Pelagian views of the divine government and human

nature.

Thus he maintains, that the glory of God is his highest end in the creation and government of all things; and that in reference to this end, he has specifically ordained evil, as well as good. Observe his words:

"When he first designed to create the world, as it was easy for him to have determined, that neither angels nor men should ever sin, and that misery should never have been heard of in all his dominions, so he could easily have prevented both sin and misery. Why did he not? Surely, not for want of goodness in his nature; but because, in his infinite wisdom, he did not think it best on the whole. It was not because he had not sufficient power to preserve angels and men all holy and happy; for it is certain he had: it was not because preventing grace would have been inconsistent with their being free agents; for it would not," (let the reader mark this;) "it was not because he did not thoroughly consider and weigh the thing with all its consequences; for it is certain he did. But, upon the whole, all things considered, he judged it best to permit the angels to sin, and men to fall; and so let misery into his dominions. There is no doubt but that, all things considered, he thought it best to permit things to come to pass just as they did; and if he thought it best, it was best; for his understanding is infinite. But why was it best? What was his grand end in creating and governing the world? Why, look; what end is he at last like to obtain, and what will be the final result? Why, in all, he will exert and display every one of his perfections to the life, and so, by all, will exhibit a most perfect and exact image of himself. This is the greatest and best thing he can aim at in all his works; and this, therefore ought to be his last end. Now, it is evident, that the fall of the angels and of man, together with all those things which have and will come to pass in consequence thereof, will serve to give a much more lively representation of God, than could possibly have been exhibited, had there never been any sin or misery."-P. 89, 90.

"God has, in fact, permitted sin to enter into the world; does, in fact, permit many to die in their sins; will, in fact, punish them forever; and all consistent with the infinite goodness of his nature. And since it is consistent with his

goodness to do as he does, it was consistent with his goodness to determine with himself beforehand to do so. What God, from eternity, decreed to do, that God, in time, will do; therefore, if all God's conduct be holy, just and good, so also are all his decrees; unless we suppose it to be wrong for the infinitely wise God, from all eternity, to determine upon a conduct in all respects right; than which nothing can be more absurd."-P. 91.

All the author's works accord with the views expressed in these extracts, of the motive, extent, and particularity of the divine decrees.

His statement of the much vilified and hated doctrine of election, is such as every consistent Calvinist must approve.. I give the following quotations:

"God is, through Christ, ready to be reconciled to all who will repent. He sends the news of pardon and peace around a guilty world, and invites every one to come. But inasmuch as mankind will not hearken, but are obstinately set in their way, therefore he takes state upon himself, and says, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. Some he may suffer to take their own way, if he pleases; and others he may subdue and recover to himself, by his own all conquering grace. And to a certain number, from eternity he intended to show this special mercy; and these are said to be given to Christ. And with a special eye to these sheep, did he lay down his life; his Father intending, and he intending, that they, in spite of all opposition, should be brought to eternal life at last; and hence the elect do always obtain. With a view to these, it was promised in the covenant of redemption, that Christ should see of the travail of his soul."-P. 390 and 391.

"He has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and compassion on whom he will have compassion; and many times takes the meanest and vilest, that the sovereignty of his grace might be the more illustrious, and the pride of all flesh be brought low, and the Lord alone be exalted. And surely such a conduct infinitely becomes the Supreme Governour of the whole world."-P. 239. See also p. 240.

With nearly all Calvinistic writers, Dr. Bellamy maintains, (in opposition to Arminians and Pelagians, who, in direct contradiction of the divine testimony, declare created holiness to be impossible,) that Adam was created with a holy nature, or disposition to obedience; and also, that we

have become sinners, in consequence of our relation to him, as our federal head.

"Adam was created in the image of God. It was connatural to him to love God with all his heart; and this would have been our case, had he not rebelled against God; but now we are born devoid of the divine image, have no heart for God, are transgressors from the womb; by nature, children of wrath."-P. 221. The doctrine of our relation to Adam as our public head, is also clearly taught in pages 300 and 301, and in various other places.

Besides the words just quoted, Dr. Bellamy teaches the doctrine of native depravity, or birth-sin, in many passages of a most unequivocal import.

"We are in fact born like the wild asses' colt, as senseless of God, and as void and destitute of grace. We have nature, but no grace. And so we have a heart to love ourselves, but no heart to love God; and may be moved to zeal by selfish views, but cannot be influenced by the infinite moral beauty of the divine nature."-P. 200.

"We may learn that we were born into the world, not only destitute of a conformity to the law, but that we are naturally diametrically opposed to it in the temper of our hearts."-P. 201.

"It is plainly the very native bent of their hearts, to love themselves above all."-P. 202.

"Our native disposition to love ourselves supremely, live to ourselves ultimately, &c. is directly contrary to God's holy law."-P. 211.

It is maintained in the Quarterly Christian Spectator,* that Dr. Bellamy's views of native depravity, are the same with those, which, within the last few years, have been vindicated in that publication. The question may seem to be of little consequence in itself; and yet, the authority of such a name as his, (and this the Reviewer appears well to understand,) cannot fail to have its influence with the admirers of New-England theology. Do not the passages already cited manifestly teach that mankind are sinful from their birth? Could words have made Dr. Bellamy's meaning plainer? And is it to be supposed, that, in these repeated instances, this fearless and perspicuous writer has used language without meaning, or with a jesuitical mental reservation? He

*September No. for 1830; p. 407, 408, 409.

To

was an honest man, if ever man deserved that name. what purpose, then, is the affirmation of the Reviewer, that "Dr. Bellamy does not, and how could he, decide precisely when sinful exercises commence ?" Be it so; yet he does decide that our moral depravity is as early, at least, as our birth; a doctrine manifestly contrary to that of those who leave this point unsettled, or who say it is of no importance, and attempt to vindicate the propriety of infant baptism, and prayers for the regeneration of infants, on the principle, that if they live long enough, they will commit sin. Is this Dr. Bellamy's view of the matter? As far from it, as the east is from the west. And on what is the opinion predicated, that he is doubtful whether infants, at their birth, have any moral character? On a passage in which he affirms that sin is voluntary, or implies voluntariness, and denies that it belongs to the essence of our souls, like the essential attributes of our physical and moral nature. The Reviewer, by shifting the question, turns the attention of his readers from the main point at issue, which is our native moral corruption, by virtue of our connexion with Adam. But let us hear Dr. Bellamy:

"These are the earliest dispositions,"-meaning, as the foregoing sentences prove, loving ourselves supremely, delighting in that which is not God, &c.,-"that are discovered in our nature; and although I do not think that they are concreated by God together with the essence of our souls, yet they seem to be the very first propensities of the new-made soul. So that they are, in a sense, connatural, our whole hearts are perfectly and entirely bent this way, from their very first motion. These propensities, perhaps, in some sense, may be said to be contracted, in opposition to their being strictly and philosophically natural, because they are not created by God with the essence of the soul, but result from its native choice, or rather, more strictly, are themselves its native choice." Here Dr. Bellamy affirms, that strictly, moral depravity is not the effect of a wrong choice, as the advocates of the self-determining power of the will suppose, but that it is in the wrong choice itself, and that this is native. But what is the meaning of the word native? The following are the principal definitions of the term, in its adjective form; produced by nature, not artificial, natural, such as is according to nature, not affected, VOL. II. 9

conferred by birth, pertaining to the time or place of birth, original.

To return to Dr. Bellamy. "But most certainly these propensities are not contracted in the sense that many vicious habits are, merely by long use and custom. In opposition to such vicious habits, they may be called connatural. Little children do very early bad things, and contract bad dispositions; but these propensities are evidently antecedent to every bad thing infused or instilled by evil examples, or gotten by practice, or occasioned by temptation." The beginning of depravity in children, then, according to Dr. Bellamy, is not "occasioned by temptation," operating upon their "innocent constitutional susceptibilities," but has its seat in their souls-themselves, anterior to the agency of temptation upon them. By "choice," then, it seems but justice to admit, he must have intended, in common with President Edwards, the state or exercise of the moral affections, as well as specific acts of the will, considered as distinct from these affections. "And hence," he goes on to tell us, "it is become customary to call them natural, and to say that it is our very nature to be so inclined; and to say that these propensities are natural, would to common people be the most apt way of expressing the thing." Would it be "the most apt way," provided it were doubtful whether children began to be sinful, till some time after their birth? "But it ought to be remembered, that they are not natural in the same sense as the faculties of our souls are; for they are not the workmanship of God, but our native choice, and the voluntary, free, spontaneous bent of our hearts. And to keep up this distinction, I frequently choose the word native, instead of natural." pp. 201, 202.

This is the passage, from which the Reviewer is led to say, "we see not how any language could express the fact more fully and clearly, that sin commences and wholly consists in voluntary exercises and acts;" and, "Dr. Bellamy does not, and how could he, decide precisely when sinful exercises commence, though according to him, it cannot be till after the soul is formed;" and "there is a space, then, in the order of nature, between the creation of the soul and the commencement of depravity." What does all this Independently of the views which Dr. Bellamy elsewhere expresses, (and we ought not, without good evidence, to believe that he directly contradicts himself,) this