Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

ftrous fyftem of doctrine like to spread among the churches, which tends fo much to put men out of conceit with themselves, especially when efpoufed by men who have" feathers in their caps," which must doubtless add great weight to their opinions? Mr. H. is so affected with this horrid fyftem, that to the above quotation he adds, "It is greatly to be wifhed that

all-teachers of religion-would learn of Jefus "Chrift to give an honouring reprefentation of the "Father's more than paternal kindness and love to man, "and breathe Jefu's compaffionate tenderness to poor, "perishing finners in their doctrine."-A very good with! But why is it pointed at me? Why, because I reprefent man as an enemy to God, as having turned devil, i..e. to be like him in his temper and conduct toward God. But if this is contrary to the compaffion of Jefus, the oppofite doctrine doubtlefs muft breathe it. According to that we must tell men that they can't hate God unless he is "painted in false and odious colours" That fin and enmity to God is * unnatural" to them, and what they are averse to.. This would indeed be a "compaffionate" doctrine, were our title to the divine favour to arife in proportion to self-conceit, pride and self-tufficiency, or a perfwafion of our own goodness. But did Jefus breathe his compassion to finners in fuch language as this ?Did he not rather tell them, Ye will not come to me that ye might have life? Does he not say that the tares are the children of the wicked one, i. e. the devil? Does not his beloved disciple John call all unholy perfons the children of the devil 2* And while Jefus fet their ruined ftate before finners, did he not breathe his compassion in telling them, that he was come to feek and fave juft fuch helpless loft creatures? that men who teach others, would not lull finners afleep with a conceit of their own goodness, and so lead them to despise

[blocks in formation]

fuch

7

the compaffion which Jefus breathed, only to fuch as come to him without any recommending qualification!

Thus I have given a general, and I believe, a just account of Mr. H's notion of enmity toGod, which may be thus fummed up: Although "there is, beyond doubt, fuch a thing as a fpirit of enmity against God working in the carnal heart"-" which must be mortified, and a better temper introduced into the heart :"* Yea, altho' there is a prevailing contrariety to God and his law in the hearts of men, fo far as lufts of fin rule in them Yet when they fin, they act contrary to themfelves as well as to God; and fo far as they have light in their understandings, they disapprove their own conduct, and approve the law as just and good; and blame and condemn themselves in acting contrary to it, which demonftrates that this enmity is an unnatural paffion, and does not belong to them, but, like a ty, rant, does violence to the native moral frame of the heart, which is fuch that God cannot be the object of hatred to them, nor to any moral being confidered fimply in himself, or for his own fake: Yea can't but be approved, or loved by the mind of man, and by all moral beings: For it univerfally holds true in fact that men who hate God, always mifrepresent him to their minds, and paint him in falfe and odious cɔlours as contemptible and morally evil. So that it is not the true, but a false God, a morally evil or finful being that they, always, univerfally, hate, and that because he appears to them wicked, and as acting con, trary to the moral law which they naturally approve; and therefore it is impoffible for them to hate the true God, because he is infinitely amiable, which amiablenefs or beauty they can't but difcern, when his character is properly fet before them, fince a faculty to difcern this is effential to the conftitution of all moral agents as fuch. § And therefore all that is neceffary

* D. p. 47.
D. p. 64.

N

+ D. p. 57, 58.

§ D. p. 52, 57

to

I D. p. 54, 57.

to cure this enmity is, to correct these unhappy mifapprehenfions, and give the mind a juft view of the true character of God."* Thus, by Mr. H's own account, there is no " need that the spirit of enmity fhould be mortified, and a better and holy temper introduced into the heart," because the temper is already holy and needs nothing to remove its enmity to God but juft, fpeculative notions of his character. This is Mr. H's notion of enmity to God, in a fhort view. And tho' in this account of enmity he most evidently contradicts himself, (as is clear to every obferver) and fois fubverted being condemned of himself; † yet the fcale in which he puts the doctrine of enmity to God,evidently (to use his own words) "kicks the beam", being entirely out-weighed by the oppofite doctrine. If Mr. H. will farely reconcile the above quotations, and make them confiftent, he will as richly deferve "a feather in his cap" as many who have had that honour.

