deter- minate counsel that Christ should die for mankind, and fore-know- ing the wicked disposition of the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, he determined not to rescue the Saviour by miraculous power, but deliver him up to their fury. "Him, being delivered by the deter- minate counsel and fore-knowledge ©f God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." But if their wickedness was as much the object of his determinate counsel as the Savi- onr*s death, (which might have been accomplished by a flash of lightening or by some other means) what was the object of his forcrknowledge? and why was the knowledge distinguished from PLAN OF SALVATION. 255 the determination, if they both mean the same thing? It is evident his determination related to what the Redeemer was to do and sufter for the salvation of mankind, and his fore-knowledge to the disposition of the Jews and Gentiles to take away his life. He could have prevented them from crucifying the Lord Jesus Christ, be- cause he fore-knew their intentions; but he had determined that the Saviour should die, and therefore did not hinder them by su- perior power, but delivei'ed him up to the vengeance of their wic- ked hands. Many other passages might be mentioned, and cleared up, by bringing them to a conformity with the leading principles of reve- lation, which have often been unjustly pressed into the service of reprobation; but as they have been examined by Mr Fletcher, and by other able hands, we will omit them at present, and confine ourselves to those which relate immediately to the subject of atonement. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law," says St. Paul, "being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every one thathangeth on a tree." Gal. iii. 13. From this it hath been concluded that Christ has removed the whole curse or penalty of the law from his elect, by enduring it in (heir place. But it is evident from the context, and from other passages, that the apostle's meaning in this text accords perfectly with our view of the subject. He labours in this epistle, as well as in that to the Romans, to convince the Jews, and those whom they had corrupted, that they can never be justified by a legal righteoasness, but must submit to receive salvation through Christ in a way of mercy. "For as many as are of the w orks of the law," says he, (verse 10) "are under the curse: for it is written, cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." The law demanded universal obedience, made no provision for de- ficiency, and admitted of no forgiveness: consequently one trans- gression would sink the simier beyond the possibility of deliverance upon principles of law. This was the curse: and it is evident that all who rejected the otters of mercy, and attempted to come out clear without receiving pardon, were under the curse, which they never could remove. Christ has delivered us from this curse of the laAV because through his atonement sin may now be forgiven, which it could not be before he demonstrated God's righteousness, and thus removed the inexorable barrier, or curse, which cut off all access to mercy, and made the way to heaven impassable. iS56 AN ESSAY ON THE But as it is said Christ was made a curse for us, many have sup- posed this can have no meaning, unless it mean that he became guilty* by imputation, and endured the nhole penalty as a cri- minal in our place. The infliction of a curse, in scripture, has two meanings: 1. it means punishing a sinner according to what he deserves: 2. It means an act of God, M'hereby his hatred of sin is manifested. The former sense will be readily admitted; and that the latter is true, and is the only sense in which a curse was ever inflicted on the Lord Jesus, can be proved, 1 hope, to the sa- tisfaction of all that believe the scripture. "And the Lord Gfod said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field: — and unto Adam he said; because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, thou shall not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life: thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field."— Gen. iii. 14, 17. Thus it appears that the ground, as well as the beasts of the earth and the fowls of heaven were cursed, not as criminals suf- fering the pcnaity ^' the law; but they were brought under the ef- fects of sin, as so many standing monuments of God's displeasure against it. In like manner, but far more conspicuously, the Lord Jesus was made under the law, or submitted to suffer the dread- ful effects of sin, not as a criminal, but as a glorious monument of God's merciful kindness on the one hand and of his hatred against moral evil on the other. As God said to Adam "cursed is the ground for thy sake," so he may say to guilty creatures, "The innocent Redeemer has been made a curse for your sakes:" that is, ^'he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;" and therefore it may be very properly said, "he was made a curse for you, because it is written cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." The apostle John saith, «If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright- eousness. 1 John i. 9. From this passage we learn, (1.) that God is faithful, or true to his gracious promise, that is, he has pledged his goodness, to forgive us our sins: (2.) In consequence of redemp- tion this act of pardon is perfectly just also: that is, it violates the * Sec a quotation from Luther. PLAN OF SALVATION. 257 right of none: not that justice dcmauds it at the hand of God, so that he cannot withhold it without being unjust, for if so, there would be neither goodness nor forgiveness in the matter; but this act of clemeney is perfectly consistent with justice, through llie mediation of Jesus Christ, who has "magnified the law and made it honour- able." We learn (3.) that Godis faithful and just to forgive us our sins, if we confess them: a clear proof that the penalty was not le- gally discharged by the death of Christ, otherwise we should be free upon principles of law, whether we made confession or not. This text affords incontrovertable evidence, that Christ died to make it just for God to forgive sins upon certain conditions: if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Had not the Redeemer in- terposed in our favour it would not have been just, that is, consis- tent with the general rights of the creation, for either the justify- ing or sanctifying grace of God to be extended to his rebellious creatures: but it has become just, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, for the divine clemency to bestow upon penitent believing sinners, every thing that is necessary to their eternal happiness in heaven. Let us close this section by a few remarks upon that famous pas- sage of St. Paul to the Romans: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, his right- eousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of ^him which be- lieveth in Jesus." Rom. iii. 23, 2-i. To understand this important passage, three terms of it are to he explained: — coming short of the glory of God— justification— and propitiation. 1. God is glorified, or his glorious attributes are displayed, by means of his moral law,' as has been before proved: while all crea- tures continued upright, his glory shone forth like the sun in the midst of heaven; but when the dark cloud of moral evil arose, the beams of divine glory were obstructed; the proof of God's spotless purity was obscured by those who sinned and came short of his glory: and some new method must now be taken to declare his righteousness, for the sake of those who continue obedient, and who have a right to such clear views of truth as shall guard them against m danger: to secure this right God must di|pel the cloud of eviJ 35S AN ESSAY ON THE by a demonstration of his righteousness: if no other method can be devised, this must be done by the damnation of every criminal; but if a Saviour can accomplish these ends of government in behalf of the guilty, then it will become just for mercy to forgive them, and restore to them the forfeited blessing of holiness and salvation. Let us consider 1. The meaning of justification. This term, if I mistake not, has four meanings in scripture: (1.) it means to excuse or vindicate, iu which sense God never justifies a sinner: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Prov. xvii. 15. 3. It simply signifies forgiveness, in vvhicli sense it is to be ta- ken in the passage under present consideration, and iu many other. All that believe are justified from all things [that is from all their sins] from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Acts xiii. 39. 3. It is sometimes taken in an enlarged i>ense as including sane- tification or the renewing of our minds, as well as the pardon of our transgressions. "AVhom he justified, them he also glorified: that is, whom he pardoned, renewed, and qualified for glory, them he actually glorified." Rom. viii. 38. 4. It means to declare or acknowledge a person to be truly righteous. In proof of this, see Matt. xii. 37. James ii. 21, 24, 25. 3 Consider we next the meaning of propitiation: propitious signifies favourable or kind: propitiousness, is favourableness, kindness. Propitiate, to induce to favour, to conciliate. Propi- tiation, the act of making propitious, the atonement, the oftering by which propitiousness is obtained. — See Walker'' s dictionary. God could not be kind or propitious to man in opposition to the principles of his government, and the general welfare, because such partiality is contrary to his perfections: his law must be mag- nified, and the righteousness or purity of his nature must be de- monstrated: this was done by the Lord Jesus Christ, and by this atonement he was propitiated, or influenced to extend favour, kind- ness or mercy to his fallen and guilty creatures. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." [they have obscured the evidence of his glorious attributes by introdu- cing moral evil.] Being justified [or forgiven] "freely by his grace through the redemption [or display of his glory] that is in Christ Jesus. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation [to make it accord with the nature of God to show favour to all men who m ill receive it] through faith in his blood, [being commissioned] to de- PLAN OF SALVATION. 239 dare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, [to prove clearly that he is righteous, and will never show mercy in a way that shall encourage sin, though the sentence of the law is suspended] through the forbearance of God [whose goodness does every thing to save us that can be done without departing from the general welfare. To declare, I say, [or as the original means to demonstrate] at this time, his righteousness, that God might be just [that he might secure the rights of all his children, in his me- thod of showing mercy, or of becoftiiug] the justifier of him which helieveth in Jesus." There is not, perhaps, a more particular account of the design of our Saviour's coming, in all the scriptures, or a more copious elucidation of the interesting truths of salvation through Jesus Christ, than this passage affords us. But upon the Autiuomian hypothesis, the subject is involved in darkness, and must be made to run thus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, [that is, to have all the sins of the elect imputed to him, and suffer the whole vengeance due to them] that God might be just in being bound by his justice, to render the just claim, which he has enabled and authorised his ransomed ones to demand as their right. SECTION X, The plain scripture testimony, concerning redemption, reconciled with the metaphors which represent it as a purchase. Some appear to imagine that Christ's death had merit enough, or that he wrought out righteousness enough for all the world; but that the particular part which is intended for me, or another sin- ner is withheld till we believe the gospel: when we do this it is made over to us; but if we live and die unbelievers, it is not made over, and what becomes of it I have never been informed. But whether it be reserved for the benefit of the spirits in prison, or be applied to some other unknown use in heaven, or whatever else we may suppose, it removes not the difficulty respecting our ueed of forgiveness. For if Christ has discharged all penalties, and reserves hii merit or righteousness in this conditional way, does God forgive a. 26a AN ESSAY ON THE sinner before this merit is made over to liim, or afterwards? If be- fore, he does not surely need this legal discharge l»y imputation, because he has received a gracious discharge already; if not till afterwards, then he does not need pardon, because the legal atone- ment is made over to him, and nothing more is wanting for his complete justification. It is agreed, on all sides, that God pardons sinners in conse- quence of what Christ has done and sutTered for them: it is equal- ly true, that he pardons none against whom there is no penal de- mand, because they do not need it: consequently Christ's death does not remove the i)cualty from any sinner, but only opens the way for divine mercy, to remove it by a gracious act of forgive- ness. 1. God pardons none but in consequence of the merits of Christ: 2. He pardons none but those w ho stand in need of it: — 31 None stand in need of it against whom there is no penal de- mand; it therefore follows: 4. That the death of Christ does not remove the penalty, but only opens the way for an act of mercy to remove it. The opposite system, on the contrary, is founded on the principle that Christ died, not that sinners might obtain for- giveness, but that they might be raised above the want of it. And is this the view of redemption which we learn from the ora- cles of God.^ It is not. "For thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to enter into his glory — for what? that re- pentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations." Luke xxiv. 46. "The God of our fathers raised up Jesns, whom ye slew, and hanged on a tree: him hath God exalted with his right hand — for what? for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." — Acts V. 30. "In whom we have redemption through his blood—- and what is that redemption? tha forgiveness oi' siiis, according to the riches of his grace." Eph. i. 7. and Col, i. 14. "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." — Acts xiii. 38. " We have a great high priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God — and what inference doth this aftord? Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may ob- tain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Heb. iv. 14,16. How has he made this throne of grace accessible? "The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness sake: he will magnify the law and mak« it honourable. To declare, I say, at this time, liis PLAN OF SALVATION. 261 righteousness, that God might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in JesHS." — Isa. xlii. 2i. Rom. iii. 26. These plain scriptures give us a proper and just view of re- demption, and their evidence is not to be overturned by metaphor- ical passages, which have been often abused and misapplied Let us notice some of the passages which have been thought friendly to the legal atonement and imputation, defended by our mistaken opposers. St. Paul saith, "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."— 2 Cor. V. 21. This must mean, either that Christ was really made a sinner, or that he was made a sacrifice for sin. If our sins were positively transferred from us to Christ, whereby he was properly constitut- ed a sinner, we were thereby really constituted innocent, and can justly demand an exemption from all penalties. But the apostle explains himself in another place, and tells us, "This man, after he had offered one sacrifice fur sin, forever sat down on the right hand of God." — Heb. x. 12. Sacrifice for sin signifies to make atonement or satisfaction for it: accordingly Christ offered satis- faction to God, as has been sufficiently explained already. Much stress has been laid upon the word redeem, which often occurs in the scriptures; but according to St. Paul, it sometimes means nothing more than opening a new and living way to a throne of grace: having redemption through his blood, says he, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. It often means nothing more than deliverance from bondage, by the power of God: "Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage; and 1 will redeem you with a stretched-out arm, and with great judgment." — Exod. vi. 6. "But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out- with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bond-men, from the hand of Pharoali, king of Egypt." — Deut. vii. 8. Thus it is plain that redemption, in these places, means deli- verance, and so do those passages which speak of our being re- deemed from our vain conversation — from sin — from the curse of the law — and that we wait for the adoption", to wit, the redemption of oxir bodies. To suppose the word redeem, in these places, means a price literally paid down, as an equivalent for a thing purchas- L 1 262 AN ESSAY ON THE ed, is to suppose the Lord Jesus paid a price to our vain conversa- tion, to our sins, to the curse of the law, and to the grave! Our redemption by Christ, I grant, is sometimes, in a metaphor- ical way, represented as a pwrcAfflSc: St. PauUelfs the Corinth- ians, Ye are not your own, for ye are bought ivith a pricey and the apostle Peter says, "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not re- deemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation, received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." — 1 Cor. vi. 20. 1 Pet. i. 18. These metaphors are sufficient, it may perhaps be thought, to support the whole weight of Antinomian conclusions. It is evident, will they say, that Christ has bought his people, by paying the full price of justice which their sins demanded; therefore, if any soul should be lost for whom he shed his blood, he is unjustly de- frauded of his property. Tins conclusion, I grant, is incontro- vertible, if the principle on which it rests be really true, that Jesus Christ entered into a literal contract, and bought souls with his blood, just as a man purchases a piece of property with his money. Let us admit for a moment, that such scriptures are to be taken in the sense of a literal contract: the conclusion very naturally fol- lows, that Jesus Christ bought a certain number of souls, and paid such a price as he ought in justice to pay, in order to be le- gally entitled to the property he had purchased; if he died for a part of mankind, that part are his forever; if he died for all, then not an individual of the human race can be taken from him with- out a violation of justice. Meantime, it remains for us to inquire from whom did he buy those souls, and what price did he pay.'' As to the price, St. Peter, tells it was not silver or gold, but the pre- cious blood of Christ. — 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. But who was the other party in this contract, that disposed of such a number of souls, and received a certain quantity of blood inpayment, — such a quantity as vvas equivalent to the value of his property.** Did our Holy Redeemer pay his blood to the devil, to the curse of the law, to our vain conversation, or to the grave? Or did he purchase us from the Father.'* If so, the Father has no more right in us now, because he has sold us, aud received the price of justice, equivalant to the property disposed of! And if we say he bought us for the Father, it seems not a little puzzling to ascertain how he lost his original right in us. Had he sold us on some former occasion, or did the devil claim us as his property by right of war? These questions may perhaps be said to be replete PLAN OF SALVATION. 268 with blasphemy; but I must appeal to common sense, and ask the intelligent reader, if they do not naturally arise from the principle that Jesus Christ actually bought the souls of men, and paid down a price for them, proportional to their value, according to the just principles of a literal contract? An Antinomian, I grant, can point to 1 Cor. vi. 30. and say, "The wordof God is plain and indisputable, that yc are bought with a priceJ'^ With equal propriety and strength of argument, a Papis* may point to John vi. 53. and tell us, "the word of God is plain beyond all contradiction, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life iyi youJ^ When metaphors or comparisons are drawn from the practice of men in buying and selling, and the blood of Jesus is called a price by which we are purchased, the whole is to be taken, it seems, in a proper literal sense; but when this same blood is represented by another figure, and the Saviour declares. My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, — he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloody dwelleth in me, and I in him — the whole is to be understood me- taphorically. For my part I cannot help thinking the papistical argument is as good as the Aniinomian, and that they are twin- sisters that must stand or fall together. "What loads of heterodoxy," says Mr. Fletcher, "have degra- ded parables brought into the church! and how successfully has error carried on her trade, by dealing in figurative expressions, ta- ken in a literal sense!" "This is my body," says Christ: "Therefore bread is flesh," says the papist, and transubstantiation is true." "These dry bones arc the house of Israel, says the Lord." Therefore Calvinism is true, say my objectors, and we can do no more towards our conversion, than dry bones towards their resurrection. Lost sinners are repre- sented in the gospel as a lost piece of silver: therefore, says the author of Pietas Oxoniensis, they can no more seek God, than the piece could seek the woman who had lost it Christ is the Son of God, says St. Peter: Therefore, says Arius, he is not co-eternal with the Father, for I am not so old as my parents. — Vol. i. page 224. Again: "If none go to hell but goats, and none to heaven but sheep, where shall the chickens go! Where the wolves in sheeps clothing? And in what limbus of heaven or hell shall we put that fox Herod, the dogs who return to their vomit, and the swine, be- fore whom we must not east our pearls? Are they all species of goats, or some particular kind of sheep.^ 26* AN ESSAY ON THE "My difficulties increase. The church is called a dove, and Ephraim a silly dove. Shall the silly dove be admitted among the sheep.^ Her case seems rather doubtful. The hair of the spouse in the Canticles is likewise said to be like a flock of goats, and Christ's shepherds are represented as feeding kids, or young goats beside their tents. I wonder if those young goats, become young sheep, or if they were all doomed to continue reprobates.^ But what puzzles me most, is, that the Babylonians are in the same verse compared to Iambs, rams and goats: were they mongrel elect, or mongrel reprobates, or some of Elisha Cole's 'spiritual monsters, in whom the spirit had begotten a lump of dead flesh?" Fletcher^s Checks, vol. i. page 236, 237. Mr. Fletcher takes the proper method to refute a hypothetical absurdity, by setting it before the reader in difterent views, that he may view it on all sides, and perceive i(s naked inconsistency' The friends of*' degraded parables" will doubtless complain, that our running to other passages, and comparing them together, is not to be tolerated, because it is bringing the scriptures to our car- nal reason, and the almost magical power of our metaphysical distinctions, as one of Mr. Fletcher's opponents very wittily ob- served, when he found himself unable to avoid the strong argu- ments which besieged hira, and which he could scarcely notice with any degree of patience. I must take the liberty, however, to ask a few more questions upon th*^ subject of buying and selling. When the wise virgins said to the foolish, < go ye rather to them that sellanAbuy for yourselves,'* did they really mean that men are to purchase their own salvation, and that the other virgins were fools for thinking it might be had by begging or asking for.^ When Soloman said, "Buy the truth and sell it not," did he mean that some person has a store house of truth, to whom we must lay down a price exactly equal to its va- lue.? Our Saviour tells us, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a wcrc/mni-jjim (whose chief business is to buy and sell) seeking goodly pearls: who when he had found one pearl of great pricet went and sold all that he had and bought it, ^' — Matt. xiii. 44,45, Would he have us understand by this parable, that every man must purchase salvation for himself, and give a great price for it.** True, says an antinomian, but he furnishes the purchase-money })imself, and every elect soul buys it in the name of his surety. But the surety himself, who says "1 am he that was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, (Rev. i. 18.) invites us to come and PLAN OP SALVATION. 265 purchase it of him: I counsel thee, says he, (Rev.iii. iS.ytobuyof me gold tried in the fire, and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed." Are we to learn from this, that he, like a merchant-man, to whom he compares his kingdom, has bought righteousness and salvation by the gross, and proposes to retail it to us, at proper retail prices, counselling every one to come and buy for himself? Or are we to be told from the chair of dictatorial infallibility, that all these and such like scriptures, are to be considered as metaphors and parables, while those only which relate to redemption are to be taken in a literal sense? By what rule shall we understand the metaphors of scripture? Shall we compare spiritual things with spiritual, as the apostle directs us, or must we keep " the profane eye of human reason" down to the standard of popish and antiuo- mian orthodoxy? Papists have invented an hypothesis that bread and wine are a god; antinomians have invented another, that Jesus Christ took the sins of the elect upon him, and has discharged all claims of jus- tice against them: neither of them are willing that one figure of scripture relating to their favourite scheme, should be explained by comparing it w ith other passages where the same term is used; but every passage must be understood in the sense most favourable to their respective systems, as the only standard of explanation. The papists reason very consequentially upon this subject: if every man should be allowed to use his own reason, they say, eve- ry man must then be allowed to have his own opinion, and there will be no rule by which the true divinity and orthodoxy can be as- certained. Heresy will abound, and there will be no short and easy rule by ■which to convince heretics of their delusions. A criterion must be had, and the only decisive and sure one is that of infallibility, continued from age to age in St. Peter's chair at Rome. Here is the grand asylum where we may run and be safe from all danger of heresy! Meantime we must be very cautious not to indulge our heretical curiosity in asking, "what reason we have to believe his holiness is infallible?" — but we must learn to subdue our profane and rebellious reason, and obediently submit to the maternal in- structions of our holy moiher. They will excuse my mentioning these particulars; for what I have said is nothing more than the account which they themselves have given of the matter.* * See a modern performance of a popish doctor of Hexham, en- titled "Reflections on the spirit of religious controversy," &c. page 176-215. S66 AN ESSAY ON THE To conclude: when the blood of Jesus Christ is represented as a fountain in which we are to wash our robes and make them white, the meaning of it, according to the well known doctrines of reve- lation, is, that we are indebted to his suflferings and death for re- newing grace or sanctification. When it is said we must eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we understand by this figure, that we are to live a spiritual life by faith in the Son of God: as we must eat and drink in order to live naturally, so we must exercise faith in the merits of Christ to live spiritually. «The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." — Gal. ii. 20. In like manner when his blood is called a price, or when we are told he gave his life a ransom for many, the meaning is, that we •were held under the bondage of sin, from which there was no es- caping, till his death made the throne of grace accessible: he res- cued sinners from despair, and opened a door of hope and mercy for the world, by his bloody passion on the cross: hence, by a figure common among men, we are said to be ransomed, redeemed, or bought with the price of blood. Such expressions are not applied to literal contracts or pecuniary transactions, and I am persuaded the world would never have heard of such an application of them, had not such "degraded parables" been found convenient to the support of a tottering hypothesis, that must be concealed under cover of distorted allegories to be kept in any tolerable counte- nance in the world. PLAN OF SALVATION. 267 CHAPTER IV. AN EXAMINATION OF SOME GENERAL OBJECTIONS CONNECTED WITH OTHER DOCTRINES OF RELIGION. SECTION I. Of the full display of Eternal Justice. Objection. — "Justice is an essential and eternal attribute of God. Its demands must therefore be fully and entirely satisfied; otherwise the Almighty must relinquish a part of his justice, and thereby abandon that which is essential to his nature, and con- sequently cease to be God." Answer; 1. Benevolence is an eternal attribute of God, equally essential to his nature; it must therefore be fully' and entirely displayed: Justice forbids the exercise of benevolence, or it does not; if it does not, then God never relinquishes any part of his justice by the exercise of kindness and mercy: if it does, then God to be just must relinquish the exercise of benevolence, seeing justice forbids it: therefore he must abandon that which is essential to his nature, and consequently cease to be God. 2. The objection supposes God's eternal justice binds himself, and that where there is no right of demand in another, there is still an obligation on him, which he cannot depart from without being unjust: for supposing the general welfare to be secured through the Redeemer, for sinners to be pardoned, without the whole penalty being inflicted on themselves or any other person; if God be still bound to execute vengeance to the utlermost, the inevitable consequence is, that he must give up the prerogative of exercising clemency, (a prerogative which is possessed even by an earthly ruler,) in order to secure his great and eternal justice. 3. If God is bound under obligation, when there is no other per- son's right involved, it follows that justice binds him, where every other being is left free: for who will presume to say that any man or angel is bound in justice, in any single case, but where there is a right of demand in another.^ And if men and angels are not thus bound, and yet their Eternal Maker is, does it not follow that justice binds the Almighty, and denies him the liberty and authority which it allows to the meanest of his creatures? 268 AN ESSAY ON THE 4. If it be granted, that God is not bound to punish sinners, ex- cepting where tlie omission of it would affect tlie rights of others, it is undeniable thai, excepting such cases, he has a right to par- don sinners, and never to inflict the penalty which they had incurred. And if we call this leaving his justice unsatisfied, or departing from it, we say God departs from his justice, and leaves it unsa- tisfied, by doing what he has a right to do. 5. Justice is fully displayed, and entirely satisfied, the moment universal right is secured: This was done by our Lord Jesus Christ, in consequence of which a gracious pardon is granted to sinners. But God, you say, had a right to punish them, and this right must be satisfied. The answer is easy: the moment divine goodness grants pardon, God's individual right to punish is satis- fied by his benevolence, the very essence of which consists in voluntarily giving up a right in favour of another. Deny this, and you say at once, that benevolence has uo place in the divine na- ture, and that justice is never satisfied for God to bestow a favour until he is bound to do it, and then it is no favour, but the mere discharge of an obligation. 6. If we deny that benevolence is meritorious to the satisfac- tion of justice, we must suppose that punishment is the only thing which satisfies it; but 1 hope it can be made appear, that the only thing in punishment which satisfies justice, is its tendency to se- cure the rights of others, aud when it has no such tendency, jus- tice is not satisfied with it. Suppose, for example, that the devil and his angels had been punished in heaven as much as they are punished in hell, but had been continued in their native region, witb.full power to disturb the innocent and injure them, or violate their rights through eter- nity; would justice be satisfied merely with their being punished when that punishment was not inflicted in a manner that should secure the rights of others.^ No: if they were made to endure the full degree of torment which their iniquities deserved, justice would not be satisfied with it a tittle farther than it had a tenden- cy to secure the general welfare; and if it had no such tendency^ justice would remain as unsatisfied as if the governor had not punished the criminals at all: because if he punished them in a way that answered no good end, he had no regard to the rights or the welfare of others, and therefore there would be neither jus- tice nor benevolence in the matter. Consequently the security of general happiness and universal right, is the only thing which satisfies justice, and it is never satisfied with punishment, but so PLAN OF SALVATION. 26jb £ar as it has a tendency to promote this end. To deny this, is to say justice is satisfied that the rights of the innocent should not be se- cured, and that mere punishment satisfies it, without any regard to the tendency or end of that punishments 7. If you admit that benevolence, or a benevolent regard to the general welfare, which leads to every proper step to secure it, is that which satisfies justice, the conclusion is secured, that as soon as those ends are accomplished by the goodness of God, divine justice is fully satisfied, even though there should be ten thousand penalties which have never been inflicted, and never will be. But if you deny this doctrine, you must of necessity maintain that mere punishment, abstracted from its tendency to secure the public wel- fare, is essential to the full display of divine justice. If this attribute cannot appear to full advantage, by merely se- curing universal right and happiness, but in addition to that, pun- ishment is necessary in itself, to exhibit the full glory thereof, the consequence is, that before sin entered into the creation this at- tribute was not satisfied, or not fully displayed, seeing nothing more was done than the seeul-ity of universal right, and no punish- ment existed to display and exalt this great perfection. Therefore, God must either punish the innocent, or force them into sin by his decree, in order fully to satisfy and show forth his glorious justicel Thus we see how the various parts of the predestinarian system are connected together, and how naturally they rise out of the le- gal atonement, which some inconsistent Arminians vainly attempt to reconcile with the benevolent doctrines of Christianity. If justice was fully exercised and exalted originally, by the se- curity of universal right, it is still fully exercised and exalted in securing the same end, otherwise we say a change has taken place in its nature; if it was not, then justice required (he introduction of misery, in order to display itself ettectually, and of course this attribute demanded that the innocent shonld be punished, or that they should become guilty, in order that they might deserve pun- ishment, and thus aftbrd the Creator an opportunity to glorify his justice, and unfold the secrets of his sovereign w ill! If the angels had continued to persevere in righteousness, and to refuse to subserve the divine perfections by plunging themselves into sin, the Almighty, it should seem, to display his eternal jus- tice, must secretly contrive their apostaey by an absolute decree, while he is openly warning them against it, with every appear- ance of truth and sincerity! Mm ii70 AN ESSAY ON THE If a man should cruelly beat his children when innocent, or drench them with intoxicating liquors, in order to punish them se- verely for being drunkards, would not this be an admirable way of showing his justice? And would it mend the matter for him to warn them against intoxication, and make great professions of ab- horrence against it, and at the same time to contrive some secret way of leading them into drunkenness in order to punish them, without letting them know the depth of his secret will or dissim- ulation? or would his august perfection be fully unfolded by impu- ting drunkenness to them, when they had never been guilty of it? It is certainly right at all times for justice to display itself ful- ly and perfectly, the contrary of which is an evident contradiction: if, therefore, the infliction of penalties be essential to its full man- ifestation, it was right for them to be inflicted while all creatures remained in a state of innocence, or for the creatures to be led in- to sin, or have sin imputed to them, that they might be proper sub- jects of punishment. This reminds one of the wonderful display of justice manifested by the popish inquisitors: "When those who stood mute are call- ed for re-examination, if they continue silent, such tortures are ordered as will either make them speak, or kill them; a string of accusations is brought against them, to which they are obliged to answer extempore, no time being given even to put their answer into proper method. "After they have verbally answered, pen, ink and paper are given them, in order to produce a written answer, which it is re- quired shall in every degree coincide with the verbal answer. If the verbal and the written answer difler, the prisoners are charged with prevarication, if one contains more than the other, with wish- ing to conceal certain circumstances; if they both agree, they are accused with premeditated artifice. "i.\nother artifice used by the inquisitors is this: If a prisoner has too much resolution to accuse himself, and too much sense to be ensnared by their sophistry, they proceed thus: a copy of an indictment against the prisoner is given him, in which, among ma- ny trivial accusations, he is charged with the most enormous crimes, of which human nature is capable. This, of course, rouses his temper, and he exclaims against such falsities. He is then asked which of the crimes he can deny? He naturally singles out the most atrocious, and begins to express his abhorrence of them, when the indi^-tment being snatched out of his hand, the president says, 'By your denying only those crimes which you mention, you PLAN OF SALVATION. 271 implicitly confess the rest, and we shall therefore proceed accord- Migly.' "The inquisitors made a ridiculous affectation of equity, by pre- tending that the prisoner may be indulged with a counsellor, if he chooses to demand one. Such a request is sometimes made, and a counsellor appointed, but upon these occasions as the trial itself is a mockery of justice, so the counsellor is a mere cypher; for he is not permitted to say any thing that might offend the inquisitor, or to advance a syllable that might benefit the prisoner."* Now if the perfect display of justice consists in punishing those as criminals who are innocent; if it consists in forcing or enticing them into wrong conduct in order to punish them; or in falsely imputing crimes to them which they never committed; the Ro- man inquisitors exhibited the most perfect display of justice that tlie world has ever yet beheld. But if none of those things are es- sential to its operations, it is obvious as the beams of day-light, that God could display his righteousness without the help of ei- ther sin or misery; and that penal torments were never necessary till the voluntary wickedness of angels broke in upon the harmony of heaven and called forth the arm of justice to defend the injured rights of the innocent, by executing the righteous sentence of the law upon those malevolent and cruel invaders. It is very evident that all creatures, while they continue just, •will continue happy; and misery had no place in the creation while justice was universally maintained. But no sooner is injus- tice introduced than it produces misery, as its natural offspring. The rights of the innocent are violated, and divine justice, ever watchful to guard and secure them, is now under the necessity of doing it by inflicting misery on the rebels. Not that it is essential to this attribute to inflict punishments ; for it never did inflict them before, and never would have done it, had not the introduction of injustice made it indispensably necessary for the vindication of the Divine character and the defence of the public welfare. It is for the sake of maintaining happiness, and for nothing else, that misery is ever inflicted by the influence of any righteous principle. To say justice inflicts punishment because it essentially delights in the infliction of it, is to say that justice and unrelenting malice are precisely the same thing. What is malice but a diabolical passion which disposes a per- son without any regard to the security of general l^appiness to in- * See the Biographieal and Martyrolo^ical Dictionary, paa;e 391 and 393. srs AN ESSAY ON THE fiict torment for its own sake, and to feast upon the groans of the miserable? Tliis odious venom arises from the profoundest depths of hell, and it is only to obstruct the influence of such destructive principles, and to prevent others from falling into them, that the loving Parent of all creatures ever inflicted punishments ©neither angels or men. Though it be granted then, that justice is an eternal attribute of God, yet we can never be persuaded that the existence of misery was essential to the satisfaction or perfect exercise of this princi- ple, because it is so far from being in league with misery, that they are at perpetual opposition with each other; and it is to prevent the enlargement of wretchedness that justice is executed by the great Ruler of the heavens, or by any righteous and good governor in this world. Let us look back to the blooming period of universal harmony, when all creatures in existence were both innocent and holy; let us consider the scenes of undisturbed tranquillity which gladden- ed the regions of the blessed, prior to the ravages of sin. Did not justice demand of all creatures to continue in the way of perfect obedience.'' and did it not demand of their Maker not to punish them as rebels while they were perfectly innocent.'' If we say no we say it does not demand obedience to God, and that it does not protect the innoecnt: if we say yes, it follows that justice, far from being the original author of misery, absolutely demanded that mis- ery should never be introduced. And had justice been maintained by all creatpres, as it was by their Creator, it is evident that mis- ery the native offspring of moral evil, would never to this moment have existed in the creation of God. Consequently the moment misery was introduced, by one creature injuring another, justice was violated; and therefore misery is so far frpm beingessential to the exercise of this righteous attribute, that it is essential to the exercise of injustice, which is a sworn enemy to every perfection of the Deity. But these principles, I fear, have sometimes been jumbled to- gether in dreadful confusion. Have vve indulged a confused notion, that no misery >vas ever produced till it was inflicted by the hand of God on account of sin? But what is sin then? Is jt a perfectly harmless thing that injures no being in any part of the creation? Did God give his creatures a code of moral laws >vhich had no re- lation to their happiness or misery? so that, had he let them alone, thty would all have been as happy in breaking as in keeping them? If so, there was no benevolence in giving the law, because PLAN OF SALVATION. 273 the operation of it was not essential to the happiness of a single individual, which it could not be, if they could be as happy with- out keeping the law as with it. And how were the rights and pri- vileges of others violated by sin, if they were in no degree affected hy it? If the first wickedness produced no misery, it did no harm to any one, and how then can it be denominated a very dreadful evil? Perhaps it will be said God has a right to command his crea- tures as he pleases, and the dreadful evil of sin consisted merely and solely in its being opposed to the divine authority. But if it was a matter purely indifferent what kind of laws God gave to his creatures, it was equally indifferent whether he gave them any laws or no; because, if one kind had no more tendency to promote their happiness and guard them against misery than another, it h evident that all kinds were equally frivolous. But if so, there was no wisdom in the law-giver, unless wisdom consists in pre- feringone set of means to anotker when they are all alike indif- ferent to the end. In such indifferent matters the most egregious folly could choose as well as wisdom. If it be granted that God had a wise end in view, when he first gave laws to his moral creatures, I would be glad to know what end he had in view.'' Was it to promote their happiness? If not, there was no benevolence in the matter, whatever his end might be: and if it was to promote their happiness, then there was a pos- sibility for it to be destroyed by their own conduct, otherwise you say he gave a law to promote their happiness which had no ten- dency to that end; which it could not have if a breach of it had no more effect upon their enjoyments than the most cordial obedi- ence. Did he give a law to secure all right and prevent his creatures from injuring each other? If not, he had no regard to moral jus- tice in giving it, whatever else he had in view; if he did, then it was possible for his creatures to injure each other, or else you say he gave a law to prevent that which was impossible. For what were the devils "cast into hell, and reserved in chain* of darkness unto the judgment of the great day," if they never didauy harm? If misery was never produced till it was inflicted by the hand of God, it is certain their sin never injured them- selves or others, and never would have hindered any creature from being as happy as it would if eiu had never entered iuto the universe. ay* AN ESSAY ON THE If we admit this hypothesis, we must believe that right and wrong Iiave no relation to happiness and misery; because it supposes, had God withheld his hand, and not inflicted misery on his creatures, they might have broken his laws through all heaven and earth to the present hour, without ever injuring themselves or others, or diminishing their happiness in the least degree. And moreover, if right and wrong have no relation to misery, then it very evidently follows that when God inflicted punishment on the fallen angels, he did neither right nor wrong: thus all moral dis- tinctions are confounded, all kinds of conduct are made alike indifferent, and we leap into the profound regions of atheism. If we say misery did not originally result from that conduct which was perfectly indifferent, it must of necessity have arisen ei- ther from doing wrong or from doing right; if the former, the point is gained for which I contend: if the latter, then it demonstrably follows that if all creatures, and the Creator with, them, had per- petually done wrong, misery would never have originated, and perfect felicity would have been universal to the present hour. Did I not fear that any farther pursuit of this point Mould in- sult the reader's understanding, additional arguments should be produced; but presuming what has been already said will be deem- ed sufficient, I proceed only to mention the conclusions which fol- low. The first is, that when all creatures were innocent and upright, no one deserved to be punished, and justice was so far from re- quiring it, that it required the contrary: of course while moral principles prevailed, misery was excluded from God's universal dominion. Secondly, it follows that misery was introduced by injustice, and unless we say God is unjust, we are constrained to admit the con- clusion, that rebellious creatures brought misery on themselves, and injured others, not by any special appointment of God, but as the natural consequence of moral evil. Thirdly, by thus unjustly introducing misery, they forfeited their native right to happiness, and could no longer appeal to jus- tice for an exemption from penal torments, as innocent creatures can, because they deserved to suffer for violating the rights of others, and flying in the face of that goodness and justice which were harmoniously exercised to maintain the happiness of all. Fourthly, the righteous Governor of his creatures, who hitherto guarded their happiness by presenting his truth to their understand- ing, and thus morally drawing them to obedience, was now con- PLAN OF SALVATION. 275 strained to do it by arresting these invaders, and manifesting his abhorrence of their crimes. His justice now demands that punish* ments be inflicted on the rebels, not for the sake of punishing, but for the sake of his creatures in general who have not transgressed, and whose native liberty and happiness must and ought to be de- fended. Fifthly, as justice delights, not in the infliction of misery, but in the security of good government and general happiness, if these ends can be by any means accomplished without delivering the re- bels over to the punishment they deserve, justice will be satisfied for them to receive a gracious pardon, and enjoy the blessings of their Maker's government again. Sixthly, the Lord Jesus, in his heavenly plan of redemption, satisfied justice, not by becoming a criminal and suffering as such, for nothing but injustice could be satisfied with this; not by giving the criminals an absolute deliverance from the penalty whether they repented or not; nor yet by suffering all that was due to sinj but by exhibiting the great evil of sin, and demonstrating God's abhorrence of it, as stated in the foregoing chapters. SECTION XL The supposed necessity of sin to make redemption necessary. <' If sin had never entered into the world, it may be said, the goodness of God in redemption would never have appeared, and neither his justice against sin, nor his mercy to sinners could have possibly been manifested: therefore the nature of God essentially demanded the introduction of moral evil." Answer: 1. It is true, before sin- entered into the creation, it was impos- sible for either justice or goodness to be manifested to sinners, be- cause there were no such creatures in being; but if those attributes were exercised in behalf of the upright, and afforded them all the happiness of which their natures were capable, what more was ne- cessai-y.'' Must God make sinners, that he may have the opportu- nity of showing his mercy to them.'' If a physician should break his neighbour's arm, in order to show his skill in curing it; or drench his children M-ith strong drink to display his goodness in sre AN ESSAY ON THE pardoning them for the crime of drunkenness, there would be nei- ther justice nor mercy in such an action. It would result from a combination of cruelty and pride: for it could not arise from a re- gard to another's happiness, but merely to make a selfish and hy- pocritical display of his benevolence at their expense. If he was good, why did he not rejoice to maintain their happiness instead of obstructing it? and if he was just, why did he inflict misery on others which they did not deserve? or charge them with the crim- inality of his own wrong conduct? There cannot be a more palpa- ble contradiction in nature than to say it was good and just for God to forbid sin, and yet that his goodness and justice required it, in order to display themselves! that his attributes required of his creatures, not to sin, and at the same time required that they should sin! 2. The objection supposes that it is merely for his own sake, and not for the sake of his creatures, that God displays his £rttri- butes. For if goodness and justice supported and guarded innocent creatures in a state of perfect happiness, before the introduction of moral evil, then nothing more was necessary to be done for their sake, because they were already in possession of perfect and un- obstructed happiness. For whose sake then did the Creator wish to display his attributes in any other way? Not for the sake of sinners, for there were none in being. Not for the sake of enlarg- ing the happiness of his creatures, for I presume, had they con- tinued upriglit, their obedience would, through divine beneficence, have regularly enlarged it, without the help of wickedness. To deny this is to say that sin can furnish the creatures of God with greater degrees of felicity than his goodness could possibly do without its assistance. And if it was really so necessary for the well being of the creation, what principle in the Deity influenced him to forbid it, and to guard his creatures against the commis- sion of it, by every moral motive that his truth could communi- cate to their understandings? Did this proceed from either justice or benevolence? if so, it is just and good to discourage moral crea- tures in the pursuit of that which is essential to the perfection of their happiness, or to hinder them from being so happy as they might be. And besides, if sin was essential to the display of God's glory, when he forbid it, was this done to prevent the display of his glory? or did he really wish them to violate his laws, and only pretended to be pure and holy, while he secretly decreed and delight- ed in their rebellion and apostacy? 1 hope the reader will reject such absurdities, and will acknowledge that sin was never ncee«- PLAN OF SALVATION. 277 sary to the production of happiness, but that it is the parent of misery, hateful to God and to all his holy angels. "What havoc hast thou made, foul monster, sin! (Breatest and first of ills! the fruitful parent Of woes of all dimensions! but for thee Sorrow had never been. Accursed thing! O where shall fancy find A proper name to call thee by expressive Of all thy horrors? pregnant womb of ills! Of temper so transcendently malign. That toads and serpents of most deadly kind Compared to thee are harmless. Sickness Of every size and symptom, racking pains, And bluest plagues are thine! See how the fiend Profusely scatters the contagion round! Whilst deep-mouth'd slaughter bellowing at her heels, Wades deep in blood new spilt; yet for to-morrow Shapes out new work of great uncommon daring And inly pines till the dread blow is struck." Blair. If it be granted that the divine attributes were sufficiently dis- played, before the introduction of evil, for the support and enlarge- ment of the creature's capacity and happiness, what other or bet- ter ends could be accomplished by manifesting them in any other way? And even supposing the utmost extent of them were not then fully known, there was no need of any more while all creatures continued holy and happy, because while this state of things re- mained the ends were accomplished for which they ever were dis- played at all. Has God ever made known his wisdom and power to creatures in all their extent, so that he knows nothing and can do nothing but what he has fully and.entirely manifested? I presume none will be disposed to affirm this: and if he be not ambitious to display the whole extent of his wisdom and power, but only manifests them so far as is necessary for the benefit of his creatures, what ground is there for the vain presumption that he was not satisfied with that manifestation of his glory which innocent creatures in heaven be- held, but was ambitious to display himself in some other way, when it was not necessary to the felicity of any creature in being? If he were disposed to do more than was necessary for the perfect feli- N n 378 AN ESSAY ON THE city of his creatures, and the security of their rights^ what benig- nity or justice would appear in such a disposition? Alas! it is re- presenting our great Creator as being governed by a selfish princi- ple, and delighting to make some wonderful display of himself, merely for his own gratification, as if God, like fallen man, had a disposition to do certain things for no other end but to gain ap- plause! Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that we are righteous? or did he bring us into being because he needed us, and M'as con- cerned merely to let others see how glorious he is in himself? Surely his essential goodness was the cause of our existence, and had it not been for this attribute, which delights in the communi- cation of happiness, I presume that men and angels would have never been. His other attributes are exercised in subserviency to this, and he displays himself to his intelligent creatures, so far on- ly as is necessary to the felicity and perfection oftheir nature. But what evidence have we that he ever has fully ihauifested the whole extent of his perfections to any creature? "Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering. He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon no- thing. He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it. The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his reproof. He divideth the sea by his power, and by his spirit he hath garnished the heavens. Lo, these are parts of his waysj but how little a portion is heard of him?" — Job xxvi. 6, &c. If then he has made known but a little portion of his nature to tjs, it must be because he is perfectly free from a selfish ambition, and manifests his perfections so far only as the general good re- quires. Upon this principle it is evident, had moral evil never been introduced, goodness would not have manifested itself in redemp- tion, because such a manifestation would not be necessary; but af- ter there were sinners exposed to hopeless misery, the Almighty Father was pleased to make a new display of his benevolence, and to evince before all worlds that even rebels themselves should not finally perish, while goodness could prevent it. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever be- lievethinhimshouldnotperishbuthaveeverlastinglife."Joliniiil6^ I suspect it will be said, that God certainly made all things for his own glory, that he worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, and that creation, providence, redemption, salvation and damnation are to be resolved into nothing else but his sovereign pleasure. Answer: PLAN OF SALVATION. 279 1. All things were indeed created for his own §lory, because as has been before proved, his glory consists in the exercise of hi» attributes, to promote the general welfare of all creatures capable of moral happiness. 2. It is true likewise that every thing he does, is done accord- ing to his sovereign pleasure, because the pleasure of his un- changeable nature is to do good, and to make all creatures happy> who consent to be so without injuring the innocent. But (3.) if it be affirmed that he ever does any thing among his creatures, without having a regard to their general felicity, or the security of their rights, there is neither goodness nor jus- tice in those actions: and I would be glad to know what glory he would display by departing from the moral attributes of his na- ture, or what pleasure it could aflurd him, unless we suppose he is governed by a selfish principle, which is pleased to depart from goodness and righteousness. This is the very principle that now predominates in the devil and his angels, and is the foundation of all the wickedness that is practised in either earth or hell. I leave the reader to make the application. SECTION III. The supposed violation of truth. It may be objected, «If any sinner is pardoned without an inflic- tion of the whole penalty, divine truth is violated, seeing all the punishment is not endured, which was threatened against the dis- obedient: the soul that sinneth it shall die." However great this difficulty may appear, it bears as hard upon the other system as upon that which we defend; and therefore our opponents are no less concerned in the removal of it than our- selves. Did God threaten that every sinner should absolutely be pun- ished in proportion to his crimes? How then was this fulfilled, if any sinner was not thus punished.' It alters not the case that his surety suffered for him; because the threatening was, not if you sin an innocent person shall suffer in your place, but "the soul that sinneth it shall die." No matter what the means were through S80 AN ESSAY ON THE which the sinner is rescued from punishment; for there is no way for the threatening to be literally fulfilled, but for him in his own person to suffer according to what his iniquities deserve. If our opponents could prove two things, they would, it is true, have an advantage of us in this particular: if they could prove (1.) that the original threatening was, not "the soul that sinneth it shall die," but every degree of torment that sinners will deserve shall absolutely be suffered by some person: and (3.) that the Redeemer actually did endure the whole torment, that the elect ever would have suffered in hell, if he had not died for them; — let these points be established, I say, and they will be able to make appear that their system secures the attribute of truth, by evincing a literal accomplishment of what was denounced against sin. But as they cannot prove those points, and do not even profess to believe them, the present objection is nugatory, when urged as a difficulty peculiar to the doctrine advanced in the preceding pages; because it equally affects every system that includes the dili- verance of any sinner from the sentence denounced against him, whatever the means might be through which his salvation should be accomplished. This answer, however, does not satisfy the serious inquirer; because, though it retorts the objection, yet it does not remove it. The proper answer must be founded upon this principle: that although it is impossible for God to lie, yet it is not so for him to withhold the communication of his truth from creatures who are not capable of receiving it without being injured instead of being bene- fitted thereby. It is manifest through all the scriptures that a condition is of- ten implied without being expressed; or in other words, a punish- ment is threatened, without any mention of the condition on which it may be suspended. We might produce the case of Nineveh, and many other instances, where the penal consequences of sin hare been denounced without any mention of the possibility of pardon, or any intimation that mercy would devise a method to prevent the execution of the sentence on those who should offend. While Adam stood upright God only made known to him the wages of sin, "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," without revealing the designs of his mercy in case of disobe- dience, until such a revelation was necessary to support his des- pairing mind after the transgression: then, and not before, God promised that "the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head." PLAN OF SALVATION. 281 The same goodness which discouraged sin by the threatening, concealed the designs of mercy to sinners: because a revelation of intended mercy could answer no end at that time, but to weaken the penal sanctions of Ihe law, and prevent their influence on the mind. The Almighty Father doubtless pledged his truth, that his ab- horrence of sin should be manifested, and that the rights and hap- piness of his innocent creatures should be secured: one way by which this was to be done, he made known; namely, by the con- demnation of offenders: but though the infinite mind conceived an- other method through which those ends could be accomplished, in a manner that should accord with the salvation of penitent sinners, yet he was under no obligation to communicate this knowledge to innocent Adam in Paradise: nor would there be any benevolence in such a revelation, before sin entered into the Morld, for the rea- son above advanced. Now if we charge our Maker with a violation of truth, for re- vealing to Adam the penalty of the law, without making known the whole extent of his own mercy, this is to say, the withholding of truth is falsehood, and if so, there is no way for God to avoid be- ing a liar but by making known to us all that he knows himself. The threatening of the divine law, absolutely and definitely ex- pressed, would stand thus: all sinners, who finally reject the terms of mercy, shall suffer ihe penalty. This will most certainly be ac- complished. But withhold the clause which includes the revela- tion of pardon, and it will be, if you become sinners you shall suf- fer the penalty, or the soul that sinneth it shall die, without an intimation of any method of salvation or deliverance. The sentence against Adam has been by Paine, turned into re- proach and ridicule: "The Christian system," says he, "represents the Almighty as coming off, or revoking the sentence, by a quib- ble upon the word death:" and perhaps others may say, if part of the truth in such a case, were withheld, it would in effect be a falsehood; because it would convey a false idea to the mind: name- ly, that the sentence was absolute and unconditional. We answer: 1. God did not declare the sentence was unconditional, and that every sinner should absolutely be excluded from the possibil- ity of pardon; but only withheld the knowledge of his mercy till it was necessary to reveal it. 2. This afforded no evidence to Adam that sin could be for- given, or that it could not: this indeed left him in a state of entire ignorance, but could not lead hira into error, unless he should be» 282 AN ESSAY ON THE lieve things without evidence; and in that case he, not his Maker, would be the author of the delusion. Must God be charged with deceiving his creatures, because they believe what they please, upon their own voluntary imaginations, when he has given them no grounds to believe any thing concerning the matter? 3. When Adam believed the testimony of God, that sinners should die, he believed the truth; and though he had no idea that any should ever be made alive again, yet the withholding of this truth from him was no contradiction of the other, and therefore was no falsehood. Apd if the nature of death was left in some de- gree unknown or indefinite, to leave him in a state of ignorance, whereby he was guarded against dangerous presumptions, this surely was the result of perfect goodness. 4. I take it for granted that God was not bound to reveal the whole extent of his mercy to Adam before the fall, but that it was right for him to withhold this knowledge from him: also that it was just and good for him to make known to Adam the penal consequences of sin, in a manner best adapted to his present state, and best calculated to deter him from disobedience. To accomplish this, the threatening must of necessity be given in such a way as would convey no idea of salvation for the sinner. And how could this be done but by exhibiting the penalty by itself, and leaving room for the display of mercy, without any expression of it, by concealing the conditionality of the threatening in silence, er un- der cover of metaphorical or indefinite expressions? Now if God had a right to withhold part of the truth from Adam, it was just for him to do so: if a revelation of part only was at that time best calculated to promote the creature's happiness, it was also a display of benevolence: therefore to call this a false- hood, is to say a lie consists in the exercise of justice and loving kindness. This would charge with falsehood all legislators whose laws threaten murderers with death, without at the same time declaring that they may possibly obtain forgiveness. It will charge with falsehood the God of nature, who gives sin- ners a consciousness that they are guilty, and exposed to punish- ment, without, at the same time, giving them any natural convic- tion that their sins may be forgiven. This interesting knowledge has been hid for ages from many nations, and is only brought to light by the gospel, or divine revelation. Add to this, that God's promising to Israel in Egypt, that they should inherit the land of Canaan, withaut at that time express- PLAN OF SALVATION. 283 ing any possibility of a forfeiture: — his promising them an illustri* ous Messiah, who should sit upon the throne of David forever without revealing the spirituality of his kingdom: — his threatening to destroy Nineveh in forty days, without giving a hint that tlie threat was conditional: — his commanding Abraham to slay his beloved son, without mentioning that the execution should be pre- vented in the last moment: — these, and many other instances might be produced to prove our Creator false and deceitful, if falsehood consists in leaving persons in a state of ignorance, when certain branches of knowledge are not suitable to their present state, and would tend to their disadvantage and misery. Without consuming time upon this theme, we may just observe: (1.) That the immoral principle of falsehood consists in an inten- tion to deceive another to his injury. (2.) That the expression of it consists in oxhibiting/aZse evidence to another, by words or actions, with a design that he should receive it as evidence of truth. (3.) That a part of the truth withheld, when the divulging of it would do no good, but would be injurious, is so far from being a false- hood: that it results from a principle of loving kindness. (4.) Lastly that the truth of God can never contradict his other attributes, that he never pledged his veracity to do any thing in opposition to them, and consequently, if the death of Christ perfectly displayed his justice and goodness, it secured every thing that ever his truth was engaged to accomplish or perform. If we say he ever promised or threatened to do any thing contrary to his moral attri- butes, we say he engaged to do wrong; and if he did not, then the utmost he ever engaged to do was to exercise his attributes for the defence of his government and the security of general happi- ness: consequently, a redemption which accomplishes those pur- poses, does every thing that divine ir-Mf/i requires, and therefore this attribute is fully displayed by a vindication of the rest. SECTION IV. Moral principles in the Deity are not different from those which are to govern his creatures. We come now to consider another plausible evasion. "Al- though the preceding arguments may be conclusive, as they relate to justice and goodness between man and man, yet it may be sup- 284 AN ESSAY ON THE posed unreasonable and presumptuous to apply them to God, be- cause his attributes are beyond our comprehension, and may be to- tally difterent in their operations from such principles in finite creatures. What God may or may not do, we know not, and it is blasphemy for us to inquire; because he has a right to do every thing according to the counsel of his own will. He has made right and wrong to be what they are; he could have made them entire- ly different had he so pleased; and whatever he wills to do is right, for no other reason but because he wills it." Some such view as this many appear to have indulged, concern- ing the authority or sovereignly of God; He is the fountain of justice, they conclude, and may make one standard of it for his creatures, and another for himself, because he is under the con- troul of no superior authority, and has no other rule of his actions but his own sovereign pleasure. This maxim appears to have pre- vailed very generally, in the beginning of the l7th century, when Calvinian predestination was at the height of its splendour, ag we may learn from a declaration of king James I. of England. When addressing his parliament in defence of his own kingly pre- rogative, he expressed himself in these terms: « I conclude, then, the point touching the power of kings, with this axiom of divini- ty, that as to dispute what God may do, is blasphemy, but what God wills, that divines may lawfully, and do ordinarily dispute and discuss; so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever b6 will- ing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my pow er be disputed upon; but 1 shall ever be w illing to make the reason appear of my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws."* Thus we perceive his majesty assumed the fancied prerogative of Deity; and maintained that justice in kings consists in "declar- ing what they will do," and in "ruling their actions according t» their laws:" that is, that they have a right to make their laws of action in any manner they may choose, and then their justice con- sists in conforming to these laws till they shall will to alter them^ and establish another kind of justice, by which to regulate their conduct. This august sovereignty he defends by an appeal to the well known "axiom in divinity, that it is blasphemy to dispute what God may do," because there is no other right and wrong with him, but such as he wills to establish, and may alter as he will. This, as far as I am able to conceive, is the meaning of the *Hume's History of England, vol. iv. page 236. FLAN OP SALVATION. 283 axiom: for if God may not do any thing contrary to justice, and if it is right for us to reason upon this subject, then it is no "blas- phemy to dispute what God may do," and no "sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power." 1 feel inclined to indulge my opposition to this "'axiom in divini- ty," by attempting to prove, first, that moral principles in the Deity are the same that are to regulate the conduct of his crea- tures; and, secondly, that they are eternal, were never made, and can never be altered or destroyed. First, The principles of righteousness in the great Creator are nothing different from those principles in men and angels. We freely acknowledge that God possesses them in infinitely higher degrees of perfection or extent, than any finite creature can; but higher degrees of the same thing, can never be different from its lowest degrees, unless we absurdly imagine, that righteousness, carried to the utmost height of perfection, may become totally al- tered in its nature, and may degenerate info an opposite tendency. Goodness in creatures disposes them to communicate happiness; but this principle in the Deity is infinitely higher and more extensiv«i than in them; therefore God is infinitely more disposed to commu- nicate happiness than men or angels are. A just being will never inflict punishments where they are not deserved, or where no end of goodness can be promoted by them: but God is infinitely just, and therefore he has a stronger opposition to all acts of cruelty than any other being in the universe. How ridiculous, therefore, must it be, to infer from the superlative excellence of the divine perfec* tions, that they may be entirely different in their operations from those principles of morality as they are conceived by the human understanding! It is granted that the creatures of God have not the same na- tive right of demand upon him, that they have upon each other: each person in relation to his fellow creatures, has a right to his existence, and to the means necessary for the support and happi- ness of his life; and hence there is a corresponding obligation in them not to violate these rights; but he has no right to demand existence at the hand of God, but holds his life and all the bless- ings of it, up»n the grant of benevolence. As God was not bound injustice to create the universe, so nei- ther is he bound injustice to continue it in being; and he is under no obligation to continue the existence of any man or angel only as he has condescended to bind himself by promise: had he not gra- O o 286 AN ESSAY ON THE ciously pledged his veracity, he might this moment annihilate eve- ry creature in existence, without violating the right of any one. Hence we are under obligations of gratitude to God for our crea- tion, preservation, redemption, forgiveness, sanctification and eternal happiness: because all these things are derived from his benevolence, which is the only cause of gratitude. Had God been bound in justice to do any of those things, upon our inherent right of demand, we should have been under no obligation of gratitude for them, because we should only receive our right, which could not be withheld without injustice. For the same reason God is not under obligations of gratitude to any creature, because it is impos- sible for any creature to do him a favour, which is the only ground of it. But all thisaflbrds no shadow of evidence that moral princi- ples in the Deity arc any thing diftereut from those principles in his creatures. His benevolence essentially includes the right of option, to grant favours or withhold them: the same thing holds in creatures, so far as they can be benevolent, which is limited to their fel- low-creatures alone, because it is impossible for them to bestow a favour upon their Maker; but have, ou the contrary, derived their being and all their good things from his benelicence, and are there- fore bound in duty to God, to do every thing that is right and good. The attribute of truth is also the same in God that it is in his creatures. He is not bound to give his promise, or to confirm it by an oath; but when he does so, he graciously binds himself, and lias no more right to be false and deceitful than any other being. His justice is also the same. Though no creature has an inher- ent right to demand a perpetual preservation in existence, yet every creature, while innocent, has an inherent right to demand exemption from the everlasting damnation that is due to the devil and his angels, and hence there is a corresponding obligation iu the Almighty, as in every other being, not to violate the character of the innocent, by false accusations, or to make them endure the penalties due only to the guilty. To deny this, is to say God has a right to be wicked, or that he has a right to do wrong, which is an absolute contradiction, and therefore impossible. These principles are so clear, that 1 think no man can deny them without doing violence to his reason and conscience, as well as to the whole tenor of the gospel; but as a great stand has been made against them, I shall probably find it necessaRy to defend them more particularly iu another place. PLAN OF SALVATION. 287 It is unjust to inflict pain, where there is no guilt, unless it be necessary, and be done with a kind intention, to prevent a greater eril or to promote the happiness of the subject afterwards: there- fore, in all cases of this kind where it is inflicted by a just and good Creator, it is done to subserve such benevolent intentions, perhaps not discoverable by us in the present state, but which may clearly be made known when God shall have perfected the dispensations of his providence and grace. There is no other inference possible, if moral principles in the Deity are the same that regulate the conduct of his creatures, and that they are so, I hope to prove by the following arguments. 1. If they be not the same, the moral law affords no evidence of the nature of its author. This law we have considered as a copy of the divine perfections; but if his justice and goodness be any thing different from that kind which his law enjoins, the study of those principles will give us no certain evidence of his moral na- ture. His law is holy, just and good; but his own justice and good- ness are supposed to be of another kind, and how different they may be from the principles we are acquainted with, what creature is able to determine? 2. This hypothesis would leave no rational grounds for hope, or faith, or confidence in God: Shall I trust in his goodness? Alas, I know not what it is! his attributes are so profound a mystery, I am told, that I am not to apply my narrow conceptions, to draw inferences concerning what God may do, but only what he wills to do! And this I can never discover, because a thousand promises will afford me no consolation, seeing his truth may be as different from ours as any of his other attributes. 3. It would be impossible for any creature to imitate the great Maker of the world, as our Saviour exhorts us to do; because our exercising justice and mercy among men is no imitation of God, if his justice and mercy be of another kind. 4. Christians are sajd to be partakers of the divine nature, and are transformed into the image of God, which is said to consist in righteousness and true holiness: but if God is governed in his ac- tions by a righteousness and holiness of another kind, how are they partakers of his nature or image? And why should we worship or love a God whose nature and attributes are unknown, and some- thing different from what has ever entered into our hearts to con- ceive? Would not this be to worship an unknown God with a wit- ness? and might it not be said to every one of us, as our Saviour said to the Samaritans, "ye worship, ye know not what"? Leaving sea AN ESSAY ON THE our opponents to answer these plain questions, we proceed to prove, Secondly, that moral principles are eternal, were never created, and can never be destroyed. 1. To say they are not eternal, but were made by the Almighty, is to suppose that with God there is no distinction between right and wrong, between moral good and evil, but that all he does is perfectly indifterent; there being nothing moral in any of his ac- tions. He might alter his principles of action in any way that can he imagined, and they would be equally righteous, because he made right and wrong according to his own good pleasure, and has an equal right to alter and change them till that which is now just shall become unjust, and that which is now kind shall become cru- el! If so, we say God's justice consists in doing any thing, every thing, or nothing: or, in other words, that there is no principle of justice in his nature. 2. If the principles of righteousness are not eternal, but were formed by the divine will, it plainly follows that God made his own attributes and that they are not eternal. Is not justice an eternal attribute of God? and does not this consist in having a re- gard to that which is right, and an aversion to that which is wrong? If so, the distinction between right and wrong is eternal, and those principles of moral goodness brought to light by the law jand the gospel, are everlasting and unchangeable as the divine na- ture. 3. According to "the axiom," or rather the hypothesis undercon- sideration, the Almighty could, had he been so minded, have made benevolence consist in the infliction of eternal torments on the innocent, and have made barbarous cruelty consist in the regular promotion of felicity. Had he created all men and angels in hell, in order to torment them forever and ever, it would have been as perfectly just and good as any thing he has ever done, because with him every thing is righteous and he has no rule for his ac- tions but his own sovereign and independent will. If we find ourselves unable to digest these shocking opinions, we must of necessity admit that the principle of right is the same yes- terday, to-day and forever. It was never produced as the effect of will or volition, but being as essential to God as his omnipotence, it is as eternal, as necessary, as indestruetable and unchangeable as the divine nature itself. But though the nature of justice and goodness is eternal and eannot be altered, yet the exercise of those attributes for our be- PLAN OF SALVATION. 284 nefit is a voluntary act of the divine will. God was never bound to bring us into being, because it was an effect of his goodness, which essentially includes the right of option, to grant favours or to withhold them; and if he were to let us drop into our original nothingness, he would do us no wrong; because we have no right to demand existence at his hands. But though he is free to bestow his favours or to withhold them, yet he is not free to violate jus- tice and torment innocent creatures in hell forever, because this would be contrary to tbe principle of right, which is essential to his nature and coeval with his eternal existence. 1 conclude, therefore, that it is so far from being blasphemy to reason concerning what God may do, that it is evidently blasphe* mous to insinuate, ^ that it is a matter of indifference with hinx whether he does one thing or another, and that his sovereign will may choose to do any thing that ever was done, because any thing is righteous that he pleases to make so." Is not this plainly saying there are no moral principles in his nature, and that he has no regard to them in his actions? Did the prophets or apostles in- dulge the voluntary humility of modern times, and modestly adore the sovereign pleasure, without presuming to mention what God might do, or what he might not? Just the contrary. " I will publish the name of the Lord," says Moses, " he is the rock, his work his perfect; for all his ways are judgment; a God of truth, and without iniquity; just and right is he." — Deut. xxxii. 3, 4. " Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face." — Psalm Ixxxix. 14. ^^ Shall mortal man be more just than GodP shall a man be more pure than his Maker?" — Job iv. 17. " Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice? Far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity. For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways. Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment." — Job viii.3. — xxxiv. 12, &c. Does the Lord require us to believe that he might do wrong without being evil, while his word declares that "Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked, and he that sayeth unto the wicked, thou art righteous, him shall the people curse; nations shall abhpr tim?" 1 Sam. xxiv. 13. Prov. xxiv. 34. 290 AN ESSAY ON THE Faitlif'ul Abraham, we are told, had the assurance to violate king James's "axiom in divinity," and yet was never charged with blasphemy: "And Abraham drew near and said, wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked; and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee. Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Gen. xviii. 23, 25. SECTION. V. TJie infinity of Chrisfs atonement considered. It may be objected, that the doctrine defended in the preceding pages, supposes it not necessary for Christ to render infinite satis- faction for sin; of course, that sin is not an infinite evil, — that the divine law is not an infinite law, — that sinners do not deserve infi- nite punishment, — and consequently, that the doctrine of universal salvation is true. Much use, indeed, has been made of this argument, both by uni- versalists and by their opposers. The former argue, "that ^nife creatures cannot commit an infinite offence, and therefore cannot deserve hfinite punishment;" whilst the latter urge with equal confidence, "that God being infinite, his law must be equally so; a breach of it must therefore be an infinite offence, and conse- qnently, deserve infinite punishment." The one is considered a principal argument in defence of everlasting punisliment, the. other, a principal argument against it: audit is not a little re- markable, that the same point [infinity] is the main pillar of both arguments, and seems to make them appear equally plausi- ble. I cannot help being of opinion, that ity? And why? Because the misery inflicted did not arise from a benevolent intention, nor promote a benevolent end: the child did not deserve it, and there was no necessity for it; therefore justice was so far from requiring it, that it required the contrary. How then could justice admit of the operation, in the former case? Was the former child more guilty than the latter? This cannot be pretended, unless we are disposed to conclude, very gravely, that it was guilty of having the disease. As they were therefore both alike as to innocence or guilt, justice did not require that either of them should be punished by the physician; but it admitted of it in one case, and forbid it in the other, for this reason only, that the former ease was benevolent, and therefore consistent with justice, the latter unjust and cruel, and therefore contrary to it. If it can be proved that justice requires that all infants should guffer and die, we will acknowledge at once that they are guilty. But if this dispensation was the result of goodness, it remains that their sufferings are consistent with justice, but that it does not demand them. That it was the result of benevolence may be made evident, 1 think, by the following arguments. 1. It will be readily granted that Adam himself, after he sin* ned, was guilty: that he by disobedience forfeited all the blessings of Paradise, and justly deserved to die. Whence then was he per- mitted to enjoy his forfeited life, and the blessings of it, for near- ly a thousand years? Was it not through mere grace or favour? None surely will presume to deny it. Had not the stroke of justice been thus through mercy suspended, we should have never been born to suffer and die, unless our opponents will insist that Adam would have actually propagated his species after he was dead* Therefore our being born as we now are is the result of benevo- lence, sparing our first parents after their transgression. 2. It is supposed that because infants do in fact suffer and die, justice therefore requires it of them: but why is it that good men, after being pardoned and fully sanctified, have still to suffer and die? Our objectors insist, that all the suffering justice required of them was entirely satisfied when the Saviour undertook to die in their place. And though we believe this was intended only to sa- PLAN OF SALVATION. gig tisfy justice for them to be spared; to Be placed in a state of proba* tion; and to receive the free offers of salvation through Jesus Christ; yet we also acknowledge that when the goodness of God pardons their sins, and renews them in the spirit of their minds, full satisfaction is rendered, and justice requires no more. But still thev have to die. Is it because they are still guilty, after all that God has done for them in redemption, pardon and sanctifica- tion? or merely because they were so before? If men, after their sins have all been blotted out, are still under condemnation, mere- ly because they were once guilty, they are justified and condemned at the same time, and may be so eternally; because it will be for- ever true that they were once guilty. We might as well say that a man who was once convicted of a crime, but who has received a full pardon from the governor, is still guilty and ought to bo executed. If so, it is plain the governor had no just authority to pardon him, otherwise justice would not afterwards re- quire his execution. If we say, therefore, that pardoned and sancti- fied christians (I mean those who are fully sanctified and sealed before death) still deserve death as a penalty, our conclusion is founded on the principle, that God has not forgiven all their sins^ or that he had no just authority to do so. 3. If it be granted that such christians are now clear of guilt, and nevertheless have to die, the argument against infants is de- molished, and their sufferings and death are no proof of their crim- inality: and if we conclude, on the contrary, that all christians re-v main guilty, and therefore that justice requires their death, its re- quirements were evidently violated in the case of Enoch, for the apostle tells us "Enoch was translated that he should not see death." Heb. xi. 5. He moreover tells ns, when speaking of the general resurrection, that "we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thess. ir. 17. Those Christians who shall be alive at that happy period, will be so far from enduring the lingering pains of death, that they shall "be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump." 1 Cor. xv. 51. 4. We would be glad to know whether infants are so guilty, that justice requires that they should suffer "death temporal, spir* itual and eternal," or w hether it requires temporal death only. Suppose the last to be true, that they do not deserve damnation, but that justice requires their present sufferings and their disso- lution. This being granted, these two consequences are unavoida- 31^ AN ESSAY ON THE ble: first, that God shows mercy to actual sinners, but to many in- fants he exercises jiiclgnient without mercy: for it is no uncommon thing for infants to die as soon as they are born; and therefore no mercy is exercised towards them; they are not permitted to enjoy good in the land of the living; but the whole penalty which they deserve is executed upon them the moment they come into the world. Secondly, Those who say infants need no Saviour, on sup- position that they are innocent, do not avoid the same consequence, by supposing them guilty in the degree now under consideration: for the argument must rest upon the principle, that the only office of a Saviour is to "remove guilt, by bearing the penalty:" and that of consequence those who have no guilt, need no Saviour. Now if infants are only so far guilty as to deserve temporal death, when they actually die, the penalty is discharged by their own sufferings, and of course, according to the present argument, they need no Saviour, because the whole penalty they deserved has been actually endured by them, and justice requires no more. 5. It remains then, that the only ground on which infant guilt can prove they need a Saviour, is the supposition that they are so guilty as to deserve everlasting damnation. And indeed this ap- pears to be the ground generally taken by our adversaries. They suppose all infants deserve to be damned, and therefore it is a mer- cy that any of them are permitted to pass with no greater punish- ments than those which are temporal, or of short duration. Dr. Watts introduces this query, in form of an objection: "But how are such miseries reigning among his Creatures consistent with the goodness of God?" "Perfectly well," says he, "if we* consider mankind as a sinful, degenerate part of God's crea- tion. It is most abundant goodness that they have any com- forts left, and that their miseries are not doubled." Now if infants die as soon as they are born, what "comforts'* have they "left?" And if their present sufferings and death are all that they deserve, how is it "abundant goodness that their mis- eries are not doubled?" Is God abundantly good merely because he does not condemn his creatures, and punish them over again, after they have suffered all that they deserve? The doctor's mean- ing evidently was, though he had too much modesty and humani- ty to express it openly, that all infants "deserve death, yea, death everlasting." This was expressed openly by one author above quoted, and it is evident that we must, if we would be consistent, • Page 78. PLAN OF SALVATION. 3ig adopt the same conclusion, or maintain that infants are not ffuilty and that they deserve no penalty. Let us then suppose for the sake, of argument, however gloomy and dismal the supposition may be to the feelings of justice and humanity, that all infants deserve to be sent into hell forever. 1 suppose our opponents will readily admit that they are not more guilty than Adam was. Did Adam deserve death temporal and eternal the moment af- ter his transgression? or had he a right in justice to live and en- joy the blessings of life for almost a thousand years afterwards? If he deserved immediate death, it was pure mercy that spared him, and had the sentence been instantly executed, the temporal sufferings of his posterity would have been thereby prevented, un- less it can be proved that the earth would have been peopled by his dead body in the grave: and so would their eternal sufferings have been prevented, by the same means, unless it can be proved that his soul would have propagated his species in hell. Thus it appears, the execution of justice on Adam would have saved his posterity from all guilt, or from all the consequences of it; and if mercy spared him, to impute sin to his posterity, they were mercifully made guilty, and mercifully exposed to « death ever- lasting." If any should attempt to evade this conclusion, by saying it was not through mercy that Adam was spared to enjoy the bless- ings of life, but through justice; then he had a right injustice to live and enjoy them before the sentence of death, either temporal or eternal, should be executed upon him: consequently his posteri- ty have an equal right, unless they are more guilty than Adam. If they are not more guilty, we would thank our opponents to ex- plain how it can accord with justice for the sentence to be execut- ed on them as soon as they are born, whereby they are deprived of those temporal blessings which they have a right in justice to enjoy? If they are more guilty than Adam, we would gladly be instructed, whether imputed sin makes a person more guilty than actual sin, or whether the crimes of Satan were imputed to'us, as well as the sin of our first parent. Adam deserved death tempo- ral and eternal, but is supposed to have had a right first to enjoy thegood things of this life; his posterity, we say, deserved the .same death, but had no such right to the blessings of this life: consequently infants are more guilty, and deserve a more instant destruction from the presence of the Lord, than ever justice re- quired of Adam and Eve, who were the first and most responsi- ble sinners of the human race. di6 AN EASY ON THE 6. Lastly, if Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity, whereby they were constituted guilty, and were exposed to the whole pe* nalty of justice which Adam himself deserved, then the sin was transferred to his posterity, and he became innocent. It was just for his guilt and punishment to be transferred to them, otherwise they are not guilty and cannot be justly exposed to the penalty: and if they deserve "death everlasting" as merited by his sin, and should accordingly suffer it, then surely Adam is free; unless some extraordinary disputant will undertake to demonstrate that aftef the full demands of justice are accomplished, its demands are ab- solutely in full force as they were before; and that the same sin, after being justly imputed, and punished according to its demerit, deserves to be punished over again, after receiving all that was deserved. This is an absolute contradiction; but it must be spared^ I suppose, because it is the grand pillar on which the whole sys- tem of Antinomian divinity is built. This, by the way, aftbrds a new argument against the legal no- tion of atonement} for if redemption consists in having our sins im- puted or transferred to Jesus Christ, whereby he becomes guilty and suffers the penalty in our place; then it very evidently fol- lows that if Adam's sin is imputed or transferred to his posterity, whereby they become guilty, and if they should actually sutter th» whole penalty which that sin deserves, Adam would thus be re- deemed by his posterity in the very way our objectors suppose the elect have all been redeemed by our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ could not have redeemed us, Ave are told, without first becoming guilty by having our sins imputed to him. "It is incompatible with the justice and mercy of God," says Mr Hebden, "to appoint afflictions of any kind for the innocent. If Christ suffered, it was because the sins of others were imputed to him:" Had Christ re- mained innocent then, he could not have suffered consistently with the justice and mercy of God, and therefore could not have redeemed the world: consequently the only thing which enabled him to do it, was his becoming guilty by imputation, without which his dignity of person would have been of no avail. If then the on- ly thing which rendered redemption effectual was his suffering the penalty, in consequence of having our sin and guilt imputed to him, it is evident as day -light that had Adam's posterity suffered the penalty, in consequence of having his sin and guilt imputed to them, they would have done the very thing for their original Father which redeemed the elect, and without which their redemp- PLAN OP SALVATION. 317 tion could never be made "compatible with the justice and mercy of God."* These are the noble fruits of the Antinomian doctrine of chime' jrical imputation! Adam is made innocent by having his guilt con- veyed to posterity; — the Israelites, by having their's conveyed to the scape goat; — the elect in general, by having their's conveyed to Christ: — The Saviour is made guilty by having their sins im- puted to him, and then, in suffering exactly what his guilt de- serves, he acquires a certain kind of righteousness, which he im- mediately transfers to them by another act of imputation, whereby they are made righteous in the midst of all their sins! These pro- found mysteries have long passed in the world for pure gospel; and I suspect it will be my lot to pass for a dreadful heretic, if not for a notorious blasphemer, for attempting to remove the veil, and to bring some rays of evidence into the enormous temple of obscure *The only exception that can be made to this argument is, "that Christ's becoming guilty by imputation, though essential to the atonement, was not the only qualification which enabled him to redeem his people: he possessed a dignity of person \\\\ivrath" have kept quiet possession, and have long concealed their native and incon- ceivable deformity. Not wishing to stand alone, under such a formidable charge, I must close this section by showing that Mr. Fletcher bears an equal share of the reproach. '' As sure then as Christ was not made sin [that is, a sin-offer- ing] /or us, by a speculative imputation of our personal sins; but by being actually made flesh, clothed with our mortality, and 'sent in the likeness of sinful flesh,' so sure are 'we made the righteousness of God in him;' not by a speculative imputation of his personal good works, but by being 'made partakers of the di- vine nature,' begotten of God, and clothed with essential right- eousness, which is the case, w hen we 'put on the new man, who after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.' "Once more: If these branches do not believingly abide in Christ the vine, they become such branches in him, as bear not fruit. Nay, they bear the poison of unrighteousness; iniquity, therefore, is again imputed to them; and so long as they continue in their sin and unbelief, they are every moment liable to be 'taken away, cast into the fire and burned.' John xv.* " This, honoured sir, is the holy imputation of righteousness, which we read of in the oracles of God: it hath truth for its found- ation; but your imputation stands upon a preposterous supposi- tion, that Christ, the righteous, was an execrable sinner, and that an elect is pei-fectly righteous, while he commits execrable ini- quity. " We firmly believe, that God's imputation, whether of sin or righteousness, is not founded upon sovereign caprice, but upon in- dubitable truth."! Now if God's imputation is founded upon indubitable truth, then he never imputed sin to Christ, unless it is indubitably- true that Christ was a sinner: he never imputed righteousness to any man, who in reality and truth was not righteous: he never im- puted guilt to any creature, but to those who in reality, and indu- bitable truth, were guilty: consequently, he never imputed guilt to Christ, or to infants,, unless they were positively guilty, indepen- dent of that imputation. It is true, when we repent and believe the gospel, our sins are forgiven, and faith is reckoned to us for righteousness; but Mr, Vol. 2. page 1G7, 168. f page 165. PLAN OF SALVATION. 319 Fletclier observes, very justly, (page 165) "As we are partakers by generation of Adam's original pollution, before God imputes it to us, that is, before he accounts us really polluted; so are we par- takers by regeneration of Christ's original righteousness, before God imputes righteousness to us, that is, before he accounts us really righteous." Thus is Mr. Fletcher involved in my suppos- ed heresy, and I take new courage upon finding myself supported by so respectable an author. SECTION vm. Infants are not guilty on account of tJieir natural passions, or pro- pensities to evil. Having examined the supposed guilt of infants, arising from the imputation of Adam's sin, let us now inquire whether they be guilty, and deserve to die, together with all christians, on account of their original corruption, or internal propensities to sin. It is true, that too many christians, after being received into divine fa- vour, neglect to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things; and it appears from the words of two apostles, that tem- poral death, to some, becomes a penalty which justice requires, on account of their sins after justification. Whether the following passages do not evidently apply to the present question, I leave the reader to judge. " Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." Jam. v. 13, 15. "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin notuuto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say he should pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death." 1 John v. 16. As to their remaining propensities to evil, though they may cause death to be necessary, yet they do not cause any person to deserve it as a penalty, unless it can be proved that they constitute him guilty. The contrary of this has been already proved; and it is evident to any man of reason and candour, that while a christian lives without committing sin, he lives without contracting guilt.. 93(r AN K8SAY ON THE whatever his temptations or propensities may be. The ^istinetion between actual and inward sin I cannot understand, unless it be meant to distinguish between the acts of the body, and the acta of the mind without the bodyw It is evident that all sin which brings guilt is actual: though there may be no action of the body, yet it is a voluntary act of the will, going contrary to a known law of God, otherwise it brings no condemnation, seeing «gin is a vo- luntary transgression of a known law." That evil propensities are sometimes figuratively called sin, because they are the original effects of it, has been already grant- ed and explained; (section V. of the present chapter,) but every argument to prove that they constitute a person guilty, will equally prove temptations to do so, because they themselves are proper- ly nothing else, and will be comprehended under every intelligible definition that can be given of temptation. Does temptation consist in presenting some forbidden object to the mind, and exciting certain thoughts or feelings which tend to lead us to do wrong? Let any man consult his consciousness, and say if all bis temptations be not of this nature, and if his pro- pensities be not exactly of the same tendency. Does temptation operate in such a way, that it demands an effort, of which we are conscious, to keep from yielding to its influence-^* So do these evil propensities. Is temptation an occasion of, or an enticement to sin.'* So are these propensities. Is a man clear of guilt, however strong liis temptations fliay be, till he consents to do what he knows is 'wrong? So he is when \\e feels these propensities. But is not a jnan morally defiled and guilty for having evil tempers and dis, positions in his nature? Answer: If by evil tempers, we are to understand pride or malice, and the like, that soul in which they predominate is certainly guilty; but if we only mean that he feels ^ propensity to pride or malice, lie is not guilty on this account. A man is praised and flattered by another: he yields to the in- fluence of this adulation, until he habitually thinks more highly of himself than he ought to think. This is an evil temper, and ia this he is guilty: why so? because he was so far from resisting the temptation, that he entered into it, by a voluntary act of his will; indulging the vain thoughts, ^nd snftering them to lodge withia him. The same may be said of malice: a man is insulted, and feels a propensity to seek revenge: he yields to this temptation, rumi- nates upon the provocation, till it is greatly magnified iq hie vm-' PLAN OF SALVATION. ^21 gination, and thus sinful anger, or perhaps settled malice, takes the ascendency in his heart. Such a man is guilty before God, for this plain reason, that his will, instead of resisting the temptation, voluntarily yielded and consented to its influence. He indulged malice, which implies an evil intention, or a desire of injury to his neighbour, in which consists the essence of criminality. But suppose, when the man felt a propensity to pride or maliee, he had resisted it with laborious diligence till he had gained the victory, and the temptation was no longer felt: to pronounce him guilty in this, is to say that guilt consists, not in an evil wish or intention, but either in being tempted, or in resisting temptation, in order to maintain a good intention, and to prevent an evil one from entering into the soul. Habitual malice is indeed criminal in a high degree, not because a man has a propensity to it, but because it carries in its bosom a habitual or perpetual consent of the will to that which the under* standing knows, or may know, to be wrong. But suppose the propensity leads the person into a malicious temper, because he does not know such a temper to be wrong, and therefore does not try to resist it: is this person guilty? If his igno- rance of duty in this case, arose from a voluntary neglect of the means of knowledge, he is guilty; because it included an intention not to pursue the knowledge of duty, when God had put that know° ledge within his power. But if his ignorance was invincible, the indulgence of passion, though voluntary, was no crime; otherwise the beasts of the earth are criminals, for the voluntary indulgence of their passions, and any person may be sentenced to death for the violation of a precept which he knows not, and cannot know. "No person is accountable for what is not in his power." This is a first principle of morals, which governs the laws of all nations under heaven; and the contrary of it is shocking to the common sense of a savage. To deny this principle, is to demolish the found- ation of all moral distinctions, and to open a wide door of athe- ism to the world. Tyrants may make what laws they please for mankind, and no person could prove it unjust for them to burn their subjects to death for not flying to the moon, if it be true that men are accountable for that which is not in their power. Infants are supposed guilty because they have been born the de- scendants of Adam, or because they have evil propensities or pas- sions: but they are not guilty for these things if it be true, that no person is culpable for what is not in his power. To make them f^ilty Tve must deny this principle; and if we deny it, the conse- 323 AN ESSAY ON THE quence will indeed follow that infants may be guilty. But it would equally follow, that angels may deserve damnation for not creat- ing worlds, men and women for not visiting the planet Jupiter, and beasts, birds and fishes, for not understanding the elements of Eiiolid, or the profound speculations of sir Isaac Newton. Deny the first principle above stated, and we may safely defy the world to disprove these conclusions. Acknowledge it, and we may in vain muster up arguments to prove infants guilty, till we first prove they have done some criminal action which they had power to leave undone. But it may be said, suppose a sinner should increase his evil habits, till he has no more power to resist them, will it not follow, if thei-e can be no guilt where there is no power, that such a per- son continued to multiply his crimes, till he had sinned himself innocent? This argument is urged by Dr. J * and it deserves our deliberate attention. His words are: "If a corrupt bias makes sin to be necessary, and consequently to be no sin, then the more any man is inclined to sin, the less sin he can commit: and as that corrupt bias grows stronger, his actual sinning becomes more necessary: and so the man instead of grow- ing more wicked grows more innocent." This metaphysical argument is very plausible; but a little at- tention, I presume, will enable us to unravel it. We will suppose A and B began their career with evil propen- sities exactly equal, and with an equal degree of knowledge and power. They were then alike responsible for their conduct, be- cause they stood on equal ground. At the end of ten years A has sinned twice as much as B, and of course has contracted pro- pensities twice as strong as the other, and thereby diminished his power, and retains only half as much as his fellow. Is he there- fore less guilty than B.^ He is not. He is more guilty in every respect. First, his acts of wickedness are double, and the whole guilt of them are upon him. Secondly, he is a greater sinner in his disposition, because he has had a greater degree of evil intention, or resolution to sin, otherwise his companion would have gone as far as himself. Mr. J will certainly agree with me in this conclusion: wherein do we then differ from each other.? The dif- ference consists in this: he concludes this man's wickedness and guilt arise partly from his sinful acts, partly from his evil inten- tion or resolution to sin, and partly from his present evil propen- * Vindication, p. 68, &c. — See Mr. Wesley on original sin, p. 155. PLAN OF SALVATION. 3^3 sities contracted thereby: 1 conclude, his guilt consists, not in his enfeebled and disordered state, but in that evil disposition and conduct which brought him into it. Suppose they now commit a certain crime; the act with both is the same, and we will suppose they both have the same degree of evil intention or purpose of mind to do wrong: now admitting their guilt to be equal in this particular crime, it follows that there was no sin in the strength of propensity, abstract from the evil intention, because this propensity is twice as strong in one as in the other, when their crime is exactly equal. Will any one say the propensity and the evil intention are inseparable.? Suppose A begins to yield to the reproofs of the spirit, and re- solves, like the prodigal,, to return to his father's house. Now a struggle arises: his propensity leads him to do wrong, and his re- solution opposes it. His intention now is to do right, and this leads him to oppose that "evil bias" which is drawing in a contrary di- rection. Is it right for him to resist this corrupt bias? If so, while resisting it he is doing what he ought to do, and therefore there is no sin in this action, otherwise you say it is a sin for a man to do i'ight. But he felt the propensity at the same time, because he was resisting it: consequently the evil bias does not constitute a person guilty, however strong it may be, when unaccompanied with any voluntary consent of the mind. In the progress of reformation A is suddenly beset with a temp- tation to drunkenness: his propensity arises in all its strength and violence: he struggles manfully against it for a little time, but his resolution fails; he yields, and commits the crime. Meantime B comes along, seeking an occasion to get drunk, with '-a regular and fixed purpose of soul" to do it the first opportunity: he finds an opportunity and immediately enters into the extravagancies of in- toxication. Now tell me who was the greater criminal in this par- ticular ease. If the former, the consequence is, that the man who is overtaken in a fault is a greater sinner than he who with a fixed purpose of evil, deliberately seeks an occasion to commit it: if the latter, it follows that criminality does not consist in the strength of our corrupt bias, but in the degree of our wicked intention. As to the supposition that a sinner may continue his wicked course till he has no power, so that it is impossible for him to sus- .pend his sinful actions for a moment, it remains to be proved that there are any such sinners in the universe. If there were such an one, 1 should not hesitate to conclude that he is no longer a moral agent, and is uo more accountable for 324 AN ESSAY ON THE his present actions than any man in bedlam. According to Dr. J— — 's argument, this man has become innocent; but accord- ing to truth, he is guilty of all the enormous crimes which hav« ruined his moral faculties. "He has filled up the measure of his iniquities," and if his soul is so full of sin that it can hold no more, does it follow that he is less guilty than he was before? It does not. This sophistical conclusion has nothing to rest upon, but the sup- position that a sinner does not carry the gu^It of his old sins along with him. Let Mr. J prove that some sinners (devils if you please) have lost all power to suspend their evil acts, and are dri- ven forward by the same necessity that a deserted vessel is car- ried by wind and tide: he may then conclude, and we will instant- ly yield to the conclusion, that those persons have become so guil- ty, that it is impossible for their guilt to be enlarged. This conse- quence we readily adopt, because it is supported by th« plain dic- tates of common sense. Let us suppose that your servant, to avoid the trouble of exe- cuting your commands, takes a sledge-hammer and breaks both his legs: we all agree that the crime is enormous, and he is guilty in a high degree; but you insist that he is not only guilty oa account of the action he has done, but is very much to blame be- cause he does not walk with broken legs. Common sense decides, that though he is really guilty of defrauding you of all the service due you to the end of life, yet the whole of that gnilt arises from the voluntary action which unqualified him for your service, and that he is in no degree guilty for not mending his broken legs, when it is not in his power. It has been often said, " if we destroy our power to obey, this does not destroy God's right to demand obedience." I answeV, your right to your servant's obedience, is the ground of justice for you to punish him in proportion to his guilt in depriving you of that obedience. If the breaking of his legs destroyed your right to demand obedience, you would have no right to punish him for it. If your servant owed you obedience for ten years, the act of break- ing his legs has as cfl'ectually deprived you of it, as if he had regu- larly neglected your commands for ten years: this proves the enor- mity of his offence, and you have a right to punish him according- ly. Now if you execute the penalty upon him, according to his de- merit, what other demand have you for the obedience required? If you have a right to'receive the obedience, for the neglect of which you have inflicted punishments to the full demand of justice^ it fol-' lows that your original right was double; and if you could demand PLAN OF SALVATION. 32S the obedience, after requiring the whole penalty which justice could demand for the neglect of it, with equal truth it might be ^aid, that you had a right to inflict the whole penalty, after re- ceiving the full obedience which justice allowed you, and en* joined on your servant to perform. If any men or devils have sinned till their moral faculties are entirely ruined, and their power of self-government is totally de- stroyed, the enormous guilt lies upon them, of utterly unqualify- ing themselves for God's service forever! He had a right to their service forever, of which they have deprived him, by totally ru- ining the moral power of their souls; hence the deep enormity of their offences; and hence the justice of that sentence which de- nounces everlasting destruction Jrom the presence of the. Lord, and from the glory of his power. But will any one say, that God, besides punishing them in pro- portion to their guilt, has a right to blame them, and augment their torment, for not breaking the gates of hell, and coming back to his service, when it is not in their power? No: such an absurdi- ty is shocking to conscience, an insult to every principle of justice and equity, and we may safely defy our opponents to produce any proof of it, from the oracles of God, or from any other source of evidence. Let the rubbish be removed, and it still remains true and clear as the meridian sun, that no being in the universe is cut" pable for what is not in his power. Some have attempted to evade the conclusion, by distinguishing between a natural and a moral inability: those devils, they would say, are still augmenting their guilt, because they do not choose to reform, if they had the power. I answer, they have power to c/ioose differently from what they do, or they have not: if they ftare, I grant they are continuing to augment their gUilt; if they have not, the moral necessity by which they are driven, is as absolute as natural necessity: and it is as much out of their power to choose that which is right, as to perform it. Suppose all the horrors of hell, and the glories of heaven, were presented to my view at once; and that God should demand of me to choose this eternal torment,in preferenceto everlasting happiness: I feel that it would be as impossible for me to do it, as to pull the moon from her orbit. There is not a man upon earth, or a devil in hell, that absolutely chooses misery for its own sake, and would rather be miserable than happy. Though they choose sin in pre- ference to holiness, it is not because they are unwilling to be hap- py, for our Saviour tells us, that unclean spirits are continually Tt 326 AN ESSAY ON THE going about seeking rest, though they are not seeking holiness: and we know the same is true with respect to all sinners in the world; a plain proof surely, that they do not choose sin becaasg they love misery, which is absolutely impossible, but because they hate the difficulty of reformation, and are under a delusive notion, that sin is better than righteousness. Milton represents the devil as saying, "Evil be thou my good:" and it is evident, that his ohoice of moral evil is founded upon some delusive notion of goodf otherwise he would not be seeking rest in the constant practice of unrighteousness. Whether any being, has lost, or ever will so lose all power of volition, as to be totally unable to alter the direction of his choice, or to suspend his evil acts for a moment, I do not take upon my- self to determine: 1 know of no evidence for or against it, in any part of the creation. What I contend for is, that if there be such a creature any where, there is no more power of action, or of optional choice in him, than there is in a stone that is rolling down a hill: they both move on, in a certain way, but it is by the same fatality, and it is very evident that the stone is in itself as completely passive when rolling down the hill, as when lying still upon the ground. So is the devil, if his power of volition be totally abolished, and if he be passive as a vessel that is carried by wind and tide. It is as unjust to demand a person to choose when it is not in his power, as to demand of him to act when it is not in his power. If you command your servant to take a journey to the moon, the act is not in his power, and you cannot punish him for disobedience without being a tyrant. If you command him to love coals of fire better than bread, and to eat them in the place of it, in this case, though there would be no natural impossibility in his doing the out- ward action, yet the choice, as it related to the regulation of his af- fection, would be impossible, and the demand as tyrannical as the former. He might, through fear of a greater evil, choose to eat coals of fire, but to love them better than bread, would be absolute- ly impossible. For me to blame or punish my child for not setting his affection on things above, when he could have no conception of such things, would be as ridiculous as lo blame him for not flying to the clouds. The latter implies a natural impossibility, the former a moral im- possibility, both of which are equally absolute and irresistible. We should regard with a just sense of indignation, the wretch that would burn his cattle to death, for not voluntarily assembling PLAN OF SALVATION. ^27 three times a week for the purpose of public worship: yet they have a natural power to assemble themselves together; but their obedience to the injunction would be morally impossible, because they have no conception of divine worship, nor consequently of their master's commandment. If the devil has lost all power, so that it is impossible for him to have the least controul over any of his thoughts or actions, his case is most deplorable: and though he alone is to blame for the whole, yet his guilt consists, not in the condition in which he now is, but in the voluntary acts of wickedness which brought him there. The whole of his guilt consists in running into the dismal gulf; and eternal justice will never blama him for not coming out, when it is not in his power. It is enough for him to endure the punishment due to his voluntary crimes: heaven will never augment his misery by an unjust and unmerciful imputation of crimes, in which he was as perfectly passive and involuntary as a stone, and therefore as incapable of moral responsibility for his present actions. SECTION IX. Of man's natural inability to do good. It will be said, if man be utterly unable to recover himself, then all sinners, while in a natural state, (if the above doctrine be true,) remain innocent and excusable in the midst of all their crimes, because they have no power do any thing that is good. Answer: First, that man, since the fall, has no natural power to recover himself, and change his own heart, is readily granted: but that either men or devils are totally destitute of all power to suspend any of their wicked actions, remains yet to be proved. When a man tells a lie, blasphemes his Maker, or steals his neighbour's goods, will any one say he had not a natural power to tell the truth, to keep his tongue from blasphemy, or his hands from in- truding upon his neighbour's property at midnight.'^ True, say you, he had a natural power to avoid these things, if he would; fcut he had no power to choose otherwise than he did; therefore it B2S AN ESSAY ON THE was morally impossible for him to do so, and yet he was guilty, and punishable by the magistrate, because he was under no natu- ral necessity of perpetrating those crimes. This is the sophistry that has too long imposed upon the world, and deluded thousands into the metaphysical refinements of predestination. Suppose two men, of equal bodily powers, go together and kill an innocent neighbour; one is in possession of his rational and moral faculties, and the other is totally delirious: now I presume any court of justice in the world would condemn one as a murder- er, and decide that the other is no criminal, and deserves not to be punished as such. But they both had a natural povrer to stay at home, and their natural power was the same in degree: consequent- ly the judicial decision would be founded on the principle, that the delirious person, being morally incapable of self-government, was no longer an accountable agent, though he was as free from the controul of natural necessity, as the man who is pronounced a murderer. If natural power alone renders a being morally accountable, then surely the beasts of the field are proper subjects of moral government; for they all possess natural power, and in many in- stances a higher degree of it than man. Does not a lion or atyger possess far more natural power than an infant.'* And is natural power alone the ground of moral responsibility.^ Then if an in» fant deserves damnation, it is certain those beasts of the wilderness deserve it in a tenfold degree. If natural power alone is not the ground of moral responsibility, then it follow s inevitably that sin- ners possess something more, that is, the moral power of choice, or self-government, otherwise they are not responsible for their actions. "-No art can set aside the consequence." By the distinction between natural and moral power, we com- monly mean the power to act and the power to choose; but we ought carefully to observe that the former word is ambiguous: it ig sometimes limited to the natural actions of the body; at other times every choice, or volition, is called an action of the mind. A less equivocal distinction would be, to say a natural power con- sists in being able lo perform natural actions; amoral power, in be- ing able to perform moral actions. The latter is inseparable from a conception of the rules of moral obligation, the foundation of which is, that ''no being is responsible for what is not in his power, and that all beings capable of understanding the rules of duty are bound to conform to them so far as their power extends." To clear this matter a little farther, let us weigh the following par- ticulars. PLAN OF SALVATION. ^9 1. A power to do any thing, essentially includes a power to leave it undone, otherwise it is done by necessity, which is no power at all. To say a necessary action of any being is perform- ed by the power of that being, is to say a stone possesses power when rolling down a hill, or that the action of a man's blood, or the regular and involuntary beating of his heart, is performed by the power of that man. 2. The proper notion of power, tlierefore, is the liberty of op- tion, to perform an action, or to omit the performance of it. If he cannot omit it, he has no power over it, but acts by uncontrollable necessity. Consequently any being who has power, has liberty in exact proportion; and he who has no liberty has no power. 3. Of course it is impossible for any being to have power to do an action, without having power to choose to do it. Have I power to rise from this seat, and walk across the room? If I have, I pos- sess power at the same time to omit it, and continue where I am: but it is impossible for me to walk and sit still at the same time; it is equally so, for me to determine and at the same time not de- termine to rise and walk: the volition or determination must neces- sarily precede the action, unless it be said I walk against my will, and then surely I am compelled by some other power, or else I will to do a thing, and at the same time will not to do it, which is a palpable contradiction. You command your servant, saying, come here immediately: he answers, sir, I will come immediately; but I will not come. You look at him w ith astonishment, and can- not conceive what he means. Does he mean that he will come to you, and stay where he is at the same time? If he stay away, you conclude he spoke a falsehood in saying "I will come immediately;" and if he come to you immediately, he spoke false in saying "I will not come." But neither of these would be a falsehood, what- ever his action might be, if it be really true that a man can will to do an action, and at the same time will not to do it. A man may do many things against his desire, propensity or inclination; but to do any thing voluntarily against his will, is absolutely impossible, and involves a plain contradiction But if a man cannot act against his will, then he must willhe- fore he can act: consequently if he has no power, or liberty of op- tion, to choose or determine, he has no power over the action which depends upon that determination. 4. Suppose sinners have a natural poMcr to act right, or to avoid acting wrong, but at the same time have no power to alter their choice or determlQation: and suppose also, for the sake of ar- S30 AN ESSAY ON THE gument, that a person may perform an action, without being able to choose to perform it: these persons, we say, have no power to choose otherwise than they do; but they have power to act other- wise, and this is the ground ol their condemnation: if so, they are condemned for not acting against their will; and if they should al- ter their actions, while their will and determination is the same, the whole ground of their guilt, as to their present actions, would be entirely removed. Thus our opponents are forced to say the true service of God consists in a man's acting according to the commandments, while his will and determination are against them, or to acknowledge that their argument founded on the distinction between natural and moral power, at once falls to the ground. 5. As to devils, or disembodied spirits, there can be no distinc- tion between their power to choose and their power to act: because all their actions are intellectual, and consist in the operations of the will, controlling and directing the thoughts, judgments and rational operations of the understanding, as also tlie management of the affections in loving, hating, hoping, fearing, and the like. Their power to choose and to act cannot therefore be separated, even in thought, unless we suppose them to be corporeal, or to have power to influence the elements; of course their power con- sists solely in their liberty of will; and if they have no liberty they have no power, and their thoughts run on in an invariable chan- nel, as a river runs into the sea. 6. If sinners have no power by nature to do good, it is neverthe- less possible for them to be less wicked than they are; and so far as men or devils have power to omit their wicked actions, so far they are accountable; aud every avoidable act of evil, proportion- ably increases their guilt. Brutes are clear of guilt, not because they have no power of choice, for they evidently have a degree of natural or animal liberty, but because they have no conception of moral principles, and no power to acquire such a conception. If they understood tlie rules of morality, and choose to violate them, when they had power to do otherwise, they would be guilty as well as we; but having no conception of this kind, they are desti- tute of moral liberty, properly so called, and are not accountable for their actions. 7. So far as any being chooses by necessity so far his liberty is abridged, and if his choice be thus controlled in all things, he is destitute of power, and has no more agency than a stone or a clod of earth: every thought rises in his mind as necessarily as matter gravitates or tends to the centre, and he is as unable to alter the PLAN OF SALVATION. 331 direction of a single desire, judgment, idea or conception, as I am now unable to direct the sun, or invert the order of the stars of heaven. Whether there be any creature in this state, or whe- ther it do not imply a total destruction of an intellectual nature, is beyond my comprehension, and I must let it rest undecided, as a matter which is too wonderful for me. Several other questions would rise out of this metaphysical sub- ject, into which my objector has led mej but this is not the proper place to consider them, and I must at present omit them and return to the objection.* Secondly, man, in the present objection, is considered as being left in the ruins of the fall, abstracted from all interpositions of grace, and then it is concluded that he is totally unable to do any thing that is good. But supposing grace had not interposed in his favour, Adam would have been immediately condemned before any mortal descended fromf his loins. Therefore, as our personal existence was the effect of divine goodness in redemption, we are not left absolutely in a state of nature; but "the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, and righteously, and godly, in this present world." Admitting then that man has no power to do good in a state of nature, unas- sisted by the grace of God; yet the power to do good is restored to all men through Jesus Christ, and therefore those who abuse this gracious liberty are guilty and justly condemned: "for this is the condemnation that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." But it does not hence follow that those are now guilty for not doing good, who have lost the power, and never had it restored to them. Did God ever require of men to change their hearts and *The doctrine of necessity is advocated by president Edwards, who dwells largely upon tlie argument which Dr. Reid tells us was first invented by Mr. Hobbes, and who oft'ers several other ar- guments, with no inconsiderable degree of ingenuity, in opposition to the power of optional choice, and in defe.ice of universal fatali- ty. I omit a particular examination of his arguments at present, for these two reasons: 1. It would lead into too great a digression from the chief design of the present essay. 3. The objections he urges against moral agency, hiue been fully examined, and re- futed in a masterly manner 'by Dr. Reid. See his fourth essay on the active powers «of the Iibeity of moral agents." American edi- . tion,vol. 2. page 399. t See section VI. of this chapter. 332 AN ESSAY ON THE prepare themselves for heaven, without the assistance of his grace? Did he ever blame them for rejecting eternal life before it was of- fered to them? Did he ever tantalize any with the oft'er who he knew had no power to receive it? Or condemn them for burying a talent which they never had? It may be objected again, "that infants, being clear of guilt, need no salvation through Christ: as all their moral defilement is consistent with perfect innocence, they are naturally tit for hea- ven, and therefore have nothing to do with the Redeemer, seeing his errand upon earth was to seek and save that which was lost.'* The answer is easy: ' 1. Though infants themselves are not guilty, yet the guilt of their original father would have prevented their personal exis- tence, and consequently all the blessings of life and eternal salva- tion, had it not been for the redemption which is in Jesus Christ. Therefore though Adam stood in need of a Saviour to remove guilt from his soul, which infants do not, yet they are, to counter- balance it, beholden to redemption for their very breath and being, which Adam originally was not. 2. Had not Adam been redeemed, his posterity, though not lost with him in everlasting misery, would nevertheless have been for- ever lost from that conscious existence and eternal felicity which was originally intended for them. And are they under no obliga- tion to Jesus Christ, for saving them from such a loss, and bring- ing them into a happy existence? If not, Adam was under no obligation to God for his creation. To dwell forever in the regions of despair, is doubtless the greatest loss that can be imagined; but the gloomy silence of non-existence would also be such a loss, that men or angels would shudder at the prospect. As to the no- tion, that all mankind had some mysterious existence in Adam's loins, and were after the fall exposed to some kind of unconscious damnation in him, which they must have suffered for their part of the guilt, if a Saviour had not interposed, I confess I cannot un- derstand it. Is it any thing different from an absolute privation of life, oris it another method of expressing the same thing? I sup- pose nobody w^ill say we were really alive in Adam, or that we were conscious and u7iconscioiis at the same time. Many have adopted tbis inexpliciible chimera, 1 suspect, to accommodate them- selves to the hypothesis of reprobation, that all mankind were real- ly guilty of Adam's siu: but they wish at the same time to avoid the conseqiicuce of it, that infants deserve to dwell with ever- lasting burnings. Those who ar« guilty, surely deserve punish- PLAN OF SALVATION. 333 mentf therefore after taking for granted that millions of creatures ill Adam's loins were in some sort guilty, they conclude they ought in some sort to be damned: but as they cannot adopt the horrors of Antinomian free-wrath, they seem to be under the necessity of inventing some kind of fantastical damnation, unsupported by scripture, and inconceivable by the human understanding. Had Adam been condemned and executed according to the sentence, his posterity would have never lived either in heaven or in hell: they would not have been lost in conscious misery, but they would have been lost to all life and conscious happiness, and therefore the ex- istence and subsequent enjoyments of Adam's posterity, which were forfeited, are restored "through the redemption that is itt Jesus Christ." 8. We do not affirm that infants are naturally fit for heaven; but we affirm that as nothing but positive guilt can tit a person for hell, infants will never be fit for it while justice has any place in the creation. Is there no medium between being fit for heaven, and fit for hell! I hope no man will say the beasts and the fowls of the firmament are exactly fit for hell; or that they are naturally fit for heaven. It is evident the children of Adam all come into the world na= turally fit for this state of probation which God has appointed for us; and that some change must take place to fit us for any other re- gion. Though it would be unjust for iufants to be punished as criminals, yet they have no natural right to eternal happiness, but a gracious right through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. And they are naturally unfit for heaven, not because they are guilty, but because heaven is intended as a place of unobstructed enjoy- ment, where temptation shall never enter. If they were taken there with natural propensities to evil, they would be placed in a state of perpetual temptation, and would be in constant danger of fall- ing into sin: therefore God prepares them for heaven before ho takes them thither, not because justice had any charge of crimi- nality against them, but because goodness delights to place them in a state of complete enjoyment, far above the regions of evilj where no trial or temptation shall ever disturb their tranquillity. In what way God produces or works this change in those who die in infancy, we may be unable to comprehend: nor is this won-* derful, since we cannot comprehend the manner in which he ope- rates upon the minds of men, or how he upholds and governs the general system of the universe. A change produced in the infant miad involves no contradiction, any more than a change wrought X5 u 334, AN ESSAY ON THE in any other mind: its possibility is conceivable, and the evidence is clear, unless we have not clear evidence that heaven is intended as a place of perfect enjoyment, free from every kind of evil. Whatever be the way, in which this change may be produced, it is evidently a great blessing, because it raises us above the force of temptation, and secures us from the influence of sin and misery: this blessing, therefore, as well as all the glories of heaven, come upon infants in consequence of the mediation of the Saviour, none of which they ever would have enjoyed, had not his inter- position rescued Adam from that instant destruction which he had incurred by his rebellion. The millions who have left otir polluted region, before they knew their right hand from their left, will therefore join with (he innumerable company of heaven, to sing the song of praise and thanksgiving "to Him that hath redeemed us by his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests to God and his Father: to him be glory and dominion forever and ever." Amen. ' SECTION X. *3 consequence of the doctrine established in the foregoing sections, that death is necessary in the case of infants, hut is not a penalty. If the suffering and death of infants, and sanctified christians, be the result of goodness, then it Mas necessary they should suf- fer and die, to prevent a greater evil, or to promote a lasting good to come. This consequence is genuine, and we adopt it without hesita- tion. To say punishment is inflicted on any creature through be- nevolence, and yet that it is totally unnecessary, and tends not to the creature's advantage, is quite absurd and contradictory. That the afflictions of the righteous are intended for their good, and answer gracious ends under the divine administration, is evi- dent from innumerable texts of scripture, and especially from the unequivocal declaration of St. Paul to the Corinthians: "Our light afliiction, wbich is but for a moment, m orketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.*' 2 Cor. iv. 17. PLAN OF SALVATION. 333 God is not only represented as a kind father, who chastens his chil- dren for their good, which implies a fault on their part; but the Lord Jesus is frequently called our physician, whose office leads him to give pain for a moment, because it is necessary; and this may be done, and often is done by physicians, when there was no previous fault in the subject, but merely because there was a dis- order, which the affliction or momentary pain had a tendency to remove. A kind parent may subject his children to a degree of misery, to promote three benevolent ends. (1.) For a correction of their faults. (2.) For their trial and establishment in good principles. (3.) For the removal of any disease or disorder in their constitu- tion. These are the ends of affliction, when the pain is produced from a benevolent intention towards the suffering subjects. When punish- ments are inflicted on criminals, without any regard to the crim- inals themselves, but purely for the sake of others whom their crimes have injured, this is the operation of justice. Where the design is to defend the injured, and at the same time to reform the offender, this is the joint operation of justice and compassion. These things being premised, we have now several inquiries to make: 1. Are infants and christians punished with death, and with foregoing afflictions, merely ^and solely for the sake of defending others from the influence of their crimes.^ If so, they are punish- ed exactly for the same ends for which devils are punished in hell. 2. Are they punished to defend the rights of others, and at the same time to produce in themselves a conviction of their guilt, that they may be influenced to reform? If so, they are punished for the same ends for which notorious offenders are sometimes loaded with irons, or kept in confinement for a term of years. Or for the same ends for which the special judgments of God sometimes fall upon a wicked man, and sometimes upon a wicked nation. 3. Are their afflictions to be considered as the chastisements of a kind father for the correction of their faults.'' That christians are often thus punished, is evident both from scripture and expe- rience; but there is no shadow of evidence that this will hold res- pecting infants, unless it can be proved, first, that they have com- mitted faults, and, secondly, that their sufterings are calculated to bring them to a sense of them, that they may thereby be influenced to repent and be more diligent in the ways of righteousness. m AN ESSAY ON THE If a parent should chastise his new-born infant, under pretence of correcting its faults, we should justly consider him as an unna-^ ^ural and barbarous tyrant. And our judgment would be perfectly correct, because it would be founded upon these two obvious rea- sons: (1.) that the said child was incapable of committing any fault, and (3.) that it was equally incapable of conceiving for what end the punishment was inflicted. After its understanding is sufficiently opened, discipline may be exercised from a benevo- lent intention, because it is now able to conceive the design of it, and has in some degree the power of self-government; but to sup- pose a parent may cohsistently and righteously chastise a new-born infant for its faults, is highly absurd and ridiculous: how much jnore so, to impute such conduct to the all-wise and Almighty Fa- ther of universal being? Neither can it be supposed that infants are punished for a trial pf their virtue; because they have no conception of the thing in- tended, and are incapable of a moral influence, until their under- standings Si]t enlarged sufficiently to have some conception of an obligation God certainly has some end in view, in subjecting infants to fhisery and death, otherwise he afflicts them for nothing, to sup- pose which, is not only to contradict his moral attributes, but to charge him with whimsical caprice and folly. The dilemma is therefore unavoidable, that God has no more re- gard to their benefit, in their afflictions, than he has to the benefit of devils in their's, or that their sufferings are intended for their advantage; and the only advantage we are able to conceive is that their sufferings are designed to counteract the original consequen- ces of Adam's transgression, sp far as they have descended to pos- terity. Nor let any take occasion to infer that this involves the doctrine pf a death-purgatory, if the design of such a purgatory is under- stood to be the removal or purging away of our guilt: for this lakes for granted that infants are guilty, which has been abundantly re- futed. That death is intended to counteract the effects of sin, both in ^nfants and christians, must be admitted, or else it is utterly un- ^lecessary, is never advantageous, and therefore can never, in any f ase, be considered as a blessing. Will it be said that it is a blessing, because it puts an end to all Qurmiseries.^ This is saying plainly that no part of the misery it- geif is a blessing, but merely that the end of it is so: th{^t is, that PLAN OF SALVATION. 837 the affliction in itself has no good effect, and was never so intend- ed, but .nerely th it our deliverauce from it is a blessing. Was not the light affliction, which is but for a moment, intended to re- move the causes of misery, by removing those natural and invo- luntary proj)ensities, ^vhich would otherwise continue still to be a perpetual source of temptation.^ Or shall we say that all christians, who are saved from tlieir sins, are at the same time delivered from all natural propensities to evil? If they are, I would be glad to know how the paius of death are still necessary, how (hey pro- duce any good effect in our favour, — and why dying christians are to receive the bitter cup as a blessing from the hand of their hea- venly Father.? When a disorder and all the effects of it, arc remov- ed fro n thp coastitiition of a patient, will he receive any pain as a blessing from the physician's hand, which is utterly unneces- sary, and has no tendi'uey to do him any good.*^ Nothing is more common, says Mr. Fletcher, than for men to run into one extreme, under the plausible pretence of avoiding another. Our Calvinist brethren have believed and taught that all christians must necessarily commit sin as long as they live, and that death is intended to remove all their iniquities from them. I apprehend the mistake of many pious men among them, consists in taking for granted that a man commits sin every time he feels a propensity to it. They observe the signs of those propensities con- tinue with good men, the very best not excepted, apparently to the end of their pilgrimage: hence they conclude that no man in this life can be saved from sin; but that the goodness of God has ap- pointed death as the means of its final destruction. Admitting the premises to be true, I, for one, would cordially acquiesce in theirconciusion: and if they will confine it to sin, im- properly so called, that is. to those natural propensities, the en- tire removal of which does not at all depend upon our voluntary exertions, the conclusion is supported by the clearest evidence. But if they mean that all christians must really commit sin as long as they live, and that death alone puts an end to our actual sinning; this is contradicted by the joint testimony of the inspired writers, who agree to declare, that "Jesus saves his people from their sins, that they may walk before him in righteousness and holiness all the days of their life." This has been sufficiently proved by Mr. . Wesley and Mr. Fletcher, to whose excellent works I refer the reader. The consequences of the opposite opinion are alarming: for good men are thereby discouraged in their pursuit of holiness, and 338 AN ESSAY ON THE many luke-warm professors, it is to be feared, take encouragement to indulge themselves in sin, under pretence that they must sin of necessity, until death brings them a discharge. It is therefore necessary for us to make a firm stand against sueh a pernicious delusion. But let us beware at the same time that we do not run inlo an opposite delusion equally pernicious. This may be done in two ways: (1.) by believing that christians may in this life be delivered from all propensities to evil, and (2.) by maintaining, under pretence of opposing a death-purgatoi-y, that death is totally unnecessary, and has no tendency to our advan- tage. 1. Shall we say that sanctified christians are as perfectly clear of evil propensities as an angel.^ If so, their warfare against such propensities is accomplished, and though the devil still may tempt them, yet they have nothing in their nature to oppose, any more than those who are now in heaven. If they still feel any ex- citement in their nature, which requires an effort of resistance, this is what I mean by an evil propensity: and to suppose they are entirely removed from sanctified christians, is a delusion, I appre- hend, nearly as pernicious in its effects as the opposite one. Many 1 fear have long pursued christian holiness, under the delusive no- tion that it consists in a deliverance from all propensities to evil, and, finding their labour vain, have abandoned the pursuit, and Lave settled themselves down with attainments in religion, far be- low those which it was tlieir privilege to enjoy. That we may guard against this danger, and at the same time give no encouragement to sin, let us endeavour to obtain distinct conceptions upon a matter in which we are so seriously and deep- ly interested. It is true, full sanctification includes a deliverance, not only from all gross violations of the divine law, but also from all sinful passions and temjiers. But what is a sinful temper? It consists in an habitual attach- ment or inordinate affection to something beside God. A sinful passion is ^.momentary attachment of the same kind. A man loves the world, or perhaps he loves himself more than he ought: this is an evil temper, and while he makes no immediate efforts against it, there is a perpetual consent of his will to love something more than it ought to be loved. Many indulge such inordinate affections for months or years, without noticing them, through mere care- lessness, or want of self-examination. They know not what man- ner of spirit they are of^ and may plead that they are not conviuc- PLAN OF SALVATION. 339 ed of any wrong aftection, and their conscience does not condemn them; but this excuse is vain, because they neglect to consult their conscience, or do not consult it properly, and in consequence, re- main ignorant of that which might be known by a proper exercise of attention and reflection. After they received conviction of the evil temper, they interrupt its settled course by a few feeble etforts, seldom repeated; but in general there is an inordinate aftection ex- isting with the consent of their will, and this is a sin, properly so called, because it is a voluntary consent of the will to that which the understanding knows, or may know, to be wrong. They may indeed have a desire to be delivered from such tem- pers, at the same time that they make no eftbrt against them; but it is to be remembered that will and desire are not the same thing. If I have a disordered tooth that is very troublesome, I may sit for a long time with a desire to have it out; but the moment I ivill or determine to have it immediately extracted, I make an eftbrt to that effbet. An indolent person may have a strong desire to im- prove his farm, while he does nothing; but when he determines that he will improve it, you see him go to work. A timorous traveller may sit for hours upon the bank of a stream that looks dangerous, with a strong desire to be over; this desire alone will produce no eftect; but when he determines that he will cross it, he plunges into the water. In like manner when a man ivills to over- come his evil tempers, he labours and uses the proper means whereby he may obtain the victory. It is true, a man may will or determine to do a thing at some fu- ture period, without any present exertions; but in the mean time his will consents that it shall remain undone till the period arrives which he has appointed. A sinner appoints a time, perhaps five years hence, when he shall have accomplished certain purposes, and resolves that at that time he will seek the Lord, and call upon him while he is near: the man is not the less guilty on account of this resolution, because he determines that he will not seek the Lord at present, but will postpone it for five years: there- fore during the five years he willingly lives without God in the world. So a christian with evil tempers may desire and wish they were removed; he may determine that some time or other he will oppose them with vigour: yet he remains a voluntary sinner ■ for the present, because his w ill is not immediately exerting itself against them, but resolves to postpone it to some future period. Such a man is an imperfect christian, and is not saved from sin. He neglects that which he knows to be his immediate duty, that is, 340 AN ESSAY ON THE he neglects to use or exert the power he now possesses, which is properly a sin, because it is voluntary. Perhaps he loves present e«sp too well, and hence refuses to pur- sue the knowledge of duty with that vigilance which is within his power; or, through an undue attachment to some other object or party, he voluntarily indulges some prepossession or bias of mind, which refuses to give truth a fair hearing. This is an evil tem- per, and it prevails not in any man that is saved from sin. A pre- possession arising from invincible ignorance is no crime; but so far as its existence depends upon our neglecting to use the power we possess, so far it is sinful, because it is a voluntary disaftection to the truth. How innumerable are the prejudices indulged, even by christians themselves, and what is most lamentable, thousands seem not to suspect that there is any immorality in them! What an object of pity must that man be, who imagines himself so per- fect as to be free from all propensities to evil, and at the same time has such inordinate attachment to some party or interest, as influences him to shut his eyes against the light of evidence, and refuse to give it an impartial hearing! he is resolved, if possible, that nothing shall be proved or received as true, that differs from his former opinions, or from those of his particular friends, whom he is disposed to support in every thing they say, for no other rea- son hut because they say it! The strmger your arguments are against his favourite opinioii, the more he is offended; and he has recourse to stratagem, if not to secret malevolence, to put you to silence, and to hinder all he can from hearing you with that can- dour of which he himself is destitute. Is this a perfect man? cer- tainly he is not, unless we say the love of truth makes no part of the christian character. Now the word of God assures us we may, in this life, obtain sal- vation from all such evil tempers, so as to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and to love our neighbour as ourselves. He that does this is saved from all pride, malice and prejudice; and he loves nothing in the world with a higher degree of affection thaa that which is perfectly just and good. We will suppose a man stands here, who is thus saved from sin. His affections are now rightly balanced, and he is resolved to keep them so. By and bye he feels some excitemeat in his nature, which he finds has a tendency to lead him to love some object more than he ought, and he cannot maintain the present balance of his af- fections, without resisting that excitement by a voluntary effort, of which he is conscious. PLAN OF SALTATION. 34* This is what I mean by a propensity to evil, in contradistinctioii ttt an evil temper, or inordinate affection. The propensity tends to produce the inordinate affection, and if not resisted will pre- sently lead the soUl into it; but if a firm stand be made against it, if his will refuse to yield, even for a moment, to its influence, — he has kept the balance of his affections with the magnanimity of a christian, and he is so far from being a sinner merely on account of the feeling which he manfully re&istedj that he fought a good fight, and kept the faith, and if he continue thus to fight, until he i,h?i\llia.ve finished his cowrse, there remaineth, henceforth, for him, a crown of righteousness which the Lord the righteozis judge will give him at that day: Hence we easily avoid the flimsy objection, that if evil pro- pensities be no sin, we need not oppose them: for if they be not resisted, the soul yields to be carried by them into an evil affec- tion, which is sin. We miglit as well say, if it be no sin for a mau to be tempted, then there is no necessity for us to resist tempta- tion. We ought (0 oppose our evil propensities with perpetual diligence, and to use all means in our power to avoid every occa- sion that would bring them into operation. And this should be done, not because they in themselves are siii, but because it is a sin for a man voluntarily to seek temptation, or to run into the oc- casions of it, when duty does not call him there. Our Saviour teaches us to pray that we may not be led into temptation; this is one branch of the prayer which he taught his disciples; therefore we are bound to avoid temptations as long as we can with a safe Conscience, and to resist them when they are unavoidable. My reasons for believing that christians have no grounds to ex- pect deliverance from evil propensities in this life, and for op- posing the contrary belief, are the following: 1. The highest perfection God has promised to his people in this life, is to enable them to love him with all their heart, and to love their neighbour as themselves: that is, to have their affections balanced as they ought to be. But this state may be enjoyed not- witfistaudiug those propensities, so long as they ace properly re- sisted. 3. Such a deliverance (as here opposed) is contrary to univer- sal experience. Many christians may have lived for a considerable time without feeling any thing in their nature to need resistance: but some unexpected insult, or ofher occasion, makes them feel that their virtue cannot yet be maintained without a struggle. In proof of this we may appeal to their own consciousness, and if that * Xx » 343 AN ESSAY ON THE avail nothing, we may next appeal to the observations of their neighbours, who have often seen the signs of a painful warfare in their bosom. 3. The sentiment I oppose, supercedes the necessity of con- stant self-denial: for if there be nothing in a man's nature but what is uniformly prone to goodness, and nothing prone to evil, then he cannot deny himself, or any thing in himself, without resisting a propensity to perfect goodness. If you command this man to deny himself, you command him to resist and oppose his propensity to do right, seeing there is no other propensity in his nature. Our Lord Jesus Christ commands us, not only to resist the de- vil, but to deny ourselves, and take up our cross daily, which plainly implies that there is something in ourselves which must be crossed and denied daily, because it has a tendency to lead us into sin, and will certainly do it, unless it be resisted. Why are we to cross and deny any of our natural appetites, but because there is a propensity or tendency in them to rise too high, -and to produce an evil temper, if not an evil action.'' If there be nothing in them, or any other part of our nature, but what is regularly prone to that which is right, and to nothing else, we cannot cross or deny our appetites, or any other part of ourselves, without being actual sinners, because we would actually oppose the influence of per- fect goodness. 4. I oppose this doctrine, and wish it banished out of the world, for the sake of many good men, the very best not excepted, who through the influence of this pernicious delusion, have spent many hours of fruitless grief and lamentation, merely because they felt evil propensities in their nature. "A godly sorrow worketh repen- tance to salvation;" but such sorrow as this is a fruitless waste of that time which might be spent in rejoicing with the "blessed man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried he shall receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to them that love him." 5. I presume the apostles of Jesus Christ possessed as high a state of perfection as we have aright to look for; but they were not delivered from the warfare between the flesh and the spirit; for 8t. Paul says, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjec- tion; lest that by any means, when 1 have preached to others, I myself should be a cast-awuy." 1 Cor.*ix. 27. Does not this plain- ly suppose that there was still a tendency in his natural afiections, or the appetites of his body, to lead him into excess.^ And there- fore that he found it necessary to exercise temperance, and keep PLAN OF SALVATION. ^43 his body in subjection, as it were with a bridle, lest the flesh should prevail against the spirit? And how could this be, if there was nothing in his flesh, or any other part of his nature, but what was uniformly prone to goodness? These excitements or tendencies in our nature which need re- sistance, I have called propensities, because I know no better name to give them. They differ from evil tempers and aftections in this, that they are perfectly involuntary, and are no more under the control of our will than the circulation of the blood: Nay, they are s>o far from arising from a wrong direction of the will, that we often feel them when the whole force of the will is exert- ed in a contrary direction. They agree with other temptations in every particular, excepting only that the occasion of the tempta- tion is in our nature. Am 1 a sinner merely because certain /eeZ- ings rise from my constitution which tend to lead me into sin.^ — And suppose the temptation comes immediately from the devil, does it not produce a. feeling of the same tendency, which must be resisted by a painful exertion? I appeal to the consciousness of every living christian. And if a man is a sinner on account of the excitement or feeling which arises from his body or animal na- ture, he is a sinner for the same reason, when resisting the pain- ivA feelings of which he is conscious, when tempted by the devil. Thus it appears, a man who expects deliverance from this war- fare with the flesh in this life, expects to be above his Lord, who was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. 6. I oppose this doctrine because I conceive it to be of danger- ous tendency. I fear some christians have been led to make false and enthusiastic professions of those imaginary heights of holiness which surpass the lot of humanity; and supposing there was no- thing now remaining in their nature to resist, have abated in their vigilance, and suspected no danger, till, like Peter, in an un- guarded hour, they have fallen into sin, by not Avatching with a jealous eye over those propensities which they vainly imagined had no more existence. , Some, it may be, have held their profession of this high sancti- fication in opposition to their own consciousness: have felt those propensities time after time in their nature, and still refused to believe it. At length, being weary of doing violence to themselves, they have given up the belief of their freedom from natural ex- citements to evil, and with it their confidence in christian holi- ness. Others attempt for a while to go on to perfection; but ob- serving that such a complete deliverance from natural propensi- au AN ESSAY ON THE ties is no where verified in any of their religious friends, they con- clude the doctrine of christian perfection is a chimera that exists po where but in the imaginations of men. Thus it appears to me, if we were bent upon bringing men back by degrees to the Calvinistic doctrine, that it is a vain thing to seek for perfection, and that all men must continue sinners as long as they live, we could scarcely devise a more successful method of doing it, than by straining the doctrine of sanctification so far, as to make it imply a deliverance from all natural propensities to evil. 2. It is indeed a very dangerous error, to suppose death is ap- pointed as the means of our deliverance from sin: the merits of Christ, and the operations of his spirit are the cause of our de- liverance, and repentance and faith are the means of it. If there- fore we neglect the means appointed in the gospel, and live in our sins till death, under the belief that death is the mean appointed for its removal, when it is not, what mistake can be imagined to he ipore dangerous.^ But is there no way to guard against this mistake, but to run into another, and to explode all ideas of advantage from our last affliction, in mere opposition to the frightful name of a death-pur- gatory.^ If we had no other evidence against it, and had no other ■way to defend ourselves against the attacks pf our opponents, thaa to cast upon them the odium of the name, purgatory, such a pitiful argument would l?e truly beneath their attention. The popish doctrine itself, concerning a place of purification after death, pould never be proved false if we had no argument against it, but the deformity of the name by which it is called. We reject it be- cause it is contrary to the word of God, and is an error of very dangerous tendency: remove these objections, and we can draw no arguments frojn the name, because it is as perfectly innocent as the name of paradise. But though reason can derive no evidence from a mere name, yet prejudice can accomplish wonders by its magical influence. — How many have rnn head-long into various opinions, and adher- ed to them for no other reason but their dread of suyh shocking names as the following: Popery— Heretic— Calvinism— Armin- ianism— Pelagianism — Socinianisni — Arianism- — Free-wilier--^ Perfectionist—Antiuomian— Legalist— Democracy— Federalism, &,c. &c. Prejudice, passion arjd party nonsense, appear to govern the be- lief of thousands both in church and state. When a man is car^ PLAN OF SALVATION. 845 fied away in this mamier, the very name by Avhich the opposite party is denoininatefl, acquires such dismal and fearful deformity, that he can scarcely hear it mentioned, or think of it, with any degree of patience. The farther he goes from every sentiment held by his opponents, the more meritorious is his conduct. He dreads the very suspicion of his agreeing with them in any thing; and rather than be found in such detestable company, he will sup- press the voice of reason, and renounce the plainest dictates of common sense. To be true to his own party, he must follow them in all their absurdities, and never suft'er his soul to call into ques- tion a single sentiment which they hold, or deviate a moment from any part of their practice. Their opinions must all be taken for granted, and his business is, not to inquire what is truth, but to defend his own sect or party in every particular, and to refute the opposite by frequently repeating their name with indications of Bcorn and detestation. He will not venture to examine any senti- ment held by his party, or to admit the possibility of their being mistaken, lest he should be thought not hearty in the cause: he is equally afraid to examine the sentiments of the other party, with *ny degree of candour, lest his own brethren should consider him a disaffected character, and brand him with the frightful name of his adversaries,from which he would shrinkback as from the open- ing grave. In this manner has error often triumphed under the fostering influence of party malevolence, while truth had to retire among the lonely valleys, and reason to disappear, or to lie insult- ed, prostrate on the ground. AVithout pursuing this digression, though not an unimportant one, we return to inquire what other objection can be alleged against the gooduess of God making death an instrument of bene- fit to his creatures. Will it be said it robs Christ of his glory, by attributing to death what his grace alone is able to accomplish? This argument of rob- bing Christ of his glory, so often urged by the Calvinists, may, il is true, be retorted uponthemselves; but it has no solidity against either us or them. If we had no other argument but this against their doctrine, that death is an instrument of our deliverance from the power of sin, I apprehend it would prove just nothing, and might be retorted upon ourselves with success. We disbelieve their doctrine, not because it would of necessity rob Christ of his glory, which is an hypothesis unsupported by scripture or reason, but because the Mord of God assures us we may be saved from our pins before death, and that repentance and faith, not the agonies of S^ AN ESSAY ON THE dissolution, are the means through which this salvation is to be received. ]f Christ cannot make use of means and instruments, in the work of our salvation, without diminishing his own glory, he must, if he would secure the whole glory to himself, lay them all aside, and do every thing by an invisible influence, without the interven- tion of men or books, law or gospel, prayers or sacraments, or any other means of grace. And permit me to ask, why is one in- strument which he is pleased to make use of, more calculated to rob hini of his glory than another? He doubtless uses the means best calculated to promote the end intended; and when that end is the production of a moral influence on the mind, our voluntary use of them is demanded; but when they are designed to produce an effect upon any part of our constitution, that is not under the im- mediate control of our will, God himself applies the means with- out our voluntary concurrence, and produces the effect intended: hence I conclude, our salvation from all "voluntary transgressions of a known law" is accomplished through the use of means that are put in our power, and the use of which depends upon our choice. For the same reason I conclude that involuntar}' propensities, such as infants have, are removed from their nature when necessa- ry, by means which depend not upon their choice. I believe death is the instrument made use of, because 1 must believe that the death of infants is designed for their advantage, or charge God with the cruelty or folly of punishing them for nothing, or of imputing siil to them that he may treat them as guilty rebels, upon the false charge of a crime which they never committed. Is this the way to avoid robbing Christ of his glory,^ And as our lives are prolonged by the instrumentality of bread, and our health restored by various kinds of medicine, does it follow from this that the God of nature and providence is robbed of his glory? But at the same time that we maintain that the death of infants is intended for their own final benefit, we believe it equally true that their suffering promotes other just andgracious purposes. It affords an universal argument to prove the direful tendency pf sin; and evinces that it not only violates the rights of men and angels, and tends to ruin the moral faculties of the sinner; but its pernicious effects descend to the latest posterity, and our helpless infants come into the world with such disorderly prepensities of nature, as are to be removed by remedies no less severe than the lingering pains of dissolution. Thus all men who will exercise their reason, may be benefitted by the state of infants, inasmuch PLAN OF SALVATION. 347 as their condition affords evidence of an original apostacy, and thereby establishes the truth of revelation, and at the same time furnishes the most powerful motives to flee from sin, as the moral poison which has contaminated the human race, and which, if not ar- rested in its progress would establish an universal empire of misery. The groans and tears of dying children are also used by provi- dence as a just punishment and correction to their parents, who of- ten feel nearly or quite as great pain in their souls, as the children feel in tbeir dissolution. In proof of this we will select one remarkable instance. Nathan, when reproving David for his sin against Uriah, said, "Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife hare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted and went in, and lay all night upon the ground. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them." — 3 Sam. xii. 14<. Thus it appears that David's soul endured such severe affliction that he refused all consolation, and abandoned himself to fasting and lamentations. And as seven days elapsed before the child was dead, the parent's heart, during all that time, was oppressed with a load of conscious misery and distress. After the child's depar- ture, he took refreshment, and said, "While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, who can tell w hether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live. But now lie is dead, wherefore should I fast.^ Can I bring him back again.'' I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." — Ver. 22, 23. What abundant matter was here for humble and serious medita- tion! I almost fancy I can see the royal psalmist watering the ground with his briny tears, as thousands have done in all ages of the world. He lies prostrate before God, weeping, and feebly offer- ing his plaintive cries to heaven, in all the teaderuess of paternal griefl Domestic comforts fail him; the siglit of his spouse and love- ly offspring only serves to increase his agony, wliile his houses and friends are forgotten, and the beauties of nature have lost all their charms! Can silver and gold assuage his inquietude.'^ Can .orchards, and gardens dissipate the gloom, and alleviate the bur- den of his grief? x-^las! they are all neglected, his table abandoned, and his servants expostulate in vain! He bt'hoids his little help- less infant, groaning, sighing, and sinking into the arms of death: 348 AJv ESSAY ON THE be shrinks back Irnm llie mournfiil spectacle, arid melts down with conscious Avretchediiess, into all the tender sympathies of a par- ent's heart! Mercifjil God! are these the eftects of sin? yes: the seeds of evil are so deeply sown in human nature, that they have made pain become necessary as an instrument of God's justice and goodness: justice towards the actual offenders, and goodness towards their helpless and unoffending offspring. And David might say, "This child is cut down as a flower because of my sin: had 1 walked uprightlv, he might have lived lo manhood, and be- come tlie comfort and stay of my old age. But alas! my own ini- quities have hastened the dying agonies of my child, and every pain he feels is like a sword piercing through my soul!" But upon the gloomy hypothesis I have been opposing, these salutary reflections are all stifled in the birth.. For supposing Da- vid had believed the doctrine invented in after ages; what would have been his natural conclusions.^ "This child, he might have said, lies suffering here, because he is guilty of Adam's sin: it is most abundant goodness that his miseries are not doubled: he de- serves everlasling damnation, and perhaps when this breath is gone, he Avill be a companion of devils, suflering the vengeance of eternal fire. If he is punished for my sin, this could not be done with any justice or equity, unless the sins of parents are imputed to their children: therefore he suffers nothing more than he de- serves: and I will no longer lament under the delusive notion that my guilt is the cause of his misery, because it is his own guilt, not mine, for which justice now demands his death. And if indeed a part of my guilt, be transferred to him, I am consequently less guil- ty than I would be if it were all my own: I may therefore dry up my tears, and leave the little guilly creature to his fate." Such barbarous opinions, if I mistake not, have a native tenden= cy to harden the heart of man, and to freeze every generous senti- ment of our nature. Many of the heathens, to imitate the malevolence of their im- aginary gods, have suppressed the dearest feelings of humanity, and burnt their own children in the lire! The merciless church of Rome has exceeded the enormities of her Pagan motlier, as we have seen: and the unparalleled tortures she invented for the pun- ishment of those whom she considered heretics were inflicted un- der pretence of religion and piety to God! They believe that all infants are guilty, and deserve eternal destruction, especially the children of heretics. Baptism is their Saviour, and all infants who happen to die without being baptized, according to Bcllar- roine, certainly go "to the hell o,f the reprobates." PLAN OF SALVATION. 349 These are the sickeaning fruits of a superstitious theology, which attributes to the benevolent Father of the spirits of all flesh, the cruel principles of human and diabolical depravity. It has been sometimes argued that God has no such feelings as those which prevail in our nature; he is not to be melted down with pity and sympathy as we are; therefore all appeals to hii- -manity against any doctrine of religion, are altogether nugatory, and prove nothing but the ignorance of him who makes the ap- peal. And who was it, let me ask, that planted those feelings of hu- manity in our nature? Is not God the author of them? And did he not plant them in us to supply the deficiency of our moral good- ness? How many wretched creatures in this world, would be ne- glected and left to perish, if it were not for the stimulating influ- ence of pity and sympathy? How many are therein all countries and ages, who, without any regard to the principle of benevolence or justice, are influenced to preserve their offspring, and minister to the wants of the miserable, by the mere operation of natural af- fection, similar to that w hieh prevails in the inferior animals? If those natural feelings were removed from the human race, and if they were left to be influenced solely by their regard to justice and goodness, I presume that in the course of a few centuries not a hu- man creature would be found upon the face of the earth. If we were under the perfect and uniform influence of moral principles, if evil ones were confined to the regions of hell, and had no place in this part of the creation, then we should be more like God than we now are, and there would be no necessity for the feelings of sympathy that are now so essential to the well-being of human society. Granting then that God has not the feelings which prevail in human nature, what does this prove? Does it prove that God is less disposed to promote the happiness of his creatures, and to prevent their misery, than true pity inclines us to be? if so, it would seem, that God is deficient in moral goodness as well as man, and needs the feelings of humanity to bring him up to our standard. It is true, that natural sympathies may be misapplied through ignorance and partiality, as well as every other principle of our na- ture: but then the end for which they were given is defeated; and when so directed, they tend to the injury of mankind. So far as pi- ty leads us to promote universal happiness, and to prevent misery, 80 far it answers the end for which divine goodness planted it in our nature: and it is truly absurd to suppose that it ever Yy 350 AN ESSAY ON THE produces in us a greater regard to general happiness than exists in that Mind whose paternal kindness implanted it in our nature, for the very purpose of supporting and guarding the felici- ty of human kind. God has no disposition to punish any creature in earth or hell, from any other principle but his regard to the rights of the innocent, and the general welfare of the creation: and the scripture doctrine of everlasting punishments is to be re- solved, not into his being destitute of our feelings of humanity, but into the direful nature and tendency of moral evil. The very mo- ment we suppose that he ever has punished any creature more than is strictly necessary to the support of general happiness, or that he ever will do it in any period of eternal duration, that mo- ment we charge him with a departure from the principles of jus- tice and benevolence. The leason why devils and wicked men are to be punished ever- lastingly, is because they will be everlastingly hostile to the go- vernment of God, and could never be released from their dungeon without becoming a general nuisance in the creation, exerting themselves to diffuse the poison of iniquity, and to assail the tran- quillity of the heavenly regions. SECTION XI. Second consequence. The brute creatures were made subject to vanity, through a be- nevolent intention in the Deity towards those creatures; they are subjected to a speedy dissolution, not through caprice or cruelty, but because it is rendered necessary by their connexion with a per- verse and sinful race of men. This inference we may admit with- out hesitation, because its truth is established by the following evidence: 1. If we deny this conclusion, we must say God punishes the beasts as criminals, accordiHg to the requirements of inflexible justice: this supposes them to be guilty, which is a monstrous hy- pothesis repugnant to every principle of morality and common reason. If any one should be disposed to take this ground, to se- cure the important doctrine of infant criminality, shall we receive PLAN OP SALVATION. 35 1 it for a truth merely because he is pleased to tell us it is so? or shall we wait for him to prove it by at least one passage of scrip- ture, or by one argument that will bear examination? 2. Men are commanded to abstain "from things strangled, and from blood." As strangling is a very painful kind of death, and as we are to abstain from blood, because it is the life of the animal, we are thereby plainly taught to regard the life of inferior crea- tures, aud never expose them to unnecessary pain. This is a plain dictate of conscience and humanity, as well as of revelation; and as the voice of God thus commands us not to inflict pain on his creatures, farther than is strictly necessary, it is a plain proof that he is kind to his meanest creatures, and is unwilling that they should suiTer more than is needful to subserve the ends of his benevolence. Now if God does not punish the brute creatures as criminals, and if there is nothing in his nature which influences him to do it for no end but the mere pleasure of seeing them tor- mented, it remains that it necessarily arises from their connexion with the human race; and God has subjected them to a speedy dis^ solution, to prevent a greater evil, or to promote a lasting good in future. This is an evident deduction from the nature of God, as exhibited in the bible, and reason requires us to admit the conclu- sion, even though we were unable to discover how those ends of divine goodness will be accomplished. 3. It is not hard to understand how this dispensation of God is calculated to prevent a "greater evil: for the inferior animals are tortured Avith unrelenting cruelty by wicked men, and if they were not released by death, their burden would be augmented and protracted for thousands of years. The very animals that lived in the days of Adam would yet be groaning under the hand of tyran- Dj-; but the decree of heaven has fixed bounds beyond Avhich the barbarity of sinners cannot pass: when the pain is brought to a certain point, death gives the innocent creature a discharge from the monster that takes pleasure in its agony, and who would per- haps, if not thus prevented, increase its misery a thousand-fold. "Not only the feebler creatures are continually destroyed by the stronger;" says Mr. Wesley, "but both the one and the other are exposed to the violence and cruelty of him that is now their com- mon enemy, man. He pursues them over the widest plains, and through the thickest forests. He overtakes them in the fields of air, he finds them out in the depth of the sea. Nor are the mild aud friendly creatures, who still own his sway, and arc duteous to his commands, secured thereby from more than brutal violence, 353 AN ESSAY ON THE from outrage and abuse of various kinds. What returns for their long and faithful service, do many of these poor creatures find? And what a dreadful difference is therebetween what they suffer from their fellow-brutes, and what they suffer from the tyrant, man! The Lion, the Tyger, and the Shark, give them pains from mere necessity, in order to prolong their own life, and put them out of their pain at once. But the human Shark, without any such necessity, torments them of his free choice; and perhaps con- tinues their lingering pain, till after months or years, death signs their release."* This just picture may be finished by the following beautiful lines of Cowper; So Eden Mas a scene of harmless sport, Where kindness on his part, who ruled the whole, Begat a tranquil confidence in all, And fear as yet was not, nor cause for fear. But sin marred all; and the revolt of man, That source of evils not exhausted yet, Was punished with revolt of his from him. Garden of God, how terrible the change Thy groves and lawns then witnessed! Every heart, Each animal of every name, conceived A jealousy and an instinctive fear, And, conscious of some danger, either fled Precipitate the loath'd abode of man, Or growl'd defiance in such angry sort, As taught him too to tremble in his turn. Thus harmony and family accord Were driven from Paradise; and in that hour The seeds of cruelty, that since have swell'd To such gigantic and enormous growth, AVere sown in hnman nature's fruitful soil. Hence date the persecution and the pain That man inflicts on all inferior kinds, Regardless of their plaints. To make him sport, To gratify the frenzy of his wrath, Or his base gluttony, are causes good And just in his account, why bird and beast Should suffer torture, and the streams be dy'd * Sermons, vol. 5, p. 136. PLAN OP SALVATION. ^gg With blood of their inhabitants impal'd. Earth groans beneath the burden of a war Wa»ed with defenceless innocence, while he Not satisfied to prey on all around, Adds tenfold bitterness to death by pangs Needless, and first torments ere he devours. Witness at his foot The spaniel dying for some venial fault Under dissection of the knotted scourge; Witness the patient ox, with stripes and yells Driven to the slaughter, goaded, as he runs, To madness; while the savage at his heels Laughs at the frantic sufferer's fury, spent Upon the guiltless passenger o'erthrown. He too is witness, noblest of the train That wait on man, the flight-performing horse: With unsuspecting readiness he takes His murderer on his back, and push'd all day With bleeding sides and flanks, that heave for life^ To the far distant gaol, arrives and dies. But many a crime, deem'd innocent on earth, Is register'd in Heav'n; and these no doubt Have each their record, with a curse annex'd. Man may dismiss compassion from his heart. But God will never. When he charg'd the Jew To assist his foe's down-fallen beast to rise; And when the bush-exploring boy, that seiz'd The young, to let the parent bird go free; Prov'd he not plainly that his meaner works Are yet his care, and have an interest all, All, in the universal Father's love.^ The Task. Now supposing God had made no alteration in animal nature after the fall of man; but had left the unoffending animals in a state not naturally tending to dissolution: uould not men have in- flicted greater and more lingering miseries upon them than they now have power to do.^ Or will any one say that the flesh of beasts was originally made of iron, and their bones of brass? So that the lashes of the whip, or the operation of fire and sharpened steel could not give them any pain. They were free from misery in the original state of things, not because they were incapable of suffering, but because there was 334 AN ESSAY ON THE nothing in the creation to hurt them. But after moral evil was in- troduced, man became a barbarian to inferior animals, as matter of fact has proved in every age of the world, from that time to the present. And it is evident the very animals that lived in the days of Adam would have continued in a state of painful drudge- ry to the present hour, had not their kind Creator terminated their misery, by subjecting them to a speedy dissolution. There is no way to set aside this conclusion, but by supposing tliey were originally incapable of being made to suffer by any art that sinners could invent. And does the bible tell us any thing about such a pitiful hypothesis? If not, on what ground are we to re- ceive it as a truth? Are we to take it for granted without any evi- dence, merely because it is necessary to support the notion that sin was originally a perfectly harmless thing that could not possi- bly hurt any creature in existence, and that God, Avith liis own hand, first brought misery into the creation? What the first sin of angels was we are not informed; but what- «?ver it might be, we must be very cautious (as those imagine who maintain that suffering is always a proof of guilt,) how we admit that it had any natural tendency to produce misery either in the sinners themselves or their fellow-creatures: all misery must arise from the execution of some penalty, otherwise there is no argu- ment left to support the great doctrine that infants and brutes are guilty. When Adam sinned, his crime is supposed to have been equally harmless: it neither produced pain nor evil propensities, as its natural effect, either in him or his posterity: and had God withheld his hand from executing penalties, it seems, all mankind might have multiplied their crimes to the present day, and yet have remained as perfectly happy as they were in Paradise; and with all their malice and fury it would be impossible for them to give a moment's pain to any beast in the creation! If this be so, it follows that M'hen God first inflicted penalties on account of sin, it was not done to defend the happiness of any living creature; for the tranquillity of all remained undisturbed, and would have so continued to eternity, had not his own hand first made a breach upon it by infiicting his penalties. And as God had no regard to the welfare of any of his creatures, in punishing sin, seeing it was a harmless tiling that made no inroads upon their welfare; therefore he introduced misery merely to gratify some private principle in himscH*, which could never i-est satisfied Avith- out seeing some creature tormented. This is the secret principle that runs through the whole scheme, and supports the enormous PLAN OF SALVATION. S55 system of sovereign partiality and eternal Feprobation! Tins se- cret, mysterious and amazing justice, arising out of the divine sovereignty, is the Manicheau principle which produces all the good and evil — all the happiness and misery to be found in hea- ven, earth, or hell! Shall we take courage, and renounce this dis- mal view of things? Or must we conclude that "we cannot let it go without giving up at the same time the greatest part, if not all, of the essential articles of the christian faith?" 4. As God is thus kind and good to his meanest creatures, and proves that he has a perpetual regard for their well-being; who will undertake to declare that he has no benevolent intention to establish their happiness, when the Lord Jesus shall have destroy- ed the works of the devil, "at the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began?" "The creature," says Mr. Wesley, "every creature was subject- ed to vanity, to sorrow, to pain of every kind, to all manner of evils. Not indeed willingly; not by its own choice; nor by any act or deed of its own; but by reason of him that subjected it; by the wise permission of God, determining to draw eternal good out of this temporary evil."* "While his creatures travail together in pain, he knoweth all their pain, and is bringing them nearer and nearer to the birth, which shall be accomplished in its season. He seeth the earnest expectation wherewith the whole animated creation waiteth for that final manifestation of the sons of God, in which they them- selves, also shall be delivered, (not by annihilation: annihilation is not deliverance,) from the present bondage of corruption into (a measure of,) the glorious liberty of the children of God,"t Mr. Wesley goes on; "nothing can be more express, away with vulgar prejudices, and let the plain word of God take place. They shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into glo- rious liberty: even a measure, according as they are capable, of the liberty of the children of God. " But what end does it answer, to dwell upon this subject which we so imperfectly understand?" To consider so much as we do understand,^ so much as God has been pleased to reveal to us, may answer that excellent end, to illustrate tliat mercy of God, •which is over all his works. And it may exceedingly confirm our belief, that much more he is loving to every man. For how well * Sermons, vol. v. page 12^. t Pas*^ i^r. t I'agc 130. 856 AN ESSAY ON THE may we urge our hordes word, »dre not ye much betterthanthp.y?l{ then the Lord takes such care of the fowls of the air, and of the beasts of the field, shall he not much more take care of you, crea- tures of a nobler order? « May it not answer another end, namely, furnish us with a full answer to a plausible objection against the justice of God, in suf- fering numberless creatures, that never had sinned, to be so se- verely punished? They could not sin, for they were not moral agents. Yet how severely do they suffer? Yea, many of them, beasts of burden in particular, almost the whole time of their abode on earth. So that they can have no retribution here below But the objection vanishes away, if we consider that something better remains after death, for these poor creatures also: that these likewise shall one day be delivered from this bondage of corrup- tion, and shall then receive an ample amends for all their present sufferings. " One more excellent end may undoubtedly be answered by the preceding considerations. They may encourage us to imitate him, whose mercy is over all his works. They may soften our hearts towards the meaner creatures, knowing that the Lord careth for them. It may enlarge our hearts towards those poor creatures, t» reflect that as vile as they appear in our eyes, not one of them is forgotten in the sight of our heavenly Father." These are some of the arguments which fully convinced the mind of Mr. Wesley, that the goodness of God will ultimately de- liver the unsinning part of the creation from the ravages of sin, and place them in a state of undisturbed enjoyment, as was originally intended. And shall we conclude that his opinion is a dreadful heresy, subversive of the very fundamental principles of Christianity? Shall we start aid draw back from it, as if the very heavens Mere indangeroffalling,oras if all ourhopes of salvation were in danger of being destroyed? Are we afraid God should be too kind to his suffering creatures, which he created in order that they might be happy, and which have never sinned against him? AVhat harm would it be to any man or angel, if God should kindly take care of sparrows, and restore them to that state of happiness, for M'hich his goodness brought them into being, and of which they would still have retained the quiet possession, had it not been for the wickedness of another order of his creatures? Are we afraid of consequences? What are they? One conse- quence is, that if God has such a perpetual regard for his mean- PLAN OF SALVATION. 857 est creatures, he will bring to just punishment the wretch that takes pleasure in abusing them. Are we afraid of this conse- quence? If so, we want the privilege, it seems, to abuse them with impunity. Another is, that God delights to see those creatures happy, and of course, they were not made solely for our accommo- dation, without any regard to their own: They were not created merely to serve us a little while, frequently groaning and bleed- ing under our tyranny, and then to be cast by into the silent shades of oblivion: hence we are deprived of the selhsh pleasure of think- ing that God made them through mere partiality to us, without any regard to their own enjoyments, which would be the case, if he kept them in being only while we wanted their services, and afterwards struck them out of existence, merely because we have no more occasion to make them our drudges. Perhaps we are afraid it will eclipse our glory, if brutes are permitted to live forever, which, to be sure, ought to be the sole prerogative of man! AVere they not originally made to live forever.^ And did it eclipse the glory of Adam, or diminish his prerogative, that various orr ders of living creatures were permitted to share with him in the blessings of paradise. Would it have increased his dignity, had he wished their existence might come to an end, or refused to be- lieve that God intended they should enjoy everlasting happiness as well as himself and his posterity.^ Bat we are afraid if men generally believed that beasts will be restored to their original state of happiness, they would next be- lieve that devils and sinners will be restored from hell; and hence they would banish all their fears, and rest contented in their wick- edness. They may believe this or any thing else, and it is impos- sible for us to hinder them, if they are resolved to disregard all evidence, and l>elieve whatever is most suitable to their taste; but they will never espouse the latter opinion as a regular conse- quence of the former, for there is not as much connexion between them as there is between the two poles. The sin of devils and men, we say, has involved the brute crea- tion in a state of misery: but God will ultimately deliver them from it and place them in their original state of happiness: why? Because they were not involved by their own fault, but by the fault of men and devils. And if God will support the happiness of his innocent creatures, because they are innocent, you conclude it is a clear consequence that he will also restore those guiliy re- bels who are punished ou account of their abominations against Zz 358 AN ESSAY ON THE the innocent, and for the security of whom, the sentence of justice was executed upon them! It was God's regard to the welfare of the innocent that first in- fluenced him to send devils and wicked men to hell: how then can his regard to the innocent cause him to extend mercy to devils and wicked spirits, unless you suppose they have become innocent, since they went to hell? The dreadful inference tve are so much afraid of, could be drawn with more plausibility from the doctrine of divine mercy to sinners in this world: If I go to hell, says one, God will deliver me after a while, and take me to heaven: why? Because his nature is to show mercy; for you say he pardons many sinners in this world, and sanctifies their nature, and why not in the world to comer The inference would have more appearance of reason, when drawn from this doctrine than the other; because beasts are inno- cent, and therefore God's regard to them aftbrds no inference in fa- vour of the guilty; but if guilty men are restored from their wretch- ed state, and taken to heaven, sinners may with some appearance of plausibility presume, that a similar dispensation will obtain in that future world to which we are fast approaching. And shall we therefore be very cautious how we believe or teach the doe- trine of divine mercy to sinners in this world, for fear men will take occasion to infer, that devils and damned spirits may also obtain forgiveness? If there be a need of caution in the other case, there certainly is more in this, because it appears to afford some presumption of the kind, which the other does not. The fact is, that men, who are determined to love sin more thaa reason and truth, will find pretences enough to silence their con- sciences, and will be at no loss to find sophistical arguments to con- vince them of w hat they are resolved to believe at all events. In vain may we attempt to guard them against it by suppressing the light of evidence, from the groundless fear that the establishment of one truth, would lead to a disbelief of another. This were to suppose that truth naturally contradicts itself, that one error is necessary to guard us against falling into another; that we ought to be afraid of the clearest evidence, and finally, that God would have the world directed by stratagem, instead of the calm voice of reason and revelation. Without consuming too much time on this article, which must be allowed to be of Jess importance than many others, I will only add one argument which has had the chief influence in producing a conviction in my mind, that God will restore the animal crea- tion to a state of perpetual happiness. It is this: PLAN OF SALVATION. 3,i» The animals were originally made to enjoy a happy existence; had it not been for the sin of others, misery and death would never have been introduced among them: of course divine goodness pre- pared for them a state of felicity, which was interrupted by the works of the devil: Jesus Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, and will reign till all enemies are i)ut under his feet: but if innocent animals are totally deprived of that happy existence which God intended for them to enjoy forever, the devil has suc- ceeded in destroying the works of God, the innocent not excepted. If those innocent creatures are never restored, it must be because God cannot restore them, or because he will not; if he cannot do it, it would seem that the devil has overcome his power; and if he .will not, the old serpent has caused him to abandon the original purpose of his goodness towards millions of his unoffending crea- tures. This consequence cannot be set aside, without affirming that the beasts were originally made for destruction. Nor can it be retorted, by recurring to the state of men and angels: for it was not the original design of God that they should enjoy everlasting happiness, but upon condition of their obedience; whereas no con- dition of obedience was enjoined on the inferior 'animals, and therefore, unless we suppose they were originally made to be de- stroyed or annihilated, they will be restored; otherwise you say the devil has caused their Creator to alter his mind concerning them. As to men and angels, it was the design of God that they should stand responsible for their moral conduct, and be dealt with ac- cording to their works, by the law of his holy and unchangeable attributes: thii be to eternity. SECTION xn. Of the Divine Sovereignty. It may be necessary, before we close this part of the subjeet, to notice a favourite argument of our opponeDls, founded npon the Divine Sovereignty. 360 AN ESSAY ON THE "God, say they, has an undoubted right to do what he will with his own: he is not bound to make any creature liappy, much less to restore those who have fallen from a state of rectitude: therefore he has the just prerogative to receive one and jtass by another^ according to his own good pleasure. Shall the thing formed, say to him (hat formed it, why hast thou made me thus?" To this we would answer: 1. The English word, sovereign, signifies, supreme in power, having no superior. Sovereignty, supremacy, highest place, highest degree of excellence.* By the divine sovereignty then, we understand, that God is su- preme in power, authority and excellence: consequently when his power is exercised to maintain his authority, according to the moral excellence of his nature, his sovereignty is secured. The moment we charge him with using his power in opposition to his excellence, or moral attributes, we charge him with renouncing the sovereign glory of his nature; and when we plead that he has a right to do so, we suppose he has a right to cease being God, and to imitate the king of the bottomless pit, who delights in the exercise of a despotic sovereignty, that has no connexion with moral goodness. 2. Justice, truth and benevolence, are essential attributes of Al- mighty God, or they are not; to say they are not, is to leap into atheism, or into the belief of a God totally destitute of every prin- ciple of morality, which is still worse than atheism: but if those attributes are essential to the divine nature, then to say God has a right to depart from them, is to siiy he has a right to abandon that which is essential to his nature, to change himself into another deity, of an opposite nature, and to govern his actions by the evil principles w hich predominate in the devil and his angels. Will he be pleased with any creature for imputing this to him, and for labouring to vindicate his right to such a gloomy and terrifying supremacy.^ 3 The word tyrannous or tyrannical, according to Walker, signi- fies despotic, arbitrary, severe. Tyrant, an absolute monarch gov- srning imperiously; a cruel, despotic and severe master. According to the same author, the word arbitrary means despotic, absolutej depending on no rule; capricious. Arbitrarily, with no other rule than the will; despotically; absolutely. Hence it appears that a tyrant is one "who governs his actions by no other rule than his own will, and who fancies he has a right * See Walker's Dictionary. PLAN OF SALVATION. 361 to do so arising out of his sovereign prerogative, as absolute mon- arch:" his vassals, on the contrary, must have no will, or no other rule of action, than a regular intention to submit to his will in all things he is pleased to enjoin, for no other reason but because it is his will. Thus a tyrant departs from all moral principles himself, and demands of his subjects also to depart from them, and to make his will the sole rule of their actions. They may indeed do moral actions in those cases where his will happens not to interfere; but even then, they must not do them from a regard to morality, but from a regard to his will; and whenever he shall will their depar- ture from any righteous action, they must give it up, and consider his sovereign pleasure alone as the foundation of all right and of all obligation. AVere we to plead for such a right as this in behalf of such per- sons as Nero, Caligula or Bishop Bonner, they would doubtless be pleased with us, and consider us as very acceptable advocates for their sovereign prerogative. I am apt to imagine that the old prince of darkness has also been in the habit of claiming this so- vereign right for some thousands of years, and that he is ambi- tious to govern without being limited l)y any other rule than that of his own will. But what good man will presume, upon second thoughts, that the benevolent Author of this great universe will be pleased to hear us advocate his supposed right to transform him- self into the nature and character of an arbitrary tyrant.^ AVho can, without horror, consider the depth of blasphemy there is in the supposition, that God has a right to transform himself into a devil? And what creature of God will do such violence to the immediate dictates of his ijitellectual faculties, as to believe it possible for any being to have a right to do wrong? In other words, that a be- ing does right in doing wrong; or that right is wrong and wrong is right; or in other words, "that there is no distinction between right and wrong, and that sovereign will may do any thing, every thing, ©r nothing. 4. To suppose God may do any thing, because he possesses Almighty power, is to suppose right has its origin in power: that is, that the reason why a being has a right to do any thing, is that he has power to do it. Take away his power, and you take away his right; enlarge his power and his right is enlaiged in exact pro- portion. This doctrine was advocated by Mr. Hobbes; and it is very pleas- ing to every tyrant ia the world; for if this be true, it of course 36a AN ESSAY ON THE follows, that the tyrant never did any wrong in his life, because he never did any tiling beyond his power, and therefore it could not be beyond his right, seeing right grows out of power, and out of nothing else. Upon this atheistic hypothesis all men have a right to do any thing and every thing in their power, because the power is the on- ly thing that supports right, seeing right naturally grows out of it. I have a right to take away any man's liberty or life, provided on- ly that I have power to do it; and any other man has a right to take my liberty or life, whenever he may happen to have it in his power. Thus all moral principles are destroyed, all obligation ceases, and despotic tyranny is the only God tliat is to be worship- ped in either earth or heaven. The truth is, that the principle of right is as uncreated, eter- nal, and unchangeable as God himself, because it is an essential principle of his immutable nature. To say God has a right to act in opposition to his eternal Attribute of justice, appears to be equal in blasphemy with the supposition, "that God has a right to destroy himself. 5. It is granted, that "God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will;" because his perpetual will is to do every thing according to his immutable justice, truth and benevolence. But because our Saviour represents the Lord of the hired servants as saying, "may I not do what I will with my own," some appear to imagine he means that God has a right to do any thing with his creatures, because they are his own. Whereas it is evident from the parable, that the master had no reference to the labourers, for they were not his own, seeing they had voluntarily entered into his service for a stipulated price. By the term, my own, was meant his money, which he had a right to bestow as a favour, or to with- hold it at his option. It is true, all creatures belong to God; but has he a right to pu- nish the holy angels Avith everlasting damnation because they are his own.^ If so, it would appear, that if the devil had power to create sensible or conscious creatures, and were to do so in order to torment them in the flames of hell forever, he would have a right to do it because they would be his own. The only reason M'hy he has not the right to do tins, is that he has not the power: thus we are brought back to Mr. Hobbes's atheistic theory again, that right grows out of power. God justly claims all men and angels as his own: that is, they are his own servants, or the subjects of his government, and he has PLAN OF SALVATION. 363 a right to demand obedience from them in proportion to the know- ledge and power he has given them, and according to the princi- ples of his moral law. But to say he has a right to deceive them by lying, to accuse and condemn them falsely, or to punish them for nothing, but tlie gratification of his sovereign pleasure, because they are his own, is to say God is a tyrant, and that he has a right to be so. AH creatures hold their existence and happiness by a grant of benevoleneej but their right of exemption from penal torments, they claim from eternal justice, so long as they continue innocent: here they have a proper right of demand, inseparable from their being, as innocent creatures; and their Creator is bound injustice not to violate their right. If we deny this, we say the creatures of God, when they rebell- ed against his government, forfeited no right thereby, seeing they had no right to forfeit; of course they were no more exposed to punishment, in justice, then they were before; because tlie sove- reign pleasure is supposed the only ground of their happiness or misery, and if the supreme will should so determine, it might be made just for them to be rewarded for their wickedness, and jpwn- ished for keeping the commandments. The Almighty Sovereign might, if it should happen to be his good pleasure, make guilt con- sist in loving justice, mercy and truth, and make innocence con- sist in falsehood, and in hating every thing that is just and good. He might restore all devils from the lake of hell, and reward them with crowns of glory for their profound abhorrence of all morali- ty; he might at the same time send all his holy angels into hell, together with the spirits of just men made perfect, to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, as the due wages of their want of malice; and all this would be as perfectly just and righteous as any thing that has been done since the creation, provided the sovereign will should fix it so. which is supposed to be the only standard of justice in the universe. 6. We grant God is not bound to pardon and save any sinner, by any right in the sinner, to demand salvation at his hand: and lience it is concluded by our opponents, that their doctrine is con- ceded, namely, that he may save one, and pass by another, for no other reason but his own good pleasure; and no creature can have a just ground of complaint. His gratuitous act of eleelingone, and neglecting another, they call his sovereign grace; but (he proper name of it is sovereign partialitij. 864 AN ESSAY ON THE Sovereign grace is the grace, or favour, exercisei] by a sovereign: it has been shown that God's sovereignty consists in his supreme right to govern his creatures, not as a tyrant, but according to his holy and unchangeable attributes. It remains for us to inquire whether partiality is to be considered as one of the attributes of God, or whether it necessarily arises out of them. By partiality I here mean "a disposition to limit favours to cer- tain individuals, and to withhold them from others under similar circumstances, for no reason but arbitrary w ill or pleasure. Does isuch a disposition belong to God.^ I hope the following reflections will serve to decide I'his question in the negative: 1. Supposing God is not bound to be impartial in bestowing his favours, does it follow from this that he is disposed to be partial, or that he ever will be so.'* Is not benevolence as dear to him as jus- tice, and is he any more disposed, in any ease, to depart from the former than the latter.'* 3. Suppose two sinners stand before God, equally needy, and whose salvation would equally accord with justice: if he save one, and pass by the other, only because he will do so, in this act of passing by, he shows such a deficiency in the love of goodness, that he will not be kind to this person, when there is no moral ob- struction. It is not for the sake of benevolence surely, that he re- fuses in this case to be benevolent; it is not for the sake of justice, because the salvation of one is supposed to accord with justice as well as that of the other; It is not for the sake of truth, unless some one will undertake to prove that God has declared he will be partial, and pass by some sinners whose salvation would perfectly accord both with justice and benevolence; therefore in such an act of partiality he would have no regard to any moral principle, and consequently the action would result from some private and selfish one, that is regardless of all morality. 3. Though it be granted that God is not bound to be impartial, from any right of demand in sinners, yet he has graciously bound himself by pledging his own character that he will always act ac- coiding to the harmony of all his attributes. He has fairly and openly stated the conditions on which pardon is to be granted, and has declared that "u hosoever will, may take of the waters of life freely:" if, therefore, he has made any secret reserves and ab- solute resolutions or decrees, that x-Vdam's race shall not be equally welcome; if he has a revealed will, proclaiming most unequivocally that '^ he delighteth not in the death of the wicked, but would have all men come to repentance," and at the same time his secret PLAN OF SALVATION. 3C5 will and pleasure is that a majority shall be unconditionally ev eludedfrom the possibility of salvation, what an hypocritical char- acter does he display before his holy angelsl And before men too; for it seems men have found out his secret will) and published it abroad, notwithstanding his design to keep it secret. How they obtained access to the secret cabinet, I have not been informed; but be that as it may, they have made the thing public, and have let the world into the mystery of God's "holy simulation." 4. The most selfish tyrant in the world is capable of this kind of benevolence. He can bestow favours sometimes, when it suits his humour, or when it may be thought in any manner to subserve his selfish purposes; but if he frequently neglects others in similar circumstances, for no other reason but because he will, it is clear his favours are not bestowed from principle, or from a regard to general happiness, but merely from a regard to his sovereign plea«- sure: that is, from a desire to gratify the pride and selfishness of his own heart. He bestows favours on some, and passes by others, merely and solely because it is his will to do so: then his will is not regulated by any regard to the principle of benevolence, for that principle would apply to all those eases alike: not from a re- gard to justice, for the persons whom he passed by, might have been relieved as consistently withjustice as the others: his actions flow from a selfish principle, and he is as destitute of moral good- ness in bestowing his favours as in withholding them; because both actions flow from the same principle, and that is a proud desire t» gratify and display his own sovereign pleasure. SECTION XIIL The same subject. The present objection supposes God to be ambitious to esta- blish himself at the head of a party. Moral principles are uni- versal in their application: justice is not limited to a part of man- kind; and benevolence does not consist in the blind attachments of party spirit, but in such a regard to general happiness as influen- ces a person to extend happiness as far as he is able to extend it consistently with justice. While a person is governed by thosp 3 A 366 AN ESSAY ON THE principles, his actions and motives have relation to the community in general, and admit of no arbitrary selection of particular parlies. But in our degenerate world we see party spirit prevail both in church and state, and triumph over every principle of righteous- ness. Thousands have a humorous loudness for one party, and a proportional disgust and antipathy against another, which make them blind to the clearest evidence. They are willing truth should prevail, so far as it may accord with the support of their own party; but their opponents must be hindered from speakiiig the truth, and no faith is to be kept with heretics. They are very tenacious of the rights of justice, on their own side; but they are unwilling others should have equal rights, and wish justicetobea limitedprinciple, confined to particular par- ties. They are very benevolent also, provided it be true that bene- volence consists in bestowing favours on their side of the house, for the gratification of their partiality, or their- party spirit^ which is the same thing; but as to a general love, that delights to bless all needy objects alike, without respect of persons, this is a stranger to their bosom. Thus it is evident that party spirit or partiality is hostile to every righteous principle. All such principles are universal in their nature, and a proper regard to justice, truth and benevolence, arises out of a general love tli at delights to make all individuals happy, who can be made so without violating the rights of others. "Whereas partiality is a limited, selfish love, which delights to make justice, truth and benevolence, subservient to the blind at- tachments and arbitrary decisions of a despotic v\ill. This spirit is truly ihe mother of abominations. It causes us to beblind to the faults and absurdities of our own parly: it causes us to do violence to our reason and conscience, to suppress and hate all truth and all evidence, unless it be favourable to our own side: it causes us unmercifully to judg-e the other side, and to impute crimes tothem according to our sovereign pleasure: it causes us to monopiilize the rights of justice to ourselves: it causes us to limit oar favours according to the selfish dictate of our partiality, and to be envious at the prosperity of our opponents. In short, it pro- duces a blind, unreasonable, and idolatrous fondness for our fa- vourites, and a corresponding animosity against the objects whom our arbitrary will singles out for reprobation. As the blind attach- ment rises for one side, a secret malice rises lagainst the other in PLAN OF SALVATION. 367 exact proportion; and thus every moral virtue is made to yield to the selfish fury of party malevolence. This gave rise to the furious bigotry of the Scribes and Phari- sees: they laboured to confine all right and all ihe blessings of salvation to the Jewish party; and to detest the Gentiles, to perse- cute them, and fondly to consider them as outcasts from God, fit only to be taken and destroyed. It gave rise to the bloody scenes of popery. They confined sal- vation to themselves; they fancied that God's partiality confined all his eternal favours to their holy church, and that he had a corresponding abhorrence for all heretics. That is, they fancied he was altogether such an one as themselves. They believed they had rights, but that others had not equal rights. They believed men ought to be benevoleat and kind, but not to heretics. It was right to be sincere, to tell the truth, and keep our word; but no faith is to be kept with heretics. Thus the god of party was wor- shipped, till all regard to moral principles was given up, and here- tics were destroyed by the most excruciating tortures, and w ith a fond belief that God's unchangeable hatred and malice against them was equal to their own; and of course that they would all burn in the flames of hell forever. Wherever malice and persecution have prevailed in any sect or country, it has risen froai devotion to the same God. Jt matters not whether it appear under the garb of piety, zeal for God, liber- ty, patriotism, a design to enlighten the world, to suppress priest- craft and superstition, or any other hypocritical pretension. — It is the same thing under all those names, and manifests itself hy its fruits. It is such a blind and vehement fondness for our party, and such habitual and settled malevolence against others, as leads us to sacrifice truth, justice and benevolence, to build up one party and pull down the other. This, as all experience shows, is the nature and tendency of partiality. Is it possible that good men can believe, upon second thoughts, that there is any such jwinciple in the Lord our Maker.'' Surely such unbecoming thoughts of God must be rejected by every re- flecting mind. But I think it is not hard to discover that the elect- ing love, sovereign pleasure, and secret will, so often spoken of, are nothing more than other names substituted for arbitrary par- 'tiality, and the disposition is the same under every appellation. God's will, in relation to his creatures, is always regulated by his moral attributes, or it is not; if it is, he is always disposed to make every creature happy, so far as it will accord with justice; S68 AN ESSAY ON THE if it is not, he sometimes departs from the perfections of his na- ture, and is influenced by some secret principle totally distinct ijrom them. I think we may safely conclude upon the whole, that partiality, subversive of all righteousness, arises out of a selfish heart, and that so far as a ruler is disposed to be tyrannical, so far he de- sires and needs a secret witl, in opposition to the will which he is pleased to make known, and by which he professes to regulate hii administration. I know it may be urged, that God has in fact exercised partiali- ty in giving the dilJerent capacities and means of happiness which he has given to different orders of his creatures. But this supposes partiality can be exercised towards creatures before they exist, and if so, it can be exercised toward a nonentity. Nothing can be more absurd than for the thing formed to say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus.^ Because this supposes we had rights or claims upon the divine attributes before we vvere created. If partiality can be exercised towards a wore- entity, the objection would still hold, though God had made all creatures of the same order: for it might be said, how many mil- lions of creatures might be created that are still in a state of non- existence.^ Hurely God is partial, or he would not leave those crea- tures which might be made, in a state of nonentity, while these are in a state of happy existence! And it' God's having given beasts a small capacity of happiness, is a proof of his partiality, his conduct towards stones and trees is a still greater proof of it, because he has given them no capacity of happiness. The partiality opposed in these pages, consists in an arbitrary will to bestow favours on some, and neglect others, who equally ijeed such favours, and who stand in the same moral relation to him who bestows them. But as to the kind or degree of capacity creatures were to have, it has no connexion with the subject: for before our existence we were in need ©f nothing, and had no rela- tion to moral principles. The Lord gives the light and assistance of his hoIy> spirit to a wen, and withholds this blessing from Sibeast: there is no partiali- ty in this, because the beast does not need spiritual grace, as the man does, nor does it stand in the same moral relation to God. — But the case of two or more sinners, who equally need pardon and salvation, and whose salvation would equally accord with the §;eneral welfare, is so eatirely ditterent from the eases alleged PLAN OF SALVATION. 369 ia the objection, that it requires no uncommon discernment to perceive that this futile argument has no just bearing upon the doctrine defended in the present section. But because some men have greater advantages than others during their existence on aarth, it is presumed by some, that this results solely from God's sovereign pleasure^ and if distinguish- ing grace makes such a difference in this life, why not in the life to come.^ Answer: If our opponents will prove that God has no moral reason for the various dispensations of his grace and providence, but merely his arbitrary will; — if they clearly evince that he has no regard to the general welfare, and the greatest good of his creatures upon the whole, in the variety manifested in the course of his provi- dence in the present world; — we will then grant that a principle of arbitrary sovereignty governs his actions, and in all probabili- ty the same partiality may extend to a future state. But if they cannot prove this, if the contrary be true, that God has benevo- lent intentions, to which this order in his works in the present world is perpetually subservient, no particular fact under his go- vernment can be produced as a proof of his partiality. And they are bound to prove this point, before their conclusion can be ad- mitted, as much as infidels are bound to prove the same thing, be- fore their conclusions can be admitted, concerning the caprice, or folly, or injustice that appears, as they imagine, in the Almighty's method of governing this world. If they say it is incumbent on us to prove that God has such be- nevolent intentions iu the different gifts and advantages conferred upon men in the present life, and to reconcile the seeming partial- ities of his administration Avith the doctrine here advanced; our answer is short. The moral attributes of God are proved by the testimony of re- velation, and by every other source of evidence, the great Crea- tor, possessed of these perfections, is unchangeable, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; of course he never departs from them for a moment; but partiality is opposite in its nature and ten- dency to the divine perfections, as has just been proved, I hope to the satisfaction of every candid reader; therefore no such partiali- ty is ever exercised by our Maker in any case, however some cases may have the appearance of it to our limited conceptions. As to the difficulty of reconciling the disorders of the present world with the divine nature, we must cither resulve it into our own ignorance, or we must charge God foolishly: and it ill becomes- 370 AN ESSAY ON THE a christian to draw his conclusions against God, from certain tem- porary appearances which he does not understand, and is incapa- ble ofcompreliendjng, in their relation to the whole. This is truly the deistica! method of reasoning; and i( is a metliod which has been very fruitful of unreasonable and atheistical conclusions. A father of a family or ruler of a state may exhibit abundant evidence to his children or subjects, of the goodness and impartial- ity of his character, and yet some particular cases may occur, con- cerning which they may be incapable of entering into the views of the benevolent ruler, and may consider them as deviations from wisdom and goodness, merely because they are ignorant of their tendency, and of their relation to the general welfare. A foolish child will hastily conclude that such cases are proofs of his pa- rent's unkindness or cruelty:but he m ho accustoms I'is mind to can- did reflection, will conclude they are proofs of his own ignorance, and ought not, in any degree, to weaken his confidence in the pa- rent or governor, while so much evidence exists of the general goodness of his character. We have intuitive conviction that the First Cause, or Supreme Being must necessarily be so completely above the blind and sel- fish principles of action which govern ignorant sinners, that "he cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." The same fundamental truth is established by the unequivocal evidence of revelation. We also perceive the signs of Avisdom and benevo- lence in the visible creation, so far as we are able tf» take a gene- ral view of it,aMdcould that view be comprehensive and oonjplete, how would we be transported with the prospect! But a prejudiced and narn!=,v mind neglects that patient reflection which would ena- ble him (o draw his conclusions from an enlarged and general view of things, and, conlining himself to some particular parts, without attending to the clear signs of goodness in the whole, con- cludes very absurdly that God is partial or unjust. This conclu- sion depends upon the truth of the principle, ''that the particular case under consideration has no tendency to subserve the purpo- ses of justice or mercy." And can any one produce the least evi- dence of this? if not, there is no evidence to support the conclusion; and the belief of it can only result from the dictates of a haughty mind, which pretends to nnderstand the government of this uni- verse as well as God Almighty understands it. In this sophistical manner atheists have reasoned against the creation, and deists against the bible. God favours some men or some nations more than others, with his natural or supernatural PLAN OF SALVATION. 371 blessings In this life; therefore many conclude that this variety does not flow from a benevolent intention to produce the greatest gen- eral good in future, but from an essential principle of partiality in God. And many christians, it seems, inadvertently give full sanction to these unjust reproaches against heaven, and then hope to mend tlie matter by pleading that God has a right to deviate from his moral attributes, and to regulate all things by his sovereign plea- sure! Infidels and christians agree in the premises, and in the first conclusion, namely, that God is a partial being: the unl)eliev- er, perceiving that partiality is a source of every kind of wicked- ness in the world, concludes that the Author of nature is an im- moral being, which sentiment he soon exchanges for atheism. The christian takes another course, and insists that God has a sove- reign right to be partial, and to confine himself to no rule of ac- tion buthis own capricious and independent will. They think this principle alone fixes the unconditional and eternal destinies, both of men and angels. If some men are saved, and others damned, it is because God eternally predestinated the fate of each by his so- vereign or arbitrary will. If some angels keep their first estate, and others lose it, the reason is, that the former were always the favourite objects of electing love, and the latter of reprobating animosity. If human sinners are redeemed and restored from their fallen condition, and angelic sinners are not, this also must be re- solved into the same distinguishing grace, or electing partiality, as the only reason or principle in the divine nuture which made a difterence between angels and men, as it respects the benefits of re- demption. Thus all the links of predestination hang togetlicr, and we must receive the whole, or totally reject the principle of partiality from whence they flow; and maintain that God has never departed from a pure regard to general happiness in any act of his administra- tion, towards angels, or men, or any other creatures in exis- tence. As to the fallen angels, God has not seen tit to give us an ac- count of the particulars of their apostaey. In what manner the divine forbearance was manifested towards them we know notj the nature, extent, and aggravating circumstances of their crimes we know not; but if any man shall have the assurance to affirm that they were passed by, through sovereign partiality, m hen they might have had a merciful probati(;n granted, consistently with every moral principle; we may safely defy him to support an hy- 37;^ AN ESSAY ON THE pothesis so unworthy of God, from scripture or from any other source of human knowledge. As to tlie passages of scripture wliieh speak of the variety of the Almighty's dispensations of grace and providence here below, and which have been pressed into the service of predestinarian sovereignty, they have been suificiently examined by Mr. Fletcher and others, to whom I must refer the reader, and have lieen shown to accord perfectly with the general tenor of the scriptures, that "the Lord is good to all; works." — Psalm exiv. 9. PLAN OF SALVATION. CHAPTER V. Of THa MEANS OR CONDITIONS THROUGH WHICH WE REGEIVt; THE BENEFITS OF OHRIST's ATONEMENT. SECTION I. *3 general view of faith. Having considered the great love wherewith our heavenly fa> ther hath loved us, and the fiilnei«s of redemption that is in Christ Jesus, for the salvation of mankind; it remains for us to notice the conditions on which we are to receive the benefits of Christ's atonement, and to enforce them upon the understanding and af- fections, by the interesting and powerful motives exhibited in the gospel. Among all the terms of acceptance we find stated in the scrip- tures, none is so often mentioned, and so particularly and solemn- ly enjoined, as that of believing, or the right exercise of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This is rightly represented as the root of all christian virtues. It is urged upon us by our Saviour and his apostles as the grand instrument or condition of our pardon, sanc- tification, and perpetual victory over the world; and it is so indis- pensable in every stage of our progress to heaven, that "without faith it is impossible to please God." It is therefore a matter of the first importance for us to understand this essential doctrine of the gospel, on which our eternal welfare so manifestly depends. To believe a report, to give it credit, or to have faitk in it, are terms well understood by men in general; but they are terras not capable of what is called -a logical definition. We know that be- lieving is an act or decision of ihe mind concerning what is true or false; all correct faith has truth for its object, and that which takes falsehood for truth, is a mistaken belief or delusion; but a correct belief may exist in various degrees, and may produce vari- ous effects, according to the nature of the truth it embraces. Those words are used by the inspired writers in different senses, and many I apprehend haveconfoundedthosediftercutapplications of the word faith, or believing, or not sufficiently distinguished 3B 37^ AN ESSAY ON THE them, and have thereby brought great confusion into their own conceptions, and bewildered the minds of others. The term faith, is sometimes applied to a single act of believ- ing, on a particular occasion; at other times, to a continued act, or habitual adherence to the truth. It is sometimes applied to the simple assent of the understand- ing; at other times, it means an adherence to truth, by the united embrace of the understanding and affections. In some passages it applies to the act of believing; in others, to the object of it; and in others, to the effects of it. That the words sometimes apply to a single act, on a particular occasion, will be readily admitted; and I need only refer to Acts xiv. 9. and Matt. viii. 13. for an example. But when the promise of eternal life is connected with our faith or believing, those words are applied to the continued and habitual state of the mind. "He that believeth [perseveringly] shall be saved." Markxvi. 16. <'But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." Heb. x. 39. "That is, we are not of them who for a while believe, and in time of temp- tation fall away , like those mentioned." Luke viii. 13. "But we are of those who continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel." Col. i. 23. "This is the will of him that sent me," says our Saviour, "that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." John vi. 40. The term, believeth on him, evidently signifies a continued act, or habit of believing; for eternal life is not promised to those who "make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience;" but to those who "con- tinue in the faith, and through much tribulation, enter into the Isingdom of God." Acts xiv. 22. Faith sometimes means a bare assent of the understanding, and many who never were justified, or even awakened to a conviction of the evil nature of sin, are said to have believed. This is evi- dent from Acts viii. 13. "Then Simon himself believed also; and when he was baptised, he continued with Philip, and wondered, heholding the miracles and signs which were done." And yet it is obvious from the context, that he was all the while "in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Verse 23. "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? 1 know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, almost thou persuad- est me to be a christian." Acts xxvi. 27. PLAN OF SALVATION. 375 That many are said to have believed, who continued in a state of condemnation, is still more evident from John xii. 42. "Never- theless, among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but be- cause of the Pharisees, they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." Will any one say those persons, who loved the praise of men more than the praise of God, and re- fused to confess Christ before men, were really in a state of ac- ceptance or justification? There are tjiousands of such believers at the present day: they have believed in Christianity from their youlh, and continue still to believe that Jesus Christ is the Sou of God, and the Saviour of sinuers. And yet they are ashamed of Christ and his words be- fore an adulterous and sinful generation, and love the praise of men more than the praise of God. They are yet in their sins, and the wrath of God abideth on them. How can it then be said that all that believe are justified, and have passed from death unto life? To answer this question, we must consider in what the de- ficiency of this faith consists, and wherein it diifers from that which is imputed to us for righteousness. The deficiency consists in its want of energy, as a principle of action, to move the affections, and regulate the conduct. The faith which God requires, is not merely an indifferent assent of the mind, as a principle of speculative knowledge; but it is that which is influential as a principle of action, to excite the affections, to work by love, and to purify the heart. "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." Jam. ii. 26. The cause of this deficiency is the false foundation on which their faith is built. Evidence is not the ground of their belief, and though the object of it be true, yet it is not for the sake of truth they believe it: they have never examined the evidence, nor felt any solicitude to understand it; but they believe merely for the sake of being in the fashion, or through some other sinister mo- tive; their faith, therefore, is not the dictate of candour, which re- gulates the belief by evidence, but the dictate oi prejudice or bigot- ry, which influences men to believe things, not for the sake of their being true, but for the sake of their subserviency to some private and selfish gratification. Many believe the scriptures, because they can appeal to the scriptures, for the support of their party; and the support of their party is essential to the support of their popularity, as well as to many other private advantages. They believe Christ is the Son of &76 AN ESSAY ON THE God, and the Saviour of the world, not because thej feel any needi of a Saviour, or any solicitude to examine the evidence of his mis- sion, but because it is the belief of (heir relations and neighbours; to disbelieve would be unfashionable, and they esteem it better to be out of the world than to be out of the fashion. Thef'dogmati- cally believe the doctrine of the Trinity, justification by faith; and the uew-birthj not because they have any concern to understand these matters, or to know their evidence and importance; but be- cause they have been the distinguishing tenets of their fathers and ancestors for some centuries, and because the belief of them is necessary to distinguish them from Infidels, Socinians, and other heretics. Thu§ their faith is good for nothing, because it does not arise from a regard to truth, but from a regaixl to something else. Others may believe from the influence of evidence which they cannot resist, as many of the Jews did; but their want of candour influences them to suppress the evidence, or to neglect an honest pursuit of it, for fear of losing their popularity; "for they love the praise of men more than the praise of God." Such believers are as deficient as the others, because they are equally destitute of a pure regard to truth. This view of the subject is not only confirmed by experience and daily observation, but also by our Lord's express declaration to the Jews. "How can ye believe," says he, "which receive hon- our one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, hpw shall ye believe my words?" John v. 44-. &c. Are we to infer from this, that the Jews did not believe the writings of Moses? They surely appealed to Moses on all occa- sions, and believed in his divine mission, and his writings, with a most bigoted and dogmatical assurance. This our Saviour plainly intimates, when he says, even J\Ioses, in whom ye trust. They could not surely trust in him, if they had no faith in his writings. And yet it is added immediately, "had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." The solution is easy: the Jews believed in Moses, just as Simon the sorcerer believed in Je- sus, as "many of the chief rulers believed on him," and as thou- sands in our days believe in his religion: that is, they believed in Moses, not for the sake of the truth containetl in his writings, but for the sake of supporting their party, their popularity, and their PLAN OF SALVATION. syy fond presumptions, that God's partiality confined all the promise? to their holy nation, to the exclusion of all Gentile heretics. Had they examined the writings of Moses with candour, and with an honest tind sincere desire to know the truth, they would have be- lieved in another manner; the truth thus rightly attended to would have had its effect: it would have produced a conviction of iheir hostility to the essential doctrines of Moses: it would have enlight- ened their understanding, under the divine influence, and have given them to see and feel the importance of those matters, and of their deep interest in them: it w ould have led them to examine the prophecies relating to the Messiah, with a candid desire to enter into their meaning: hence their faith, having this proper influence upon their attections and conduct, would have led them honestly to compare the writings of Moses with the doctrine and miracles . of the Redeemer, which would have produced a sincere and hear- ty belief in his divinity. Had the Jews thus believed the writings of Moses, they would have believed in Christ: for Moses wrote of him. The apostle tells us, "The end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeign- ed." 1 Tim. i. 5. Again he says, "I call to remembrance the un- feigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also." 2 Tim. i. 5. From this the inference is clear, that there is such a thing as feigned fuith^ and that the excellency of Timothy's faith consisted in its being unfeigned. When a man's faith is regulated by a re- gard to truth, and by a candid survey of its evidence and impor- tance; when it arises from a sincere desire and honest intention to seek the truth, and to follow it without prejudice or partiality; this faith is unfeigned, and will never fail to influence the affec- tions, and regulate the conduct of its possesser. This is the faith required in the gospel. That sincerity and honesty of mind, which yields to the force of evidence, and which searches into the truth of God, with a willingness to sacrifice eve- ry prejudice for its sake, is well pleasing in the sight of God; be- cause it admits truth into the aftections as well as the understand- ing, and leads us to abandon those beloved vices which are hos- tile to all goodness, and to submit ourselves to the gracious gov- ernment of our Redeemer. That the faith which is required to justification and eternal happiness, is of this description, and im- plies the united exercise of the understanding and aftections, in srs AN ESSAY ON THE ©ur embrace of the truth, is evident from the general tenor of the scriptures. "And Philip said if thou believest with all thine hearty thou mayest. For with the lieartman believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Acts viii. 37. Rom. X. 10. We have said the term faith, or believing, is sometimes appli- ed to the object of it. This might be proved by many passages: but let it suffice to produce only a few. "By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedi- ence to the faith among all nations." Rom. i. 5. Here obedience to the faith means, obedience to the gospel, or to the doctrines of Christ, w ho is the object of our faith. *'Say not in thine heart, who shall ascend into heaven? [that is, to bring Christ down from above] or, who shall descend into the deep? [that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.] But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith which we preach." Rom. x. 8, &c. The word of faith which we preach, evidently means Christ the object of faith, who is nigh thee, and not afar off in heaven or in the deep. " He which persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed." That is, he now preacheth the doctrines of Christ crucified, which once he opposed with great rage and bigotry." — Gal. i. 23. " But after that faith is come [that is, after Christ is come with the revelation of his gospel] we are no longer under a school- master." — Gal. iii. 25. Lastly, the term is sometimes used and intended to include the whole effects of fiiith, and is not to be limited merely to the exer- cise of the mind in believing. " Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith:" that is, whether ye be in the divine favour, and have the fruits of the spirit, as the evidence of your acceptance in the beloved. " Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" 2 Cor. xiii. 5, " Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?" Jam. ii. 5. By their be- ing rich iufaithi the apostle means the true riches which our Sa- viour recommends. They are rich in " love, joy, peace, long-suf- fering, gentleness, meekness," and all the fruits of the Spirit, which are produced and continued in us by faith, as its effects; but they may be conceived distinctly, and are often distinguished from faitK PLAN OF SALVATION. a79 in the scriptures, though in these passages and a few others, the word is used in a figurative way, to include all its consequences as well as the thing itself. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen." Heb. xi. 1. The word in this passage is used in its largest sense, and in- cludes the fulness of christian experience. It is not the mere act of believing, but the whole of that love and joyful communion with God, which a christian feels, that is, the substance of things hop- ed for. Does a christian wish to know the nature of those plea- sures that are at God's right hand forevermore? His present peace and joy in believing, is the substance thereof; that is, the joys of heaven are the same in substance with his present happi- ness hi God, though far higher in degree, and have no mixture of temptation or inquietude. But is not all correct faith regulated by evidence? How then can faith itself be an evidence of things not seen? If it be proved to a man that there is a heaven of eternal happiness for the upright, and if he believe the report upon this evidence, wilJ his believiu" it bring any new evidence of the fact.^ Not if the term faith be used according to its common meaning, to signify the mere act of the mind in believing; but if it be applied to the full experience of a christian, to include his act of believing and his immediate com- munion with God, as the effect of it, this is truly an evidence of things not seen: for God having appointed faith as the condition or medium through which he manifests himself to the soul, when a man embraces the Lord Jesus as his God and Saviour, the love of God is shed abroad in his heart, which produces an immediate conviction or consciousness of the divine presence entirely un- known before. This is a new evidence or conviction of things not seen, produced by the influence of the Holy Ghost, in consequence of our believing: "for the spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God." Rom. viii. 16. This new witness^ or evidence of things not seen, is not the act of faith, but the effect of it; for it is the spirit that bears witness, and we re- ceive the spirit by the hearing of faith; (Gal. iii. 2.) therefore faith itself is not the witness, because it is faith that receives it: the receiver and the thing received are not surely the same thing, though the term faith is sometimes used in a figurative way to comprehend them both. Having noticed the several applications of this word, we now meet the long contested question, is faith the i^ift of God? Answer: 330 AN ESSAY ON THE 1. Let us apply the question to the faith of Simoif, and thoS^ chief rulers, who loved the praise of men more than the praise of God: was their faith the gift of God? If the inquiry relate to Christ, the object of their faith, (for they believed on him) this sure- ly was the gift of God, for God gave his Son, and had this gift been withheld, he could never have been an object of their faith. If we mean the j;o«pr to believe, this also was the gift of God, as are all the intellectual and physical powers of a human being. But if the meaning be, were they enabled to believe by an immediate influence of the Holy Spirit.'' I think the answer must be given in the negative. Thousands believe in Christ with an indifferent speculative faith, and they have a natural power to believe in this manner, without any immediate influence from above. 2. As to the faith required in the gospel, that is, faith unfeign- ed, which properly influences the affections and the conduct, this is the gift of God in all the senses above mentioned. The object, the power to believe, and the spiritual itijlitence through which we believe, are all the gift of God. 3. When faith is applied to the gospel, and the system of doc- trines contained therein, as it often is, every christian will ac- knowledge that this heavenly system is the gift of God. 4. When the word is applied to the etfecis of faith, or the in- dwelling power of the Holy Spirit, which becomes a new "evidence of things not seen, by bearing witness with our spirits that we are the children of God," this is certainly the gift of God. He has promised to give us the Comforter to abide with us, and his word assures us we are to receive it by faith. 5. Confining the query to that act or exercise of the mind in be- lieving, by which we are influenced to do the works of God, and by which we receive the in-dwelling Comforter, properly called gospel faith, Ave must say, either (1.) that it is an act of the hu- man mind, independent of any immediate influence from above; or (2.) that it is an act of God, producing an eft'ect upon the hu- man mind, without any voluntary act of that mind; or (3.) that it is a voluntary act of the human mind, in conjunction with, or aid- ed by, an immediate influence of the Holy Spirit. If we admit t\\e first, it will follow that man is able, of himself, and independent of any spiritual assistance from God, to believe with a faith that justitieth the ungodly, that purifieth the heart, and that overcometh the world. This coutradicts the w hole tenor of the gospel. PLAN OiP SALVATION. 381 If we admit the second, it will follow that faith is no gospel du- ty, enjoined on man, but is as exclusively the act of God, as the creation of this world. If it be a duty at all, it must be the duty of God, for it is supposed to be the sole act of God, and we are as passive in receiving it, as we were in receiving our existence To say, therefore, that it is man's duty for God to act faith, is as ridiculous as to say it is man's duty for God to create another world. If any person can, with his eyes open, and with the bible before him, admit, either that faith is not a gospel duty required of man, as a condition of salvation; or that it ever was enjoined on man, as his duty, to perform the actions of God, I feel no more disposition to reason with such a person, than I should to reason with Mr. Hume concerning the "existence of an external universe." I think there is no possible alternative but to admit the third, that gospel faith is "a voluntary act of the human mind, in conjunc- tion with, or aided by, an immediate influence of the Holy Ghost, embracing the truth of God, both with the understanding and the affections." SECTION IL Of faith as the condition of our acceptance or justification. Genuine gospel-faith embraces different truths at different times, and exists in various degrees. "Ye believe in God," says our Saviour, "believe also in me." John xiv. 1. The disciples had long before this believed in him in some sense, that is, they had believed this truth; "Jesus Christ is the Messiah sent from God;" but he was now proposing another truth concerning himself, and exhorting them to believe it, as Ave find inverse 10,11. "The words that 1 speak unto you, 1 speak not of myself: but the Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am'in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake." ■ 1. "They believed in God." 2. "That Christ was the Messiah, sent from God." 3. "That he and the Father were one.-' 4. "That he died for our sins, and rose again for our justification." 3 "That he came to be a spiritual Saviour, manifesting the love of God to 8 C 382 AN ESSAY ON THE his people, by the in-dwelling power of the Holy Ghost." The two last articles they appear not to have believed till after our Lord's resurrection, as we shall have occasion to remark presently That there are various degrees in true faith is evident from many passages of scripture; a few we will notice. "I am not asham" ed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salva- tion to every one that believeth: for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from failh to faith." Rom. i. 16, 17. Here the apos- tle informs us the gospel is intended to communicate light and truth to the human mind progressively; from faith to faith. One truth embraced opens the way for another; one act of faith pre- pares the mind for another; and thus we proceed regularly, /rom faith to faith. Paul to the Thessalonians, 1 epistle, chapter iii. verse 6, says, "Timotheus came from you unto us, and brought us good tidings of your faith and charity." And in verse 10, he speaks of "pray- ing exceedingly that we might see your faces, and might perfect that which is lacking in your faith." From this I infer that they then heartily believed according to the light they had, and yet a higher degree of faith was necessary, and the apostle had a strong desire to go and preach to them some higher truth, which they were now in a proper state to receive, that he might "perfect that which was lacking in their faith." In the next epistle, he says, "we are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, be- cause that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all towards each other aboundeth." 2 Thess. i. 3. By one degree of faith we are influenced to repent, or come un- to God: "For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb.xv.6. By such a faith in God's promise in Jesus Christ, as influences us to forsake our sins and submit to the covenant of mercy, we are brought into a state of acceptance with God. For "to him give all the prophets witness, that, through his name, whosoever be- lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins." Acts x. 43. By another degree of it we experience the new birth, or receive the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father. For "whoso- ever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God: and he that [thus] believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him- self." 1 Jolin V. 1, 10. "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." Verse 4. "Little children your sins are forgiven for his name's sake.— Young men — ye have overcome the wicked one. PLAN OF SALVATION. 883 Fathers — ye have kuown him that is from the beginning." i John ii. 12, 13. "Though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." 1 Pet. i. 8. "Purifying their hearts by faith." Acts xv. 9. "Sanctified by faith that is in me." Actsxxvi. IS. Those various efteets are produced, not all at once, or by one single act of faith, but at different times, and by the successive do- greesorstages of faith, embracing different truths, as the state of the mind is suited to receive them. To conceive this subject more distinctly, let us weigh the following particulars. 1. Faith is often mentioned, as though it were the sole condi- tion of our justification. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved; — All that believe are justified; — being justifi- ed by faith," &e. And yet repentance, confession and reformation are stated as essential conditions of our pardon. " Repent ye therefare and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out; — If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to for- give us our sins; — Let the wicked forsake his way, — and our God will abundantly pardon." In these promises of pardon faith is not mentioned; but repent- ance, confession and forsaking our evil way, are said to be the condition. How are these passages to be reconciled with those which speak of faith as the only condition? Answer: Faith is the root and ground of all these; it is by faith men are led to repent, confess their sins, and forsake them; for this very purpose they were first required to believe; and that act of the mind which so embraces the truth as to produce sincere repentance and submis- sion to God, is true gospel-faith, and may well be considered as the single or principal condition of our acceptance, because it is essen- tial to produce every thing else required. 3. That every real penitent is in possession of a degree of genu- ing gospel-faith, may be thus proved: God is pleased with every sincere penitent, because he has commanded repentance, and to say he is not pleased with it, is to say he is not pleased that we should keep his commandments. " A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Psalm li. 17. "A bruised reed shall be not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory." Matt.xii. 24. "The Lord is nigh un- to them that are of a broken heart." Psalm xxxiv. 18. "But to this man will 1 look, even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word," Isaiah Ixvi. 2. "It is thus evident from many particular passages in the scriptures, as well as from 384. AN ESSAY ON THE the general account they give us of the nature of God, that he is pleased with sincere repentance. " But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that Cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb. xi. 6. Therefore every true penitent has faith, as the stimulating prin- ciple which leads him to seek that he may find, to ask that he may receive, and to knock that it may be opened unto him. 3. He that conieih to God must believe that he is: — that he is God, powerful, wise, true, just and good. A serious attention to the evidence of this great truth, and of the sinner's want of con- formity to this divine nature, produces a conviction that he is guilty and polluted, that sin is exceeding sinful, or in other words, that he is a miserable oftender, whose crimes have great demerit, and expose him to a just sentence of condemnation. This leads to godly sorrow, to self-reproaches, and to deep regret or lamentation for having been such an offender. 4. He must believe that God is a rewarder of them that diligent- ly seek him. This faith, by all who are under the gospel dispen- sation, has the goodness of God in Jesus Christ for its object. — The serious, inquiring mind searches into the evidence of the di- vine mercy to sinners, and finds it all pointing to Jesas Christ, as the only Mediator betiveen God and man. The gospel proclaims God in Christ reconciling the ivorld unto himself. The poor mourner believes God is a merciful Being; that he accepts all tru- ly penitent sinners, for the sake of Christ's atonement; aud that he will thus accept him in the beloved, when he shall have fully surrendered to the terms of reconciliation, 5. When a man exercises such a degree of faith in these truths, as produces a genuine repentance; when he has such an abhor- renoe of sin, and such an acquiescence in God's plan of saving sin- ners, as leads him to submit to Christ as his prophet, priest and king, he is accepted in the beloved. When he fully surrenders himself, and consents to be saved according to the covenant of mercy in Jesus Christ, God is reconciled to him, because his vO' hmtiwy hostility to the divine government has ceased, which is the only thing that hinders any sinner of Adam's race from being accepted, since Jesus magnified the law and made it honourable. 6. This laith is the condition of the sinner's pardon or justifica- tion. God has pledged his truth and goodness in the Redeemer, to accept all sinners who lay down the weapons of their rebellion, and sincerely submit that Christ should rule oyer them. It is by PLAN OF SALVATION. 385 faith they are influenced to this, and that very exercise of the mind in crediting fJod's word, which leads to true repentance confession, forsaking of sin, and humble submission to Christ's authority, is the condition of the sinner's pardon or acceptance in the beloved. I am aware that it has often been represented, and it accords perfectly with the whole system of predestination, that all the sin- ner's repentance, confession, forsaking , sin, and the faith which produced them, are to go for nothing; and that some new act of faith is required, as the sole condition of his justification. That in the midst of all liis penitence and humble acknowledgments, the wrath of God is flaming against him, and will so continue till he shall receive faith; and this new faith which he receives, after his repentance, amendment, and submission, is the sole term or condition of his acceptance. That he has no ground to expect that any of his attempts to seek the Lord are any thing in God's account, because "faith is the total term of all salvation," and this faith he has not yet received: it is held at the disposal of his Maker, and whether he w ill ever give it or not, depends upon his own sovereign pleasure. The penitent must lie at the footstool of sovereign mercy: if faith should be given, all will be well; but if the Sovereign should refuse to give him faith, the poor mourning creature must depart into hell for not receiving it- The sinner is supposed to receive faith, as passively as a vessel receives water, and at the same moment he receives pardon; this faith is the condition of his pardon, and yet it is the sole act of God, as much as the act of forgiving the sinner's transgressions! Then it seems God performs one act as the condition of his per- forming another, and this act of God is required as the duty of man, being the grand and sole condition, on which his salvation or damnation turns! 1 desire to know tiow this is to be reconciled with the plain word of God, which promises pardon upon our con- fessing our sins, — upon our repenting and being converted, — and upon our forsaking our way and returning unto the Lord. 1 John i. 9. Acts iii. 19. Isa. Iv. 7. Is all this included in the faith we receive the moment we are justified.^ or is it the condition of our receiving that faith,^ The promise of pardon is given on condition of repentance, confession and forsaking sin; but faith is represented in other places as the sole condition of our acceptance; therefore there is no way to avoid . charging the scriptures with contradiction, but to maintain that the very faith which is received as a condition of forgiveness, is 386 AN ESSAY ON THE that vvliich compreliends or produces repentance, confession and amendment. To say a sinner is forgiven upon another faith, dis- tinct from that which produces repentance, &c. is to say, eitlier that he may be forgiven without repentance, or that there are other indispensable conditions of his receiving pardon, beside that of faith, and whicli are not necessarily connected with it. It remains to be proved then, that repentance, confession of sin, and forsaking it, are all included in that passive faith which we are supposed to receive at the moment of our justification, or to contradict the scriptures, which necessarily imply, that the faith which is re- ceived as the one condition of our pardon, is that which compre- hends all the othej' conditions with which the promise of pardon is connected. To say repentance can exist without faith — that it is the condi- tion on which we receive faith — and that God's act of impressing this faith upon our passive souls, is the condition of our accep- tance — is a confused notion that has arisen out of the system of predestination, and which has no countenance from the oracles of God. I grant when the term faith is used in its highest and most ex- tensive sense, as including the in-dwelling power of the Holy Spi- rit, it is properly received from God; but this blessing is received, not as the condition of our pardon, but as the consequence of it. 7. Pardon is an act of the divine will: who can forgive sins but God only."^ The act of God in pardoning or accepting a penitent sinner in Christ, and his giving the sinner a spiritual manifestation, or full assurance of his being accepted, are distinct from each other, and are not necessarily inseparable. The latter cannot exist without the former: but the former may exist without the latter. That is, a man cannot know his acceptance before he is accepted, but he may be accepted before he has a divine assurance of it. But some appear to think that a mane's consciousness or knoivledge of his acceptance, is the very faith, that is required as the condi- tion of his acceptance: that is, that he shall be accepted, on condi- tion that he first know he is accepted! That God gives us a divine assurance of his love, not as a cojise^-wej/ce of our believing, but i\\\?,assuranceof the divine favour, \?,i\\e very faith, on condition of whicli, "we are received into the divine favour!" These mysteries are truly worthy the Antinomian Babel. There is a passage in our Saviour's discourse to his disciples, most unhappily applied to prove this strange doctrine: "At that day ye shall know, that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in PLAN OF SALVATION. 3g7 you." John xir. 20. It is taken for granted without examination that this promise of assurance applies to the very day, and the very hour, when men are first accepted of God in Christ Jesus; whereas the context is a clear proof of the contrary. Will any man presume to say the disciples were following Jesus all this while and yet were "in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniqui- ty?" Were they not accepted of the Father, and did he not love them, because they had believed that Jesus came out from Ged? And yet in this chapter their kind Redeemer is supporting their minds against the sorrow they felt upon the prospect of his ap- proaching fate, by promising them a comforter m hich should come from the Father after his resurrection, and abide with them for- ever. Speaking of this event, he says, "I will not leave you com- fortless; I will come to you." Verse 18. That is, I will come in the in-dwelling power of my Holy Spirit: ("for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.") It follows, "At that day [namely, "when the comforter is come, whom the Father will send in my name"] ye shall know, that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." Ye shall have a con- scious assurance of the divine presence, that will be better than my personal presence with you. This promise was not fulfilled till after our Lord's resurrection. The day after his resurrection they still proved themselves slow of heart to believe the spirituality of his kingdom. They were di- rected to tarry at Jerusalem till they should receive power from on high; and after waiting sometime in faith and prayer, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and after this they went on tlieir way with an unwavering assurance, very different from the doubtful and un- settled state of mind they had manifested before. 8. This divine assurance is also received by faith. There is a distinction between this faith and that which brought the sinner to a state of acceptance, both as to the particular truth believed, and as to the effiect of believing. In the former case the truth be- lieved was this: "God being a rewarder of them that diligently seek him," accepts all penitents who heartily repent of their sins, and fully submit to the Redeemer, as their prophet, priest and king. He will pardon and accept me in the beloved, Mhen I shall Iiave fully surrendered to the terms of reconciliation. This faith leads to "diligent seeking, asking, humiliation, confession, stri- ving against sin, disclaiming personal merit, relying upon Christ,-' &c. In order to make a full surrender, and meet the gracious overtures of God, in his covenant of mercy through Jesus Christ 388 AN ESSAY ON THE The truth believed in the latter case is this: "God is now my reconciled Father, and graciously accepts me as his child, for the sake of the merit and atonement of my Reest crimes to them, according to our sovereign pleasure. Mean time our own partizans are to be believed in every thing they say, without scru- ple and without examination. Our cause is so pure that it is ri- PLAN OF SALVATION. 409 dieulous and insufferable for the least suspicion to be indulged concerning it, or any part of it. It must be defended at every ha- zard, and every thing in the world must be made subservient to its support and establishment. The plain English of all this is, that our party is the god we are resolved to worship: he is :a god too, that is to be supported at the expense of every moral principle: If the popularity of our cause can be supported by telling the truth, it is very well; but if not, it must be done by falsehood and deceit. If it can he supported consistently with justice and die general welfare, be it so; but if not, the common dictates of good- ness must be neglected, and the rights ofopposers must be assail- ed by tyranny and persecution. But partiality is not the only cause of bias or prepossession against the evidence of truth. Our indolence, our passions, and the pride of opinioa, often influence us to be uncandid, and to love darkness rather than light. This uncandid disposition, when long indulged, produces an habitual obstinacy that triumphs over the dictates of reason and judgment, and thus despoils God's rational creatures of that intellectual discernment, which was intended chiefly to distinguish them from the brute creation. The under- standing becomes at length so eftectually blinded by prejudice, that the miserable soul is brought into a state of slavery, and is influenced, as the prophet speaks, to "put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter; to put darkness for light, and light for darkness.'' Prejudice is a great sin, because it is directly opposite to pifty. Truth is one of the moral attributes of God: he has given us judg- ing faculties, and demands the diligent and candid exercise o( them, that truth may thereby be understood and enjoyed; there- fore he who voluntarily indulges prejudice, opposes the infiuenco of truth, and consequently is fighting against one of the moral at tributes of his Maker. Prejudice is contrary to justice: it leads us to judge others rashly, whenever they presume to advance any thing contrary to our darling opinions: and human character is as often the subject of its rash and blind decisions, as any other matter. It produces a strong desire to hinder others from enjoying the liberty of opinion, and the liberty of speech: and when circumstances admit of it, this malevolent desire will break out into actual hostility against these native rights of God's intelligent creatures, and will thus do ils uttermost to suppress the light of evidence, and fill the world witli ignorance and partiality. 4i0 AN ESSAY ON THE It is contrary to benevolence, and to the common dictates of hu- manity. It rouses up the evil passions, and causes men to become enemies to their own parents and children, if they shall presume to differ with them in opinion. Thus the father will be against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daugh- ter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-laAV. And a man's foes shall be those of his own house- hold. Thus it appears that prejudice is contrary to reason, conscience, and human happiness: it opposes the light of revelation, wages war against God, and tramples upon the rights of man: it stifles the tender feelings of humanity, sets on fire the course of nature, and terminates in vengeance, murder and persecution. And yet, alas! it has been prevalent for more than a thousand years, even among those who profess to be the genuine followers of the meek and lowly, dispassionate and candid, Saviour of man- kind. Surely it behooves us all, as candidates for a happy immor- tality, to look closely into our own hearts, and see if this enemy of all righteousness have not a secret influence upon our judgment and passions. Are we willing that every man in the w orld should enjoy the same right of private judgment which we claim for our- selves? Or are we angry at a man because he has the assurance to think for himself.? or because he will not make our party, or our favourite leaders, the standard and criterion of all his conclusions.? If so, we may flatter ourselves with being high in religious attain- ments; but that God who requireth truth in the inward parts, and consequently a candid love of truth, will not be deceived by our pretensions, or approbate us, while we harbour in our bosom one «f the most pernicious principles of moral evil. SECTION V. Of the right exercise of the affections. The proper regulation of the affections is the next great duty of christians. "Set your aftection on things above, not on things on the earth." Col. iii. 2. PLAN OF SALVATION. 4li This supposes the affections to be, in some degree, under (he con- trol of our will; for if we had no power over them, we might as well be commanded to direct the course of the clouds, as to direct the course of our affections. It is true, the spirit of the living God quickens and invigorates our affections, and by his reviving in- fluence draws them to heavenly things; but this gracious operation is intended, not to destroy our power or agency, but to enlarge it: "for it is God that worketh in you; — therefore work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." This loving spirit "reproves the world of sin," and convinces them of the necessity of righteousness, by impressing on them the solemnities of a "judgment to come." He rouses our dull minds from their criminal supineness, and points us to things above. He unveils the thunders of Mount Sinai to the guilty soul, and ex- cites him to realize the horrors of that hell, for which he is pre- paring himself. To the mourner he kindly whispers peace, and gently draws him to the bosom of his father and his God, who is abundantly propitiated, and cordiallyreconciled to the humble peni- tent, through the intercession of his beloved Son. This spirit is light and joy to the believer, and speaks with an internal voice so com- forting and encouraging, that the conscious felicity thence arising, is known only to him who becomes the happy subject of it, and cannot be adequately expressed in human language. But in all these operations our voluntary concurrence is demand- ed, and we cannot set our affection on things above without that vigorous exertion which is well knoMU to every christian, and which constitutes the chief part of his devotion and "piety to God." There is a deep propensity in our nature to "mind earthly things;" and if a man would be earthly, sensual and devilish, he has nothing to do but to yield himself a passive slave to the "lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, and the pride of this life," which will regularly carry him down the current of iniquity into the pit of destruction. Those on the contrary who would set their affection on things above, must become active creatures. They must not passively yield to the influence of animal motives, but resist them. The flesh lusteth and draweth us down to earth; but the spirit draws against it, presents reasonable and spiritual motives to the •understanding, and calls us up to heaven. If we m ould follow the spirit, we must exert ourselves, because God made us for an ac- tive life, and calls our faculties into exercise; but to follow the flesh demands no vigorous activity: it is but to yield to the sensual 413 AiN ESSAY ON THE excitement, and we soon become proficients in iniquity. Laziness as naturally tends to moral corruption, as matter gravitates to the centre; and it is as vain for a man to expect he will get to heaven without active diligence, as it is for the husbandman to expect to remove the weeds out of his corn-tield by a few fruitless wishes, while he lies prostrate on the earth, oppressed with the most piti- ful and passive indolence. But let us consider the objects of the good man's affection more particularly. 1. God is the chief object of his esteem, love, hope, joy and con- fidence. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul," Wherefore does the christian love God.'' "We love him because he first loved us." That is, we love him because of his essential goodness, which has not only given us life, but all things richly to enjoy, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. 2. He who hates moral excellence cannot love God, and he who loves a God of such perfection, loves him because he is thus per- fect. This love naturally leads him to take pleasure in seeing the divine beneficence diffused abroad, the more extensively the bet- ter. It leads him to delight in the exercise of benevolence himself, and to encourage and promote it among his fellow-creatures. 3. He loves God because of his justice, and consequently, he is far from wishing his Maker were less strict, or less pure than he is. His law only demands the security of universal right, and therefore the good man can never consent that it should be altered. The God whom he loves sends incorrigible sinners to perdition, only M'hen it becomes indispensably necessary to secure the gene- ral welfare; therefore he can never consent for God to become less severe against offenders than he is, without departing that moment from a love of justice. This love influences him to hold sacred the universal rights of men, and to take pleasure in doing unto all men as he would they should do unto him. It influences him to render unto all their due, and to set his face as a flint against the mean conduct of sinners, who, setting justice at defi- ance, violate the rights of their Maker by impiety and idolatry; the rights of men, by lying and fraud; and the rights of women and children by the dark and infernal arts of seduction. 4. He loves God because he is true: consequently he is diligent hi the pursuit of truth, siiiccre in the communication of it, and candid in all his juilgments. His language and external deport- ment always correspond with the meaning of his heart; he abhors PLAN OF SxVLVATION. 413 all lying and dissimulation, and is "an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile." 4. If he loves God hecause of his being possessed of such per- fections, then he loves all good men, for the same reason. Wher- ever hesees benevolence, justiceand truth prevail in any creature, he loves that creature for his adherence to these principles. As God is infinitely perfect, he loves him with supreme attection, and loves with a subordinate affection, every creature in propor- tion as it resembles God. Consequently, "with him a vile person is contemned; but he honours them that fear the Lord." His soul is delighted with the company of good men, and he says with the blessed Redeemer, "whosoever doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mo- ther." Of course he takes pleasure in frequenting the assemblies of the righteous, and his glad heart cries out with ecstacy, "how amiable are thy tabernacles, O Lord God of hosts! One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in his temple." Psalm xxvii. 4. 5. When it is said religion consists in love, it is to be careful- ly observed, that this love is to influence all the facuUies of our nature. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." Mark xii. 30. Perhaps no better comment can be given upon this passage, than the comment given by Dr. AVatts. "God must be loved with all the mind, that is, he must stand highest in the esteem of the judg- ment. He must be loved with all the soul, that is, with the strong- est attachment of the will to him: He must be loved with all the heart, that is, with the warmest and sincerest affection: And he must be loved with all the strength, that is, this love must be man- ifested by the utmost exercise and activity of all the inferior pow- ers." Discourses on the love of God, page 10, H. When this love has a perfect and uniform influence over the human mind, it leads to an undeviating conformity to moral rec- titude in the exercise of all our intellectual faculties, aflections, and bodily members. This is christian perfection. Gracious Redeemer! when sliall this pure and heavenly virtue prevail among mankind.^ Alas! Millions are so far from following after it, that it is an object of their greatest contempt and detestation. They pur- sue it with witticism, ridicule, slander, passion and revenge. They 3G 414 AN ESSAY ON THE despise goodness aud do their uttermost to make all their acquain- tances ashamed of it; and were they not restrained by the civil law, they would gratify their enmity against God, by putting good men to death, by the most excruciating tortures that malicious in- genuity can devise. History proves this melancholy truth; and human nature remains the same it was in the days of Nero or bishop Bonner. But while we lament and mourn for the general wickedness of mankind, let us not forget to bewail our own folly, and to confess the innumerable sins of religion people. Were we all of one heart and of one soul, possessing «the meekness and gentleness of Christ," we should be terrible as an army with banners: but are there not many evils prevailing among christians, and even among the min- isters of Jesus Christ.^* How much ignorance prevails among us, through a voluntary neglect of the means of knowledge? How much self-indulgence, formality, and devotion to earthly things? How much prejudice, rash judging, fiery zeal, and party bigotry? "Are not many of us "desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another?" Have we not sometimes a stronger desire for popularity, than for the glory of God aud the salvation of mankind? Alas, my brethren, I fear we are not able to an-wer these questions in the negative. "The mystery of iniquity doth already -work;" corruption is working its way into the heartof our church- es, and a little of "the old leaven of malice and wickedness," un- less it be speedily removed away from us, will ultimately "leaven the whole lump." We shall never be a wise, a holy, and a happy people, till we heartily agree in these four general rules of conduct. First, to lay aside all indolence, prejudice and bigotry, and unite our efforts to improve and enlarge our knowledge of truth, by a diligent and candid exercise of all our intellectual faculties. Secondly, to sacrifice all sensual gratifications that are inconsis- tent with pure and undefiled religion, give up all confidence in mere formality or speculation, and set our affection on things above. Thirdly, to lay aside all ridiculous and blind devotion to names, parties, ceremonies, and the thirst of applause, and maintain a perpetual and sacred regard to the glory of God, the general good of his crealures, and oar own eternal salvation. Fourthly, to lay aside the fear of man, the love of custom, the dread of singularity, and regulate all our externar conduct, not according to the fashion, the general opinion, or the deeisions PLAN OF SALVATION. 415 of the great &nd {he honourable; but according to the pure and immutable dictates of truth, justice and benevolence, as we may find them stated in the oracles\f God, and confirmed by the intui- tive convictions of an enlightened conscience. While we foolishly set one part of christian righteousness against another, we are weakening each other's hands, and wounding the sacred cause of the Redeemer under pretence of supporting it. He that devotes his whole attention to the intellectual powers, to the neglect of his affections, is sure to fall into a dry specula- tive formality, or stoicism; a kind of external morality that has no soul. And he that attends entirely to the affections, to the ne- glect of the understanding, is sure to fall into a fiery, supersti- tious enthusiasm, something like the frenzy of Moses' disciples when "they cast dust into the air;" or like those of the heathen goddess, "who tor about the space of two hours, cried great is Diana of theEphesians." The harmony of the understanding and the affections, is essen- tial to the perfect enjoyment and practice of genuine Christianity. The enlargement of knowledge furnishes motives to influence the will and affections; expands our views of the glory of God shining in the face of Jesus Christ, and enables us to give an answer to every one that asketh us for a reason of the hope that is in us.— ■ The lively exercise of the affections invigorates the operations of the understanding, puts life into all our acts of devotion, and leads to a most cordial and happy union with God. Pious affec- tions may well be considered as the wings of the soul, by which we rise above the influence of sublunary things, and lay up our treasure in heaven. The understanding may w ith equal proprie- ty be considered as eyes to the soul, which are necessary to point the course of the affections, and direct them in their flight. Thisharmony of our intellectual and active powers is necessary to regulate our conduct, and to regulate our zeal. If they be not united in their operations our conduct will be partial and incom- plete, and our zeal will either be deficient in energy, or wild and fiery in its course. Zeal is commonly considered as a proof of piety, and indeed there can be no better evidence of it, while that zeal rises from candor and humble love; but a zeal arising from superstition and prejudice is so far from being a proof of piety that •it is a very evident proof of the want of it. "A zeal for God" that "is not according to knowledge," is productive of very danger- ous etFects; hew much more when the zeal is not for God, but for some favorite party, opioion or ceremony? It is the very thing that 416 AN ESSAY ON THE, &c. has led to the most bloody persecutions that ever disgraced the christian or the heathen world; and we have cause to be very jeal- ous of the first motions of a zeal that works by anger, is nourish- ed by ignorance, and is founded on an implicit devotion to a party- But that soul whose zeal is regulated by an enlightened under- standing; nourished by a calm, dispassionate love of truth; and founded upon a firm adherence to the moral attributes of God, is a plant of our heavenly Father's right hand planting, and shall be useful and happy here, and inherit eternal life hereafter. Being delivered from the dark shades of ignorance, the contracting infliu- ence of partiality, and the tyrannical ascendency of appetite or worldly grandeur, the mind is free to think, and judge, and exercise its pious affections without obstruction, in which consists "the glorious liberty of the children of God." Free from the pitiful shackles of bigotry, such a soul enjoys a most pleasant and revi- ving range through all the wonders of Redeeming love. The attri'- butes, and works, and providence, and grace of God, afford abun- dant matter for his pious meditations: His active mind travels through the beauties of creation, and adores that beneficent hand which sends us ra-n from heaven, and tills our hearts with food and gladness. He turns to the pages of revelation, explores the opening beauties of the moral law, surveys the wonderful goodness of God manifested in the flesh; then rises on the wings of contemplation, with ecstacy of thought, to those salubrious re- gions of ineffable tranquillity, "where momentary ages are no more." His soul adheres to God, as to the centre of all its desires. He finds no pleasure in existence equal to that of doing good. He looks over the face of the earth, with conscious friendship for every living creature. He mourns over the ignorance and wicked- ness of men, and melts into sympathetic tears, for the miseries of Adam's children. His enlarged and generous mind embraces the different nations of the earth with affection, and with conscious sincerity, beseeches heaven to bless all his brethren of the human race. May that great and good Being who holds the destinies of creation in his right hand, inspire us with these sentiments and affections! May his benign influences subdue the savage disposi- tions of our nature, and inspire the heart of man, with brotherly love to man! May his truth shine and enlighten the nations, his spirit reform them, and his goodness save them from the bitter pains of the second death! "to God only wise, be glory througli Jesus Christ forever," Amen. FINIS. CONTENTS. Page INTRODUCTION, . . . . . v CHAPTER I. iSPON THE METHOD ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATOR, THROUGH WHICH MANKIND ARE TO DISTINGUISH TRUTH FROM FALSE- HOOD. Sect. I. A general view of truth and evidence, - - 11 Sect. II. Concerning the several sonrces of our knowledge, and first, of those principles which are self-evident, - 16 Sect. III. Two objections answered, - - - 27 Sect. IV. Of the evidence of reason, - - - 40 Sect. V. Of the evidence of revelation, - - 54 Sect. VI. The connexion between those three sources of evidence, and their dependence upon each other, - 66 Sect. VII. Of analogy and presumption, - - 90 Sect. VIII. Four defective rules of judgment examined, - 101 Sect. IX. The necessity and safety of a diligent pursuit of truth, ------ 113 Sect. X. The tjecessity and safety of a diligent communica- tion of truth, - - - - - - 120 Sect. XI. Whether certain errors ought to be believed for the sin, - - - - isy CHAPTER II. UPON THE NATURE AND GROUNDS OF REDEMPTION. Sect. I. A view of the Divine Attributes, - - - 133 Sect. II. Sin dishonours God, and destroys the happiness of his creatures; therefore his displeasure against it must be manifested, ----- 147 Sect. III. The attributes of God were glorified in the redemp- tion of the world, by our Lord Jesus Christ, - - 153 CONTENTS. Sect. IV. An examination of two opposite prejudices, founded upon mystery, ... - - lei Sect. V. The doctrine of redemption stated in the words of several respectable authors, - - - - 171 Sect. VI. The testimony of eminent Calvinislic Divines, 178 CHAPTER III. THE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF REASON AND REVELATION, IN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINE STATED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER. Sect. I. A brief view of the nature of forgiveness, - 186 Sect. H. The nature of justice and benevolence considered, in their relation to each other, _ . - 194 Sect. III. An objection answered, - - . 200 Sect. IV. The fitness, importance and necessity of redemp- tion, -..--. 503 Sect. V. The same subject, - _ _' - 311 Sect. VI. The same subject, - - . - sis Sect. VII- The same subject, - - - - 232 Sect. VIII. The two systems of redemption, tested by the na- tive consequences which flow from them, - 339 Sect. IX. Our system harmonizes the doctrines and clears up many diSicult passages of revelation, - - 248 Sect. X. The plain scripture testimony, concerning redemp- tion, reconciled with the metaphors which represent it as a purchase, ... - - 259 CHAPTER IV. AN EXAMINATION OF SOME GENERAL OBJECTIONS CONNECTED WITH OTHER DOCTRINES OF RELIGION. Sect. I. Of the full display of eternal justice, - - 267 Sect. II. The supposed necessity of sin to make redemption necessary, ..... 275 Sect. III. The supposed violation of truth, - - 279 Sect. IV. Moral principles in the Deity are not different from those which are to govern his creatures, - - 283 Sect. V. The infinity of Christ's atonement considered, - 290 Sect. VI. A statement of the doctrineof original sin, in reply to the charge, that our system denies it, - - 294 CONTENTS. Sect. VII. A view of the principal arguments by which infant guilt is defended, - - - - _ 30^ Sect. VIII. Infants are not guilty on account of their natural passions, or propensities to evil, - - . 819 Sect. IX. Of man's natural inability to do good, - - 337 Sect. 'X. A consequence of the doctrine established in the foregoing sections, that death is necessary in the case of infants, but is not a penalty, - . . 334, Sect. XI. Second consequence, - - . » 350 Sect. XII. Of the Divine Sovereignty, - - . 359 Sect. XIII. The same subject, - - - - 365 CHAPTER V. ©F THE MEANS OR CONDITIONS THROUGH WHICH WE RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF CHRIST's ATONEMENT. Sect. I. A general view of faith, - - . 373 Sect. II. Of faith as the condition of our acceptance or justifi- cation, - - - - - - S81 Sect. III. Whether faith depends upon the will, - 393 Sect. IV. Of the right exercise of the understanding, - 403 Sect. V. Of the right exercise of the aft'ections, - - 410 ERRATA. Page 68, line 16, after the word that read it. Page 77, line 17, for reasonable read reasoning. Page 80, Vine "iO, for represent re-Ad represents. Page 81, line '60, for conclusion read conclusions. Page 83, line 18, omit the word that. Page 95, line 27, for the word was read were. Page 99, line 17, for has read have. Page 100, line 38, for then read than. Page 157, line 37, omit the word and. Page 24:3, line 15, for christian read christian's. Page 246, line 8, for Zyon read Zion. Page 254, line 30, for where read were. Page 299. line 38, for not read nor. Page 383, line 31, for genuing read genuine. N. B. Many particular or emphatieal sentences, which were intended to be put in italicks, have been (by mistake) enclosed in eommas as quotations. i 'ft ff