Now let the reader judge whether this notion of enmity is confiftent with fcripture, or with itself.However let us attend more particularly to his account of this matter.

He fays, "God confidered fimply in himself cannot be hated," yet "relatively confidered he poffibly may." Here I observe that Mr. H. puts the change on his readers by the words "relatively confidered." Juft as tho' to confider God as related to us, as our creator, lord and governor, were different from confidering him as be is in himself. Is not God, in himself, our fovereign creator and governor ? i. e. Does it not effentially belong to him to create and govern his creatures? And is it not effential to the divine nature, to" oppose our particular lufts and private interefts,' which are contrary to his glorious nature? Is not God effentially, as he is in himself, neceffarily oppofite to every fin, and is not this a moral glory and beauty in his character ?—If it is,then to confider him 66 as

[blocks in formation]

as oppofing fome particular Jufts of ours,or fome of "our private interefts," is to confider him as he is in himself. Does not Mr. H. then make a diftinction where there is no difference? Would not that fon talk very wildly and abfurdly, who should tell us, that his father's character,confidered in itself," is truly amiable and lovely; but yet confidered relatively as a father, he could not but hate him, because he would not suffer him to take his fwing in difobedience to him, and frowned on and punifhed him for it? Surely common fense would teach any one, the abfurdity of this.

Again he calls this enmity "an interested, partial affection." But can any thing be more evident than that private affection, and partial regard to our "private interests," is enmity to God, not only in its effects, or actions, which proceed from it; but is itself, in its own nature, detached from its confequences, an inftance of great oppofition to God, and acts the part of an enemy to him.* Enmity then is not the lefs wicked and hateful, because it is interested and partial; for its wickedness lies in its being fo. I can conceive of no wicked enmity, but fuch as is interested. Such was the enmity of Cain to Abel of Efau to Jacob: of Saul to David: And for this reafon it was very wicked; and because selfishness is innate, therefore this enmity is fo too. Mr. H. calls it interested, in a pretended oppofition to me, as though I thought it uninterested. But I intimate no fuch thing: Yet I don't see what he gains, or I lose by this epithet, fince its hatefulness wholly lies in its being fo as it fets up itself in the place of God. A difinterested enmity, is a virtuous enmity. David declares he had this, and mentions it as an evidence of his fincerity. Do I not bate them that hate thee? I hate them with a perfect batred, I count them for my enemies + He hated them, not because they oppofed his own private interefts, which

* Edw. on mor. virt. n. 121.

+ Pfal. cxxxix, 21, 22.

which would not have been an interested wicked enmity, but because they hated and opposed God.

[ocr errors]

Mr. H. thinks he has fully proved that the worft of men love the truth confidered in itself, because the pharifees condemned the conduct of the hufbandmen who flew their Lord's fervants and fon,* till they faw their own face in the glass" which made them "cry out, God forbid! and fought to lay hold on him" to flay him. On this he fays, "One fuch witness is "of more weight than ten thousand positive affer"tions of fpeculative men in contradiction thereto."+ I readily agree with Mr. H. that affertions prove nothing; yet thofe "of fpeculative men" i. e. men who carefully study and search for the truth, prove as much at least, as those of men who content themselves with an implicit faith, and chufe to go on easily in the old beaten path, without the pains of feeing for themselves, or fo much as reading thofe authors against whom they write. But let us fee what his witness proves. Why, it very plainly proves, (1.) That the worst of men have a confcience capable of perceiving the truth. (2.) That when they fee themselves concerned in it, they love or hate it, according as it agrees or difagrees with what is in their view, their own intereft, and will treat it accordingly. (3.) Therefore that mere selfishnefs will lead the worft of men to love or hate the fame truth as it appears to favour or oppose them.— Self-love naturally prompts the worst men to condemn the cruelty defcribed in the parable, because they fuddenly, and often infenfibly put themselves in the place of the injured, and then judge how they should feel toward the injurer. Thus did the pharifees, and fo difcovered the hatred they had of fuch treatment toward themselves, which was fo far from being a hatred of "this moral badness of their own character" that it was nothing but felt-love expreffed in their natural and wicked refentment of an injury. I fay wicked refentment,

Mat. 21, 40.

+ D. p. 63, 64.

‡ Ibid.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »