DUKE
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
Treasure "Room
STRICTURES
ON TH E
REMARKS
o i
kSAMUEL LANGDON,
O N T H a
LEADING SENTIMENTS
IN T H £
kEv. Dr. H O P K. I N S'
SYSTEM of DOCTRINES:
I N A
POSTSCRIPT of a LETTER to a Friend. by^EBENEZER BRADFORD, a.m.
Earneftly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints. — Juqe. PRINTED at BOSTON,
bt I. T H O M A S and E. T. ANDREWS,
Taust's Statvi, No. 45, Newbury Street. 1794,
r~r
STRICTURES, &c.
POSTSCRIPT.
S I R,
IN Dr. Langdon's introduction to his remarks on the leading fentimcnts of Dr. Hopkins' Syftem of Doctrines, he feems to offer it as an apology for his undertaking this great work, that he " knew in general, what Dr. Hopkins' fentiments were, by reading formerly feveral of his fermons," though, at the fame time, he acknowledges, that " it was more pleafmg and fatis- factory to view them collected into a fyftem." In imitation of this great and good man, I beg leave to apologize, for my un- dertaking to make a few ftrictures upon his remarks. I have in very deed, a number of years fince, heard feveral fermons from Dr. Langdon's own mouth, and iikewife attentively read fome of his publications, together with the remarks, the laft public fruit of his genius and piety. But, after all, whether I have reafon to fay I know his fentiments, is a matter I would wave, till we have gotten to the other end of this poftfeript.
Dr. Langdon, in order to attack ins brother doctor with more fhow of erudition, as well as fuccefs, firil raifes to our view a kind of Metaphyfical Demon, with whom Ariftotle, the an- cient Schoolmen, the Papifts, and the compilers of fyftems of divinity among Proteflants, with a few exceptions, have dealt very familiarly ; yea, he intimates, that thofe who are far gone in the art of Metaphyfics, " can, by a fkilful management of doubtful words and phrafes, prove almoft any tiling, however falfe." Among this hoft of metaphyfical jugglers, he fixes his eye en Dr. Hopkins, as one of the forcmoft in modern times ; and folemnly aihrms, that " he certainly reafons on feveral doc- trinal articles in a metaphyfical way." Yet he bitterly complains that " we are blinded with a duft of arguments," by this greas, Metaphyficisu>.
Facta
4 STRICTURES, &cr
Facts being thus, who would not tremble at the thought of looking into the Syftem, left his eyes mould be put out by a duft of arguments •, and his underftanding quite confounded, by the flcilful management of doubtful words and phrafes, proving black to be white, and white to be black. Wepaufe; we reflect ; the danger vanifhes ! for after all, to ufe our Author's own words, " who knows but there has been much ado, about nothing."—— Courage, then, let us attend to his firft remark on Dr. Hopkjns' Syftem.
" The firft thing, faith our author, which may be noticed, i$ his artful manner of fumming up the whole character of the great God, in love." P. 8. Only to fay, God is love, and light- ly to pafs over every other character, is to leave men in the dark, &c. page 9.
Reply 1. Is it not fomewhat extraordinary, that fo venerable, fo great, and fo good a man as our Author, mould reprefent Dr. Hopkins as fumming up the whole of the character of the great God, in love ; when he muft have known, if he had carefully read and attentively examined that part of the Syftem, in which the Doctor treats of the being and perfections of the Deity, that the Doctor had clearly diftinguifhed the natural and moral at- tributes of God, from each other ; and confidered each clafs of perfections, as characteriftical of the great Jehovah. This be- ing the cafe, what right had our Author to fay, that Dr. Hop- kins had, in an artful manner, fummed up the whole character of the great God, in love ?
2. It is admitted, that in the view of Dr. Hopkins, love is the fum of the moral character of the blefled God : But how does this prove, that in his view, love is the fum of his whole cha- racter ? Has not the Doctor defcribed the Deity, as poflefling natural perfections, as well as moral, and both as characteriftical of himfelf ?
3. If our Author had faid, that Dr. Hopkins had fummed up the whole moral character of God, in love, he would have done him juftice j for this fentiment is found not only in the Syftem, but in the Bible. What is there in the moral character of God, which does not evidently imply love ? we can conceive of no- thing,
STRICTURES, &c. j
thing, and the Bible mentions nothing ; we mud therefore con- clude, that the fum of the moral character of God, is love. — " God is love ; and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him,' faith St. John. The moral law is a tranfcript of the moral character of God ; now to be what the law requires, is to be like God -, but the fum of what the law requires is love to God, and love to men, Chrift being judge ; therefore, the moral cha- after of God, may be fummed up in holy love.
4. Is it not ihocking to find our Author reprefenting Doctor Hopkins, as only faying, God is love, and then lightly pajfuig over every other character : when he muft have known, that the Doctor had taken up more than twenty pages of the Syflem, in delineat- ing the various moral perfections of the Deity, every one of which imply love ? Can fuch a mifreprefentation of any Author, p-fs before the public eye, without exciting wonder, to fay nothing more ? How u fuch a fummary of the divine character, as Dr. Hopkins chufes to hold up in view, is much more likely to en- courage the opinion, that all men, and all intellectual beings, will be finally happy ; than to perfuade men now to difinterefted benevolence," muft remain a fecret, till our Author has explain- ed himfelf more fully.
The next thing in the Syflem ngainft which our Author ob- jects, " is the manner in which Dr. Hopkins writes, concerning the decrees of God." " Here he feems, faith our Author, to give full fcope to his logic," by which we are doubtlefs to un- derfland, that he faw, or fancied he faw all the powers of the Doctor's metaphyfical Demon on the ftretch ; and diftinctly ob- ferved him, by a fkilful management of doubtful words and phrafes, proving many things true, which were abfoluteiy falfe.
Becaufe Dr. Hopkins, in writing upon the decrees of Gocl, made a diflinction between God's fore-knowledge of all things, and his decree which alone rendered their exiftence certain •, cur Author feems quite out of patience with him, and fays, that Dr. Hopkins " is not fatisfied with the general doctrine, that/>, who is the Creator and Lord of all, the Eternal and Immortal King, muft clearly know all his works from eternity, all beings, all events, all caufes and effects, the whole order of the univer-
fal
6 STRICTURES,- &&
fal fyftem from firfl to laft, every thing wife, right, and necef- fary, in all its parts, even the mod minute, for a confident or- derly whole ; and that he faw every thing with approbation, and accordingly brought the univerfe into exiftence ; but mult need* pry into the myftery a little further, &c. P. 10, II.
This general doctrine, as our Author term6 it, may be com- prised in the following propofitions :
i. The blefled God from eternity, had a clear and unerring View of the belt polfible fyftem of creatures and events.
2. By his approbation or decree, he fixed the future exiftence ©f thofe creatures and events only, which were contained in this fyftem.
3. The exiftence of all creatures and events, is the effect of the divine agency, as their efficient caufe. Our Author fays> *'God faw every thing with apptobat'wn, and accordingly brought the univerfe into exiftence." He moreover telis us? that " there is no difference in God's decrees, whether they have refpect to our natural motions, and common affairs in life, or to our e,er- lafting concerns." All things, then, are equally decreed. He likewife, fays, " we know, that the moft high God direEls and governs all things, that he exerts a continual energy through all nature, without which the fyftem could not continue." Thus it feems, that the exiftence and continuation of the fyftem, are both the effects of the divine agency.
This agrees with the affembly of divines at Weftminfter, who fay, " the decrees of God are his eternal purpofe, according *o the counfel of his own will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath fore ordained whatfoever comes to pafs '" and to the Bible, which fays, God worketh all things after the counfel of his own will.
Now, to illuftrate thefe great and important truths, which all Calviniftic divines have held, and which our Author himfelf muft hold, if he would be confident with what has been quoted from his book, and anfwer fome objections againft them, was the defign of Dr. Hopkins in what he has written on the Decrees of God.
But our Author confiders the Doctor as meeting with fome difficulty, in the profecution of this fcheme of fentirncnts, in
reconciling
STRICTURES, &c. 7
reconciling divine and human agency. He fays, "here feems to be a Gordian knot, and therefore the Doctor endeavours to cut it at one ftroke, and he is at no further trouble than to give us in 2 very few words, a definition of liberty, which he imagines will make all clear, viz. that liberty confifts in voluntary exer- CiL, or in chufing and willing."
Here our Author faw the Doctor's metaphyfical Demon, {bowing his cloven foot, and could not forbear crying out, " thus he gives us a fpecimen of his metaphyfics," and appears greatly puzzled, to determine, precifely, the meaning of this definition, or whether it has any meaning at all. Muft he not have had the old idea in his mind, that a metaphyfician, " can, by a fkilful management of doubtful words and phrafes, prove almoft any thing, however falfe r" Inflead, therefore of examining the defi- nition, as he had propofed, he feems to admit it, and apologizes for the Doctor, that he had been led into this way of thinking of liberty, by the very abftrufe reafoning of Prefident Edwards, on the freedom of the will.
Query, Would our Author have had any difficulty in under- Handing Dr. Hopkins, provided he had given the Arminian de- finition of liberty ? viz. that it confifts in a felf determining pow- er of the will ; or, that all our exercifes and actions are felf- originated, independent of any influence ab extra. This idea of the fubject did not correfpond with the Doctor's way of think- ing •, nor with Prefident Edwards' 5 nor indeed with any con- fident Calvinifl's ; therefore, he adopted the oppofite and only rational fcheme of human agency and freedom, viz. divine agen- cy is the efficient caufe of human agency, in all that we do ; and human liberty confifts in voluntary exercife, or chufing and wil- ling. If, in every action of the creature, divine agency is the efficient caufe, and creature agency the effect, where is the diffi- culty in reconciling the divine and human agency with each other ? If the creature under the divine agency acts voluntarily, in chufing and willing, why is he not free ? And why does not liberty confift in voluntary exercife, or in chufing and willing ?
I would afk our Author, whether, there be not a difference, between creatures originating their own exercifes and actions,
and
y
« STRICTURES, &c.
and tncir coming irito exlftence, as the effects of fome influence* without them ? Our Author, fpeaking of motives fet before the mind, in the view of which we aft, and which we approve, or difapprove, chufe, or refufe, fays, " thus we are made to be ftruck with objects, and cannot avoid it." If the power of ob- jects fet before the mind, is irrefiftible, and the effeft unavoidable, why does not this deftroy human liberty, as effectually, as the divine agency, which Dr. Hopkins fuppofes to be the efficient caufe of all our exercifes ?
It feemsalmofl impoflible that a gentleman of our Author's ad* vantages to understand theology, not to fay ontology, fhould be fo ignorant of the divine influence upon moral agents, as to reafon and talk as if there were no fuch thing ; this he certainly does, with refpeft to moral evil ; and might with equal propriety do the fame with refpeft to moral good.
In p. 13. he fays, "if the volitions of men are made abfolutely inevitable, both by the divine decree, and an immediate efficacious agency of God on the will, it is as much impoflible, that a mart mould will otherwife than he does, as it is to counteract the de- crees of God, or refill the Almighty power, which impels him." Therefore, he concludes, " that though fin is a voluntary exer- cife of the finner, or confifts in willing and chufing evil, yet his choice is fo unavoidably under the direction and control of a fuperior agent, that it cannot properly be faid to be his own \ but the choice of that being who afts upon him and by him."
According to this reprefentation, no man can properly be faid to aft, if what he does be decreed : and if what he does be un- der the influence of God (or even motives, the effeft of which, is unavoidable) we are fo made, that we cannot counteract the decrees of God, nor refift the Almighty power which impels us. And our Author fays, " thus we are made to be ftruck with ob- jects and cannot avoid it ;" fo that in every cafe, in which . a man does any thing decreed, or under the influence of God, (or even motives, the effeft of which is unavoidable) the aft is not the creature's, but the fuperior agent's, who afts upon him, and by him. For a moment we will admit this reafoning as juft, and attend to our Author, whom we will fuppofe preaching upon the
following
STRICTURES, &c. 9
following words ; " Work out your own falvation with fear and trembling ; for it is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleafure."
Muft he not fay, according to the texty that the divine agen- cy, agreeably to the divine purpofe, is implied in God's work- ing in his people both to will and to do, thofe things, which are connected with their falvation ?— And muft he not, according to the text, likewife fay, that we act as moral agents, freely and voluntarily, under the 'divine influence, when we both will, and do, thofe things which God works in us, both to will and to do ? — And muft he not, according to his own fentiments, fay, that all that willing and doing connected with our falvation, which is the effect of the divine influence, is fo unavoidably under the direction and control of a fuperior agent, that they cannot properly be faid to be our own, but the willing and doing of him who acts upon us and by us<
What a clafhing is here between the fentiments of the Bible and our Author ! The plain truth concerning this matter is, that creature agency is the effect of Divine agency : That the crea- ture in all his internal and external actions, which God worketh in him both to will and to do, is as free and voluntary, as he pof- fibly could be, were he under no fuch influence from without himfelf : Or were he to originate all his own exercifes and ac- tions.— For virtue and vice, confill not in the caufe of our exercifes and actions ; but in the exercifes and actions them- felves. Hence moral agents are blamed and punifhed for noth- ing, but what they do which is wrong ; and praifed and reward- ed for nothing, but what they do which is right ; for every man ffiall be judged according to the deeds done in the body, whether they be good or evil.
Therefore if it can be proved, by any Jki/ful management of doubtful words and phrafes ,or in any other way, that God being the efficient caufe of our exercifes and actions, which are denom- inated evil, makes thofe exercifes and actions his own ; and leaves us, as innocent machines, as our Author intimates ; it can in the fame way, and with equal eafe be proved, that God's be- ing the efficient caufe of our exercifes and actions, which are £ denominated
u> STRICTURES, &c.
denominated holy, makes thofe exercifes and actions his own; and leaves us as destitute of any juft praife, as machines.
Thus you fee, according to our Author's fentiments, there can be neither moral good or evil, virtue or vice, in creatures, unlefs their exercifes and actions are felforiginated independent of any influence from God. Upon this principle I would afk our Author, What propriety is there in prayer ? — Why fhould we go to God and fay, lead us not into temptation ? Why fhould we plead with him for the enlightening, fanctifying, comfort- ing, and fealing influences of the Holy Ghoft ? Upon his prin- ciples, prayer for thefe things, can mean nothing more than a vain and empty compliment ; — afking for an influence which we do not need, and which God never did, and never wilt grant to creatures.
" Let common fenfe now judge, whether it cannot with propriety be affirmed that a man who is conftantly directed and determined in his volitions, by another agent (as all faints are, in thofe things which they will and do connected with their fal- vation ; even by the Holy Ghoft) have not perfect freedom of choice and action as rational creatures ?"
The next thing in the Syftem, with which our Author finds fault, is the doctrine of particular election to falvation. He fays " What Dr. Hopkins writes upon the Doctrine of election, is evidently connected with his reafonings upon the divine decrees, and therefore the objections againft the one, equally affect the other ; and by his blending the idea of election, as it is frequent- ly mentioned in the New Teftament, with predeftination or the eternal decrees of God, determining the future falvation of a number of individuals of the human race, exclufively of the reft, he has involved the doctrine in all the perplexity of fcholaftic dif- putations." p. 14, 15.
He moreover fays, that the Apoftles are "quite filent as to the election of individuals to eternal falvation by the abfolute decrees of God." p. 16.
And afks, " Why fhould chriftians be fo often led into the la- byrinth of the divine decrees, with refpedt to the moral and fu- ture
STRICTURES, &c. n
ture ftate of mankind, when it is impofiible for finite minds to comprehend the counfels of an infinite being." p. i<5.
And to fhew the abfurdity of this conduct, he condefcendingly obferves, that, "there is no difference in God's decrees, whether they have refpeet to our natural motions, and our common af- fairs in life, or to our everlafting concerns."
He moreover affirms, that, " it could not be of the leaft benefit to men, who are called daily to take care of themfelves and their families, to tell them that God has abfolutely determined what they mall do, where they fhall go, and what they mall have." p. 16, 17.
Reply, 1. When our Author fays, what Dr. Hopkins has writ- ten upon the doctrine of election, is evidently connected with his reafonings upon the divine decrees, he does him juflice, and ought to be credited for the fame. For thefe are two doctrines, as plainly revealed, and as mutually implying each other, as any two doctrines in the facred volume : And it may be farther ob- ferved, they are the ground, yea, the only rational ground, upon which we can build our hope for falvation. Did we know by revelation, that God had never decreed any event, that he had never chofen any individual to falvation, what ground fhould we have to conclude that any individual of the human race would ever be faved ?
But, blefTed be God, we are not left in a ftate of fuch uncer- tainty and darknefs ; for we are allured, that God worketh all things after the counfel of his own will : And that all who fhall be faved were given to Chrifl in the covenant of redemption, and chofen in him before the foundations of the world were laid.
2. As our Author faw Dr. Hopkins availing himfelf of all the powers of his metaphyfical affiftant, in writing upon the decrees of God, fo he confiders him in writing upon the doctrine of election : For he fays, that Dr. Hopkins " has involved the doc- trine in all the perplexity of fcholaftic deputations." A duft of arguments now rifes from the mutual exertions of Dr. Hopkins and his powerful Demon, and a torrent of doubtful words and phrafes pour in, upon our Author} and what is the confe- rence i
j£ STRICTURES, &c,
.quence ? Why " the doctrine of election is involved in all the perplexity of fcholaftic difputatipns." And our venerable Auth- or's eyes feem to be blinded, by the fmoke, fmother, and duft, of metaphyfics. Otherwife, how can we account for his adoptr ing, the old, and long fince exploded Arminian notion of the New Teftament doctrine of election, as part of his creed, viz. that it does not mean, that God according to his purpofe, has chofen a particular number of the human race, to the exclufion of the reft, to falvation. But a decifion of the great and mighty dik pute between Jews and Gentiles concerning external privileges, &c. If this in fact: were not the cafe with our Author, how coulfl he affirm fo roundly as he does, that the Apoftles "are quite filent as to the election of individuals to eternal falvation, by the abfolute decrees of God ?" Was it not owing to blind- nefs that he could not fee the following declarations in the Apoftles' writings ?
" BlefTed be the God and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, who hath blefled us with all fpiritual bleffings in heavenly plac-» cs in Chrift : According as he hath chofen us in him before the foundation of the nvorldy that we fhould be holy, and without blame before him in love, having predejlinated us unto the a- doption of children, by Jefus Chrift to himfelf, according to the good pleafure of his will." Eph. i. 3, 4, 5. " But we are bound to give thanks always to God, for you brethren, beloved of the Lord, becaufe God hath from the beginning, chofen you to falvation, through fanctification of the fpirit and belief of the truth." II. Theff. ii. 13.
Again, " We know that all things work together for good, to them that love God, to them, who are the called, according to his purpofe. For whom he did foreknow (that is whom he chofe to falvation) he alfo did predeftinate to be conformed to the image of his fon. Moreover whom he did predeftinate, them he alfo called, and whom he called, them he alfo juftified, and whom he juftified, them he alfo glorified: Who fhall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect ? It is God that juftifieth." See Rom. viii. 28, 29,30, and 33.
Again^
STRICTURES, &c. 13
Again, "God hath not caft away his people which -he foreknew, even fo then at this prefent time alfo, there is a remnant accord- ing to the eletlion cf grace. What then ? Ifrael hath not obtain- ed that which he feeketh for, but the eletlion hath obtained it, and the reft were blinded." Rom. xi. 2, 5, 7. For the children not being yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpofe of God according to e/cclion, might ftand, not of works, but of him who calleth. For he faith, to Mofes, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compaffian on whom I will have companion. Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth," Rom. ix. 11, 15, 18. So in II. Tim. i. 9. it is written, "Who hath faved us, and called us, with an holy calling, not according to our works; but according to his own purpofe of grace, which was given to us in Chrift Jefus, before the world began :" So in Adls, " As many as were ordained unto eternal life believed."
After our Author has attentively reflected upon thefe texts, and many more of the fame tenor, let him read Toplady againft Wefley, the Apoftle to the Methodifts, and fee if he can lay his hand upon his breaft and folemnly appeal to the fearcher of hearts, that he verily thinks, the Apoftles " are quite fdent as to the election of individuals to eternal falvation by the abfolute decrees of God." If he cannot do this, let him frankly confefs, that he has abufed the writings of the holy Apoftles.
3. Our Author afks, " Why mould chriftians be led into the labyrinth of the divine decrees, with refpect to the moral and future ftate of mankind when it is impoffible for finite minds to comprehend the counfels of an infinite being ?"
This queftion is evidently defigned to fault thofe, who preach the doclrine of the divine decree, as extending to every event, and the doclrine of particular election. And we will anfwerit, 1. By propofing another queftion : Why did Chrift and his Apoftles fet us fuch an example ?
1. Why hath Chrift and his Apoftles led us to contemplate the being and perfections of the great Jehovah, when it is fo exceedingly evident, that it is impofliblc for finite minds to com- prehend the attributes of an, infinite being \ for, " Canft thou
by
14 S T R I C T U R E S, &p.
"by fearching find out God ? Canft thou find out the Almighfy unto perfection ? It is high as heaven, what canft thou know ? Deeper than hell, what canft thou do ? The rqeafure thereof is longer than the earth and broader than the fea." When our Author can fee the reafon of the one, it is probable he willeafily perceive the reafon of the other; though the decrees of God, cannot be comprehended by finite minds, yet they are proper fub- je£ls of revelation, and objects of faith: And though the being and perfections of God can never be comprehended by finite minds, yet they are proper fubje&s of revelation, and objects of contemplation) faith i and love.
Therefore, though we cannot comprehend the divine coun- fels, and though we cannot comprehend the divine attributes, yet both may be an inexhauftible fource of entertainment to our minds, and comfort to our hearts. This no doubt makes a part of heaven ; and if fo, then heaven, in a fenfe, is begun here, with all thofe, who have cordial views of the decrees and attributes of the blefled God. Therefore let not our Author, any more ftrive to fnatch this boon, from the breaft of the heirs of glory.
4. Our Author confeffes, that, " there is no difference in God's decrees, whether they have refpect to our natural motions and common affairs in life or to our everlafting concerns." This is a pretty full confeflion, for one who had written fo much againft chriftians being fo often led into the labyrinth of the divine de- crees, and would lead us to hope, he had recovered from that blindnefs occafioned by the duft of metaphyseal arguments ; for it is certain, that the blefled God did, by an eternal and un- alterable decree, fix all natural and moral events, that ever have been, or will take place, within his extenfive dominions. This is all Dr. Hopkins pleads for in what he has written upon tht doctrines of the divine decrees, and particular election.
5. But after all, our Author affirms, that " it could not be of the leaft benefit to men, who are called daily to take care of them- felves and families, to tell them that God has abfolutely deter- mined, what they (hall do, where they fhall go, and what they {hall have." Preaching the decrees of God, then, can be of no benefit to us as they refpect our natural motions and common
affairs
STRICTURES, &c. 15
affairs in life ; nor as they refpedt our everlafting concerns, for we are called daily to attend to both : And if it be of no fervice to preach up the decrees of God, of what fervice, to men, is the revelation of the decrees ? What a reproach is it, upon God, to give us a book for our inflruction, a part of which, can be of no fervice to men ? And what a reproach to the infpired Apoftles and their fucceflbrs, the miniflers of the gofpel, to be fo frequent- ly dinging the ears of their hearers, with this doctrine, to ufe our Author's mode of expreflion ? Upon the whole, we will leave it to our Author himfelf, to reconcile this bold and daring re- flection upon the Deity, with regard to his decrees, to that hum- ble and meek fpirit, which ought to reign in the hearts of thofe who undertake to expound the fcriptures to their fellow men.
Again our Author fays, p. 19, "It may be neceflary to add a few more remarks on what the Doctor fays of the liberty of moral agents, as wholly confiding in voluntary exercife, or chuf- Ing, becaufe on this bafis, the whole fabric of his peculiar fyflem principally depends." And in the fame page, he charges the Doctor, " Thus he very carefully diftinguifhes the will, from the intellectual faculty, and reprefents it as chufing or willing with- out any regard to light in the mind, or rather without any dif- tinct views, of one thing or another." So his philofophy as to the nature of man, feems to be this j that the will is mofl prop- erly the foul itfelf, and not merely a particular power, and that it is not under the direction and government of the underftand- ing in its volitions : But acts from an innate, total, invincible, depraved, inclination, without being in the leaft influenced, by any objects prefented to the mind, p. 19, and 20. And fays, " What a ftrange idea is this of the foul of man, as a rational and moral agent ? And afks, Can the Doctor mean any thing by the choice, which fuch a kind of foul makes, when it has no object of choice in view ? If it knows nothing, if it fees nothing, what can be meant by its willing this thing or that ?" He fays, "if we receive the Doctor's theory of free agency, me muft conceive of the human foul as a ftrange felf willed being, acting with- out knowledge or judgment, under an irrefiflible bias to evil, without feeing any difference betwixt evil and good." And to
clofc
t6 STRICTURES, &c.
clofe the whole, in p. 23, fays, " the learned queftions, which have been managed with the utmoft nicety of difcuflion, about the liberty of the ivill, and its virtuoufnefs or vicioufnefs, when confidered feparately from the prefent perceptions of the mind, are quite impertinent and ufelefs, if not entirely abfurd."
Reply 1. This train of pompous and heavy accufations brought againft the Doctor, by our Author, would appear much more for- midable and alarming, had he quoted one word from the Syftem, for their fupport •, but in as much as he has not done this, we pre- fume he could not do it ; and therefore feel juftified in conclud- ing that the whole is a man of Jlraw, of his own making ; and (hall not grudge him the honour of demolifhing this mighty giant, with his own hands.
2. Dr. Hopkins has faid, that human liberty confifls in vol- untary exercifes, or willing and chufing ; and has uniformly held, that thofe exercifes, which are morally good or holy, have for their ultimate objects God, and all intelligent creatures ca- pable of happinefs, together with the greateft good of the gen- eral fyftem ; that all exercifes which are finful, have felf, or a partial private intereft, which is inconfiftent with the general good of the fyftem, for their ultimate object. Hence he con- fiders holinefs, as confifting in difinterefted benevolence ; and fin, in nothing but felfifhnefs.
Does not this reprefentation correfpond with the moral law, which, according to the interpretation of Chrift, holds up God, and our fellow creatures, including ourfelves, as the objects of that love, which is the fulfilling of the whole law ? " Thou fhalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy foul, and with all thy mind ; this is the fir ft and great commandment. And the fecond is like unto it, thou (halt love thy neighbour as thyfelf : On thefe two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
The primary object: of this love, is God ; the fecondary object: is man ; the ultimate end of the foul, in this love, muft be the glory of God, and the welfare of man. All required in the law, ■and all required in the prophets, which muft include the efTence
of
STRICTURES, &c. r7
of the gofpel, is done, when our love correfponds with die de- mands of the moral law.
Now the ultimate object of thofe exercifes, which arc a devi- ation from the law of God, muft be fomething directly oppofite to the glory of God, and the general good of mankind : And what can this be, but a partial, private interejit which alone in its nature, is inconfiftent with the glory of God and the gen- eral good ? To feek fuch an intereft is to violate every com- mandment in the law. Therefore Chrift fays, " Deny thyfelf and follow me ;" that is, give up all your partial, private inter- efts which are inconfiftent with the glory of God and the great- eft good of his creatures, and imitate me, who feek not my own,' but the honour of him that fent me. For charity, or fuch love as is required in the law, feeketh not her own, but another's welfare.
We now pafs to take notice of what our Author fays of Dr. Hopkins' notion of human depravity.
In p. 1 9, our Author fays, " In the w///, he, (that is, Dr. Hopkins) places the total depravity of human nature." And in p. 21, acknowledges that the Doctor ufes the words, heart and ivillfZS fynonymous terms. But in p. 23, he fays, "Paul and the other Apoftles, appear to have had a different view of the fource of moral depravity, and never fay a word of the cor- ruption of the will." And in p. 24, he fays, " there is no need of any kind of new creation of the will." By this repre- sentation, our Author thinks he has proved, that the depravity of human nature lies not in the will. His own words are, C( If the depravation of human nature is not to be attributed to the will, as has been already fhowed, then what he (that is, Dr. Hopkins) fay6 on this head comes to nothing." See p. 25.
Reply 1. It is cheerfully acknowledged that Dr. Hopkin?, places the total depravity of human nature in the will, or heart. His own words are, "As the moral diforder and depravity of man lies wholly in his heart, the cure and renovation muft begin and end there -, and when the heart is perfectly right, the man will be wholly recovered to holinefs." See Syftcm, vol. I. part II. chap. '-'■' ?• 534- From this deviation of Dr. Hopkins, as well as *C irons.
it STRICTURES, &c.
from many others found in the Syftem, it is exceedingly evident, that he fuppofed human depravity lies wholly in that which is moral ; and pray what is there found in man, which is moral, if thofe exercifes of the foul, termed chufing and refufing, loving and hating obje&s prefented to the mind are not ? And if this be true, it fhould feem, that will, hearty and affeElhn, fignify the fame thing. Therefore, when all our voluntary exercifes are a devia- tion from the law of God, wc muft be confidered as totally de- praved.
2. Dr. Hopkins evidently confiders, the abfence of ideas, or darknefs in the underftanding, as having nothing moral in it,
3. Therefore, though he readily admits the abfence of ideas, or darknefs of the underftanding, in adult perfons, to be the un- happy confequeuce of our depravity, and though he acknowledges the mifimprovement of our natural powers and faculties to be fin, yet he will not allow that human depravity lies in the leaft de- gree, in any real or imaginary deftruction of thefe powers and fac- ulties ; and his reafon is, becaufe human depravity is a moral, and not a natural, diforder.
4. But our Author fays, "Paul and the other Apoftles appear to have had a different view of the fource of moral depravity, ajicl never fay a word of the corruption of the will" It is well he did not rank holy David, and God the Father and the Son, with Paul and the other Apoftles, as faying not a word of the corrupipn of the will.
God the Father fays, Why will ye die,0 houfe of Ifrael ? Sure- ly here is a reprefentation of a corrupted will, if words can repre- sent any fuch thing.
Chrift fays unto the rebellious Jews, which is applicable to all men in the ftate of nature, "Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life." Theftubborn and perverted wills of thofe rebels,a- lone, ftood in the way of their falvation. For when Chrift faid, " Whofoever will, let him take of the waters of life freely ; they refufed, and perifhed."
David fays, " Thy people fir all be willing in the day of thy power •," plainly intimating, that nothing fhort of Omnipotent power, can effectually correct, and heal the diforders of the wilk
5. But
STRICTURES, &c. i9
<;. But let us examine, whether it be true, "That Paul and the other Apoftles, never fay a word of the corruption of the will."
Paul faith, II. Tim. iv.' 3, " For the time will come, when they will not endure found doctrine." Have not thofe corrupted wills, who, of choice, oppofe and fight againfl found doctrine ? Who, after their own lulls, heap to themfelves teachers having itching ears. Now as James and Jambres (thofe ancient wi2ards) with- ftood Mofes, fo do thefe alfo refill the truth. And can they re- fill the truth without any emotion, or exercife of their hearts or wills ? If not, then their wills are corrupted".
The Apoflle James, chap. iv. 4, fays, " Ye adulterers and adulterefies, know ye not, that the friendfhip of the world is enmity with God ? Whofoever therefore, will be a friend of the world, is the enemy of God." Have not thofe corrupted wills, who of choice are friends to the world, when this choice coff- flitutes them the enemies of the living God ?
The Apoftle Peter, in his firll Epiflle, iv. 3, fays, " For the time paft of our life, may fnfhce, to have wrought the will of the Gentiles." Now the will of the Gentiles was corrupted, *as was the will of thofe, to whom the Apoflle wrote, otherwife there would be no propriety in his exhortation. Again, in II. Peter, ii. 10 ; the Apoflle, fpeaking of the urfjufl, who are re*- ferved unto the day of judgment to be puniflied, fays, "Pre- fumptuous are they, felf willed, they are not affraid to fpeak evil of dignities." Is not voluntary felfijlmefs, or felfwillednefs, a corruption of the will ? But we need no more quotations from die Apoflles, to prove, beyond all controverfy, that our Author has unhappily charged Paul and the other Apoflleir foolifhly, in affirming,. they "never fay a word of the corrup- tion of the will."
Ct Let us now attend to what he acknowledges they do fay concerning the depravity of human nature. His own words are, " They moft familiarly ufe the phrafes of being in thefejli ; walk- ing in theflej}} / fulfilling the defires and lulls of the flefh •, hav- ing a carnal mind •, minding earthly things ; having the under- flanding darkened, and being alienated from the life of God, through ignoi:aace and bUndnefs." Inftead of this lafl claufo,
« through
20 STRICTURES, k,
"through ignorance and blindnefs," our Author fhould have ufed the Apoitle's own words, which are, "through the ignorance that is in them, becaufe of the blindnefs of their heart."
But what does the Apoftle mean, by being in the flefh ; walk- ing in the rlefh ? &c. Surely he did not mean that the fource of moral depravity confided, in the foul's being united to, and dwell- ing in, a body compofed of flefh and bones ; for there is nothing of a moral nature in thefe things. The Apoftle's language then muft be figurative, fignifying the totally corrupted ftate of the will, heart or affections of man. For he fays, Rom. vii. 5. " When we were in the flefh, the motions of fin, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." So then, they that are in the flefh cannot pleafe God.
Becaufe the undue gratification of our fenfual appetites affords us fome tranfient pleafure, we, contrary to the command of God, chufe to indulge them. The fource of this abominable conduct confifts in our choice to do that which God has ftri&ly forbid- den ; that which is injurious to ourfelves and our fellow crea- tures : and, if fo, then the ivill or heart, out of which all man- ner of abominations do proceed, muft be totally corrupted. Therefore when the Apoftles and Saints were in fuch a fitua- tion, they were, in the language of revelation, in the JJc/Ij. They walked in the flefh, fulfilling the defires and lufts of the jlejl} ; and while in this ftate, they could not pleafe God : For the motions of fin, which were by the law, did work in their members to bring forth fruit unto death.
It may not be amifs to obferve here, that notwithftanding our Author finds fault with Dr. Hopkins, as reprefenting the Hvlll " not under the direction and government of the under- ftanding, in its volitions •," yet, in his own defcription of hu- man depravity, he fays, " Reafon is dethroned, and the flefh has aflumed the government of the foul." If reafon is dethroned, the underftanding no longer directs and governs. And if we underftand fiefi in the fenfe in which the Apoftle ufes the word, then, voluntary enmity againft God, has affiimed the government of the foul, and reigns triumphant there. And, to life our Author's words; the foul, "muft remain enilaved, un- til
STRICTURES, &c 21
til it is furnifhed with thofe heavenly truths which the gofpel reveals." And he might have added alio, until the w»7/, heart or affeETionS) be changed by that mighty power, which was dis- played in the refurrection of Chrift from the dead.
Having a carnal mind, and minding earthly things, feem to be the fame with our Author. Now, it is exceedingly evident, there can be nothing evil, in the fimple contemplation of earth- ly things : For Saints and Angels do this, in every inftance in which they reflect upon the works of God in this lower world. What then is there, in the carnal mind, which argues human depravity ? We anfwer, the loving the creature more than the Creator, or placing our happinefs in the purfuit of a partial, private intereft, inftead of the glory of God and the good of mankind. This is fomething contrary to the moral law, and confequently morally evil, and implies an exercife of the will, heart or affections, which cafts infinite contempt upon die majesty of all worlds.
7. We will now examine our Author's idea of human de- pravity, as confifting not at all in the corruption of the iui//, but in the darknefs of the understanding. That this in fact is hi§ fentiment, is obvious from his quoting thofe words of the Apoftle, in Epk. iv. 18, "having the understanding darkened, and being alienated from the life of God," through their igno- rance and blindnefs ; and leaving out that part of the text, which is explanatory of the whole, viz. " through the ignorance that is in them, becaufe of the blindnefs of their hearts :" And like- wife from his declaration in pages 24, 25, that, "there is no need of any kind of new creation of the will : For new and glorious objects, v/ill have their energy immediately : And this wonderful alteration made in the mind, and the effects, which appear in the whole temper and manner of life, are very prop- erly called by the Apoftles, the new man"
Mult it not appear exceedingly evident, to any perfon, who will carefully examine the above text ; that the darknefs of the understanding there mentioned, has nothing moral in it ? That it is the effect of that alienation from the life of God, which is ihrough the ignofance or blindnefs there is in the heart ? Ali- enation
42 STRICTURES, &c,
cnation from the life of God, and blindncfs of heart, are moral ideas : But darknefs in the underftanding is not •, although the Jatter is the confequence of the former.
i. If human depravity confifts in the darknefs of the under- ftanding and not in the corruption of the will or heart, then men and Angels are not active in their becoming depraved creatures j for it is impoflible to conceive of any exercife of the foul or body ui the mere want of ideas in the intellect, or darknefs of the un- derftanding.
2. If the depravity of human nature confifts in the darknefs of die underftanding, and not in the corruption of the will ; then men are not to blame for their depravity ; for it confifts in Some- thing they have never done, and consequently, is Something, for which they never will be brought into judgment ; for men are to be judged according to the deeds done in the body, whether they be good or evil.
3. If the depravity of human nature confifts in the darknefs of the underftanding, and not in the corruption of the will or heart, then men are not totally depraved j For where Shall we find a mart who has not one idea ?
4. If human depravity confifts, in the darknefs of the under- ftanding, and not in the corruption of the will or heart, then it is not a moral, but a natural diforder.
5. If human depravity confifts in the darknefs of the under- ftanding, and not in the corruption of the will or heart, then the Arminians are right, who hold that regeneration is wroughf by light ; and not by the fpirit of God.
6. If human depravity confifts in the darknefs of the underftand- ing, and not in the corruption of the will or heart, then men are re- generated in proportion as they increafe in fpeculative know- ledge : Which I take to be our Author's idea of regeneration ; being the next thing to which we will attend.
Whereas our Author has pofitively denied that human depravity confifts in the corruption of the will, and whereas he hath made no mention of the will, heart or affections, in his defcription of it, we are conft rained to conclude, that he places human depravity vi the darknefs of the underftanding. If fo, nothing more is ne-
ceffary
STRICTURES, See. 23
ceffary, for its removal, than light in the underftanding : And this perfectly agrees with what he has written upon this fubject. He fays, when " they, (that is) the heavenly truths, which the gofpel reveals, fix our attention, and by all the methods, which God takes to communicate them, are clearly feen and known, the darknefs is pad, and the light of truth mines." And what is the effect ? Why " the foul is no longer under bondage to the flefh ; for new and glorious objects will have their proper energy im-> mediately, and this wonderful alteration made in the mind, (that is in the underftanding) and the effects (that is, the effects of this change of the underftanding) which appear in the whole temper and manner of life, are very properly called by the Apoftle, the new man."
It is true he acknowledges an agency of God, " which intro- duces into the mind the glorious objects of faith, fo that it is brought under the powerful influence of things unfeen and eternal," p. 26. * And it is as true, that he infifts upon it, that " there is no need of any kind of new creation of the will" — for according to him, this is not corrupted at all.
By laying thefe obfervations together, does it not evidently appear, that in the opinion of our Author, regeneration confifts, in the underftanding being enlightened by the agency of God ? Regeneration, then, confifts in enlightening the underftand- ing •, and the effects of this light is, the new man.
But what is the new man ? Our Author fays, " The Apof- tles may be eafily underftood, when they fpeak of the new man, which after God is created in righteoufnefs and true holinefs." And again, when they fpeak of the new man, " as, confifting of a new and fpiritual mind, and all thofe moral characters, by which we bear the image of God." All this therefore is the effect of that wonderful alteration made in the mind, or under- ftanding, by the introduction of gofpel truths. But we Mill afk what is the new man ? Our Author tells us that the new man is fomething created in righteoufnefs and true holinefs. Now, can there be any thing created in us, like righteoufnefs and true holinefs, without any kind of new creation of the will ? Righteoufnefs and true holinefs fire altogether moral,
and
24 STRICTURES, &c.
and can there be any thing moral, where there are no volition* of a rational being ? If not, then righteoufncfs and true holinefs, in fallen man, imply, a new feries of volitions or moral exercif- es in the foul. The production of thefe, by the Spirit of God, in fcripture language, is called a new creation. Our Author farther obferves, that " the new man which is created in Chrifl Jefus confifts of a new and fpiritual mind, and all thofe mora! characters by which we bear the image of God."
But what is this new and fpiritual mind ? And what are all thofe moral characters, by which we bear the image of God ? Surely, our Author, upon reflection, will not fay, the whole are comprized, in the underftanding's being enlightened. For we read of men, who, " When they knew God, glorified him not as God." But he mufl fay this, if he would maintain his dar- ling doctrine, viz. that "There is no need of any kind of new creation of the will." And if he would fupport what he fays, concerning Paul and the other Apoftles, viz. " That they never fay a word of the corruption of the will."
After all, we muft infift upon it, that a new and fpiritual mind, means a new and fpiritual heart, arcd all thofe moral characters by which we bear the image of God, mean nothing more than righteoufnefs and true holinefs, which are all com- prized in holy exercifes of the foul, which cannot cxift without ■q new creation of the will, heart or affections.
But our Author feems to be aware, that the Apoftles' descrip- tion of the new man might be underftood, in a fenfe quite dif- ferent from his own, and therefore lays an anchor to the wind- ward to guard himfelf from danger. He fays "thefe are ftrong figures, but convey a very natural and eafy meaning, if we do not work upon them too much, and ftrain them too far to ferve -a particular hypothefis." By which we are doubtlefs to under- hand him as benevolently cautioning all to be upon their guard, agginft Dr. Hopkins' metaphyfical Demon, who, by a Jkilful management of doubtful words and phrafes, can prove ahnojl any thingi however fatfe.
To clofe what he had to write upon this point, he fays, ■***omi^'0n ehriftians may e^fily undecftand all this, (that is, alrta
hard
STRICTURES, &o 25
had reprefented the Apoftles, as faying, the new man confifted in) why then fhould they be entangled in cobweb fchemes V
Could our Author have treated the creed of a common nec- romacer, with more contempt, than he has treated the fenti- ments and reafonings of Dr. Hopkins on this fubjec~t ? But the impartial public, after examining what the Doctor has written upon the fubject, together with the above remarks, will judge which of the two fchemes molt deferve to be called a cobweb ; which you know is fpun out of the bowels of the fpider ; and is a proper emblem of a felfifh fcheme of religion, which flows from a felfifh heart ; which is as full of moral, as the fpider's bowels are of natural, poifon.
Propriety will not admit of my difmifling this fubject, with- out dating and illultrating the fcripture doc/trine of regenera- tion.
By regeneration, we are to underftand that moral change, which it is neceflary for finners to experience, to enter into the kingdom of glory.
I. This change is altogether moral. It of courfe implies, an alteration in the inclination, temper, heart or affieSions of a totally depraved foul ; and may be properly denominated, by calling it, a change of moral exercifes. In fcripture language it confift*, in taking away the heart of ftone, and giving an heart of flefh.
By the heart of ftone we are, doubtlefs, to underftand, the voluntary enmity of the foul againft God and his creatures, or a felfifh heart. By the heart of flefh we are to underftand the di- rectly oppofite moral affedtion, the fum of which is holy love to God and his creatures ; or in other words, difmterefted benevo- lence. Dr. Hopkins fays, " As the moral diforder and depravity of man lies wholly in the heart, the cure and renovation muft begin and end there."
II. This change implies, the exertion of two different agents. 1. It implies the fupernatural, the gracious, influence of the
Holy Gholt upon the foul, as its efficient caufc : "Then will I fprinkle clean water upon you, (faith God., a figurative expref- iicn, meaning the gracious influence of the fpirit,) and ye fljaji be clean from all your filthinefs, > and from all yoiur idols D will
56 STRICTURES, &cl
will I cleanfe you. A new heart alfo will I give you, and a hew fpirit will I put within you : And I will take away the ftony heart out of your flefh, and I will give you an heart of flefh. I will put my fpirit within you, and caufe you to walk in my ftat- utes ; and yc (hall keep my judgments and do them." Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27.
" Jefus aniwered, verily, verily, I fay unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the fpirit, he cannot enter into the king- dom of God." John, iii. 5. Thefe texts, as well as many others, fcattered up and down in the facred volume, plainly prove the abfolute neceffity of the divine agency, for the accompliihmeht of that change which, in . fcripture language; is ftiled regenera- tion.
2. This change, implies the agency of the perfon, who is the fubjedr. of the change itfelf. For if it be a moral change, as I truft none will deny, it muft confift in a change of moral exercif- es ; and the perfon who is the fubjeel: of this change, muft be active in the exiftence of thofe new exercifes which alohe de- nominate him a new creature. This human agency is implied, in the nciv temper, inclination, heart, will or affetlicn of the foul ; and is the effect of the divine agencyi It never takes place with- out it, in any foul whatever. That this is agreeable to thofe re- presentations given of it, in fcripture; will appear from the fol- lowing injunctions and declarations of God himfelf : In Ezek. xviii. 3 1, God fays, " Caft away from you, all your tranfgreffions, whereby ye have tranfgreffed, and make you a neiu heart, and a new fpirit, for why will ye die O houfe of Ifrael ? For I have n» pleafurein the death of him that dieth, faith the Lord God, where- fore turn yourfelves and live ye." So in Eph. ii. I. the Apoftle fpeaking of this change,fays unto the regenerate Ephefians, " And you hath he quickened who were dead in treffpaffes and fins." Plainly intimating, that fpiritual death, or human depravity, wholly confifts in thofe voluntary exercifes of the foul, which are a deviation from the law of God. And when he comes more particularly to fpeak of the new man, Chap. iv. 24. he affirms, that the new man is created in righteoufnefs and true holinefs. Now does not righteoufnefs and true holinefs entirely confift, in
the
STRICTURES, &c. 17
the moral exercifes of the foul ? If fo, then man is active in their exiftence, and human agency is as necefiarily implied in regen- eration, or our return to God, as in our apoftacy from him.
3. It is exceedingly evident from fcripture, that the objects of thofe moral exercifes which conftitute the new man, are re- vealed truths. " Seeing ye have purified your fouls, in obeying the truth, (that is, through the gracious influence of the fpirit, ye have obeyed the truth) being born again, not of corruptible feed ; but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever," I. Peter i. 22, 23. It is in the view of truth, that holy exercifes come into exiftence. Paul, fpeakmg of the regenerate Corinthians, fays, " I have begotten you, through the gofpel," that is, through the influence of the fpirit and word of God, which I have preached unto you, ye have become new crea- tures ; ye have made yourfelves new hearts and fpirits.
To be more particular, with lefpect to the moral exercifes, which conftitute the new man, let it be obferved, that they are all holy, and confequently partake of the nature of that peculiar kind of charity, or love, which feekcth net her own, but another's •welfare. For there is no other moral affection, but what is, in ics nature, fin. Therefore, love of this kind, muft be the eflence of that repentance which needeth not to be repented of : And of that union to Chrift, which, in fcripture language, is (tiled faith. True repentance confifts in a cordial difapprobation of thofe moral exercifes of the foul, which are a deviation from the law of God : And true faith confifts in a cordial approbation of Chrift, in his real character : And both have for their efTence, iove. This is equally the cafe with all other moral exercifes and actions belonging to the new man, and diftinguiih him from tire old man, who is the fubjecl: of no moial exercifes, but fuch as are of a felfifh or finful nature.
The beginning of this feries of holy exercifes, denominates us new creatures, and when we fhall become the fubjects of no other, we fhall be perfect : Fit for the fociety of the bleffed in- habitants of the upper world, the world of blifs and glory.
Wt fhould now make a few obfervations on what our Author ; Dr. Hopkins writes on the effects of regeneration ; but in
as
28 STRICTURES, &c.
as much as what he has written upon this fubject, is little more than telling us, that Dr. Hopkins had prepared a balloon, which mounts him -scry high into the etherial regions, till he almoft lofes fight of the earth j and that after his foaring flight, he is fallen to the ground ; and that he has reverfed the progrefs and fphere of love, by beginning it at the utmoft verge of perfect ether, and bringing it down to the central point of grofs matter, we fhail pafs by this part of his book, with only obferving, that nfter all our Author's labour, to ufe his own words, " it feemg there has been much ado about nothing." For what has bal- looning, the utmoit verge of perfect ether, and grofs matter, to do with the effects of regeneration ? "It is not very proba- ble that christians of common capacities, will receive much edi- fication from fuch a jargon of words," to ufe his own compli- ment upon what Dr. Hopkins had written upon the perfonality, or the human and divine nature of Chrift.
The next thing in the Syftem, with which our Author finds fault, is what Dr. Hopkins fays of the penalty of the law, par- ticularly that which was given to Adam, and the death confe- quent on his t'-anfgreflion.
After our Author had feleched a number of fentences, from the Syftem, to ftiew that Dr. Hopkins actually holds, that the penalty of the law, under which Adam was firft placed, means eternal death, or die complete and endlefs mifery of the whole man, foul and body, he makes a paufe ; and feafts himfelf upon the ufe, which Dr. Hopkins makes of the word infinite : He fays, *' the Dockrt finds the word hfniie, infinitely ufeful to his argu- ment." Thus the good man feems difpofed to be merry, but ?las ! by a more critical view of the Doctor's ufe of this and other words* all his fport is fpoiled. The Doctor's metaphyfical Demon, iri all his dreadful forms, now appears to his frighted imagination. For he cries out, ''but it is too much like the reafonkig of Aridotie's fchool." It would feeih, that by this powerful argument of our Author, he would give us to under- Hand, that all Dr. Hopkins had written upon the above fubject, Was little more, llan a Jh'iful management of doubtful words and ~ almoft any thingt however frlfr-
However,
STRICTURES, &c. 29
However, after our Author had collected his thoughts, he grows ferious, and undertakes to give it, as his opinion, that the reward of perfect obedience to the law, is not eternal life; and the punifhment of difobedience, is not eternal death ; thefe be- ing ideas, not contained in the covenant made with Adam, ide?.s which he never had, in a ftate of innccency. His own words are, " It is by the new covenant under Tefus Chrift, the fecond Adam, that a future world is revealed, and eternal life given, by promife, to the righteous ; and whatever is implied in eternal death, threatened to the wicked ; eternal life in heaven is the great promife of God, in his Son, to all believers : And the threatening of ever'afting deftruction in another world, which is the oppofite, is the forer punifhment which they deferve, who trample under foot the Son of God, and defpife and reject the wonderful methods of mercy. The law under which Adam was made, did not give him this promife (that is, the promife of eternal life) fo did net contain the fame threatening," (that is, the threatening of eternal death.) p. 37.
Reply 1. What a wonderful argument is here ! what a fur- prifingly fkilful management of Words and phrafes, do we behold in this fhort quotation ! are we not tempted almoft to conclude, that our Author, had, all of a fudden, commenced metaphyfician, according to his own defcription of this awful art ; and obtained full fellowfhip with Arijlotle and his followers ?
2. It is acknowledged, that fmce the fall, eternal life is the gift of a fovereign Gcd, through Chrift, to the righteous ; and that eternal death is the punifhment, which all thofe who know not God, and obey not the gofpel, muft according to this difpen- fation endure.
3. But how does this prove, that the law under which Adam was made, did not give him the promife of eternal life, upon condition of his perfect obedience ? Or that it did not contain a threatening of eternal death upon his difobedience ?
It is prefumed that this mode of reafoning, ought to be treated with as much contempt, as our Author treats Dr. Hopkins, when he fays, " he certainly reafons on feveral doctrinal articles in a metaphyseal way."
4. But
..4.
3o STRICTURES, &c.
4. But what was the death, threatened in the penalty of tha law, under which Adam was made ? We anfwer according to Gur Author, it was annihilation. His own words are, " all the notion he (that is Adam) could naturally form of death, was this, that it would be a privation of his happinefs and exiftence together. To fuppofe any thing farther, is to take for granted, what can never be proved, but by a revelation from heaven." Annihilation, then, mud be all that the threatening contained. But we would aflc our Author how this is proved ? We are fure there is no fpecial revelation from Heaven that leads us to form any fuch idea of Adam : And we are as fure, that if. this was his notion of the threatened penalty of. the law, he was under a dclufion : And we are as fure that Adam could not be under a delufion in a ftate of innocence ; therefore we are fure that our Author's idea of Adam's notion of death is wrong.
5. What will become of thofe, who in this life, never hear of a Saviour ? Surely, they cannot with juftice be puniihed for not believing on the Redeemer. Mull they not then, according to this ftrange and unfcriptural fentiment, be annihilated ? And were the confummation of all things now to take place, would not more of the human race be found in the ftate of annihilation, than in heaven and hell f
6. According to this fentiment Chrift came into this world to fave men not from eternal death, which was due to them pre- vious to the confideration of the gofpel difpenfation, but from annihilation. How contrary this idea is to common fenfe, and the general drain of the word of God, will appear from the fol- lowing confiderations : I. May we not rationally fuppofe, that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life, were both facramental trees : That the former was laden \\ ith fruit exceedingly agreeable to the tafle and pleafant to the eye at Adam's firft exiftence; and that the latter at that time had no fruit on it. Now it is evident that God forbade Adam to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil upon pain of death, and not annihilation. And is it not probable, that the time of his probation, was limited by the circumilance of the tree of life's bringing forth ripe fruit, and hi$ eating thereof ? Were not this;
1 the
STRICTURES, W, 31
the cafe, who can account for the neglect of Adam, to gat of this tree ? He was holy. He defired to be confirmed in this ftate of holinefs, and might at any moment eat of this tree, if there had been fruit thereon ; but before fruit appeared thereon and he had taken thereof, it feems, that he had taken of the forbidden fruit : And now, left he fhould put forth his hand and pollute this facred tree by eating thereof, and flatter him- felf that he fhould live forever, God placed " at the eaft of the garden of Eden, cherubims, and a flaming fword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Poor, inexcufable, fallen Adam, is driven from his paradife !
As eating of the tree of life feems to have been the appointed feal of eternal life, fo eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the appointed feal of eternal death. Life and death are oppofite ideas : For as temporal life confifts in the union of foul and body j fo temporal death confifts in the dis- union of foul and body. And as Spiritual life confifts in moral exercifes and actions of an holy kind ; fo Spiritual death confifts in moral exercifes and actions of an unholy kind. And as eter- nal life confifts not in the bare exiftence of foul and body, but in the complete and everlafting happinefs of the whole man; fo eternal death confifts not in the annihilation of foul and body, but in the complete and everlafting mifery of the whole man.
As eternal life, would have been the reward of Adam's per- fect: and perfevering obedience to the law ; fo eternal death is the threatened punifhment of his difobediencc. That the cov- enant or law, under which Adam was, in his innocence, did contain a promife of eternal life, and a threatening of eternal death, will farther appear from what Paul fays upon this fub- jeft.
In Rom. vii. 10, the Apoftle fays, and the commandment, which was ordained unto life, I found to be unto death ; that is, I found the commandment under which Adam, our head and reprefentative, was made, which promifed life to him and his pofterity on condition of his obedience through his probationa- ry ftate, now binds over to eternal death all the impenitent and unbelieving. Fo?
32 STRICTURES, Sec.
For Mofcs defcribeth the righteoufnefs of the law, that the man that doth thofe things mail live bv them, fee Rom. x. 5. As many as are of the works of the law, that is, who are ftriv- ing after justification by the deeds of the law, are under the eurfe ; that is, the original curfe pronounced on fallen Adam and his pofterity. For it is written, curfed is every one, that continueth not in all thingrs written in the book of the law to do them. For James faith, " Whofoever fhali keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all." Thus it is evident that the law given to man in his primitive ftate, promifed eternal life to the obedient, and threatened eternal death to the difobedient.
2. It is no rational objection againft the foregoing arguments, that the Apoftle hath faid, " For if there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteoufnefs fhould have been by the law j" for, according to the law, eternal life is the fruit of perfect and perfevering obedience ; and eternal death is the fruit of difobedience, both to Adam and his pofterity. So that the wages of fin is death, not to thofe only, who are under the law ; but to thofe who are under the gofpel.
We are therefore not to underftand the Apoftle as denying, there ever was a law given to man, by the obedience of v/hich, he, in a ftate of innocence, might have obtained eternal life : But we are to underftand him as denying, there is any law given to man, in a ftate of depravity, by the obedience of which, he can obtain eternal life. If the contrary was the cafe, then our falvation would not be of grace, but of works •, which is dia- metrically oppofite to the whole ftrain of the Apoftle's reafoning upon this fubject.
3. Nor can it reafonably be objected, againft the foregoing fentiments, that the gofpel allures us, that eternal life, fince the fall of Adam, is the great gift of God through Chrift ; and that eternal death is held up to view in the gofpel, as the fure confe- quence of impenitence and unbelief : For both law and gofpel bind the finner over to eternal death •, the lav/ firft, and the gof- pel laft. This objection our Author thinks of great force, and concludes that the lav/ under which Adam was made, did not
give
STRICTURES, &c. 33
give him the promife of eternal life upon any condition whatever, and fo did not contain a threatening of eternal death, in cafe of his difobedience. But the confideration that eternal life, under the former difpenfation, was promifed to Adam and his poflerity as the reward of his perfonal obedience ; and eternal life, under the gofpel difpenfation, is promifed to all the penitent and be- lieving, as the reward of the perfonal obedience of Chrifl ; and the fofer punifhment, which in the gofpel is threatened to the already condemned finner, who defpifes the gofpel, means noth- ing more, than that he mall be judged and punifhed according to the deeds done in the body. I fay, a confideration of thefe things, will fufiiciently expofe the fallacy of all our Author has written upon thefe points.
However, it may not be arnifs juft to obferve, that our Auth- or reprefents Dr. Hopkins' idea of the penalty of the law, as en- tirely inconfiftent with the idea of Adam's being the federal head, and reprefentative of his poflerity ; but can it be more fo, thzn his own ? Let us compare the two ideas for a moment, and fee what conciufion is juft. The penalty of the law, according to Dr. Hopkins is eternal death. The penalty of the fame law, according to our Author, is annihilation.
Now if it be inconfiftent with the penalty of the law, as it is underftood by Dr. Hopkins, that the fentence of eternal death fhould not be executed on Adam, till he had time to propagate his race. Why is it not equally inconfiftent with the penally of the law, as it is underftood by our Author, to fuppofe the fen- tence of annihilation, ihould not be executed on Adam, till he had propagated hJs race ? But our Author reprefents the fenti- ments of Dr. Hopkins, on the penalty of the law, as inconfiftent with a moment's delay in the execution of the fentence of eternal death, after man had finned ; becaufe this would be a favour, the rebel by no means deferves. And is not this equally the cafe upon our Author's fcheme ? Would it not be a favour, which Adam by no means deferved, to have fuftvred him to have exifted •after his apoftacy, a fingle moment ? If fo, then our Author's fcheme is as inconfiftent, with the idea of Adam's bein g the E federal
34 STRICTURES, &^
federal head and reprefentative of .his pofterity, as Dr. Hop- kins' is, with which he finds fo much fault.
Therefore, to ufe our Author's own words, " How could he, that }s Adami upon his principles, have had any pofterity ?" Or if we could fuppofe this poffible, it would give us the moft abfurd and fhocking idea of a conftant whirl of fouls and bodies, into annihilation.
Therefore, when our Author can clear his own fcheme, of that inconfiftency, with which he charges Dr. Hopkins, it is probable he may fee how the Doctor can clear his.
If God could, through the immediate interpofition of his Son, confidently with the horfour of his law, beftow eternal life on one, under fentence of eternal death, or under fentence of an- nihilation, then he could, confiftently with the honour of the law, beftow upon all a fecondary probationary ftate, and fo give them an opportunity to propagate their kind ; and if fo, then the penalty of the law's being confidered as eternal death, will by no means diftroy the doctrine, of Adam's being the federal head and reprefentative of his pofterity.
But to proceed ; in p. 42, our Author fays, " what Dr. Hop- kins writes in his general obfervations, on redemption, is in the main rational and fcriptural. But he has too much intermixed his own peculiar notions of the curfe of the law, and the effects of the apoftacy, with great and important truths, which all chriftians will gladly acknowledge." &c.
He further fays, " A like obfervation may be made on what he writes concerning the perfon and character of the Redeem- er. He clearly proves from the holy fcriptures, as many other good divines have done, that Jefus Chrift, the glorious redeem- er of men, is truly God with us, or a divine perfon ; and that he is alfo really man ; fo that in his perfon he is both God and man united. Now if he had been contented with this general defcription of the Mediator's perfon according to the plain and exprefs language of the fcriptures, he might have done good fervice to the Church ; But he could not forbear exercifing his metaphyfical genius." £. 43.
Thefe
1
STRICTURES, &c. $j
Thefe two laft quotations from our Author, give us a clearer idea of his notion of Metaphyfics, than any thing yet noticed in his book. It feems that if Dr. Hopkins had written in fuch a vague and general way, upon the various fubje&s to which he has attended, in his Syftem, a? to have left equal room for Soci- nians, Arians, Trinitarians, Arminians, Calvinifts, Univerfalifts, and particular Redemptionifts, to have faid, he is evidently of our opinion, he never would have been cenfuyed, by our Author, as a Metaphyfician. For whenever the D.otlor, enters upon any particular point, and diftinguiflies it, from the things which differ, agreeably to the dictates of common fenfe, reafon, and fc ripture, he is reprefented as exercifing his metaphyfical genius. The effe£r. of which, according to our Author is, the proving of. cJmoJl any thing, hoiveverfalfe*
Thus, had he faid nothing upon the character and perfon of the Redeemer, more than a few general things, to which, the grofTeft Socinians and Arians, could cheerfully fubferibe, all would have been well, fcriptuval, and ferviceable to the church,
" But he could, not forbear exercifing his metaphyfical genius,"
Let us now attend to this awful genius combined with the dreadful art of metaphyfics. Our Author fays, that " he begins, b,y faying that Jefus Chrift, by being made really man, had a real body and foul, that is, a proper foul like other men ; but that the human nature of Chrift is not a diftin£t perfon feparate from the divine nature, or his godhead ; becaufe the human nature ex- ifts, and began to exift in union with the facred perfon in the Trinity, the Word ; fq that, both natures are but one perfon."
P- 43> 44-
Reply. I. What is there fo (hocking, that it fljould be brand- ed with the odious epithet Metaphyfics, in Dr. Hopkins' faying, that Jefus Chrift by being made really man, had a real body and. foul ? "Who ever faw or heard of a real man, without a real foul and body ? What is there fo dreadful, in the idea that the human nature of Chrift never exifted as a diftin£t perfon from the I)i- vini nature ? That the human nature of Chrift, his human foul
and
36 STRICTURES, k
and body, began to exift in union with the facred perfon in the Trinity, the Word : That the divine and human nature of Chrift make but one perfon ? Are not thefe ideas all familiar and plain to any one whofe mind is not poifoned with the Socinian and Arian herefies. But this language, according to our Author, is a jargon of words ; from which, "it is not very probable that Chriitians of common capacities will receive much edification."
Let us carefully and impartially examine his objections againft it. We have already fcen, by the laft quotation from his book, that our Author acknowledges that Dr. Hopkins " has clearly proved from the holy fcriptures, that Jefus Chrift is truly God with us : And that he is alfo really man -, fo that in his perfon he is both God and man united." But a little lower in the fame page, where he confiders the Doctor as exercifing his metaphyfic- al genius, he is greatly alarmed at Dr. Hopkins' faying, "That Jefus Chrift by being made really man, had a real body and foul, that is, a proper foul like other men." &c.
Query, is not he, who is truly God with us, abfohite Deity. ? Or are we to underftand no more by this phrafe, than Socinians and Arians do, who ufe it to fignify a created being of great eminence and dignity ? Is not a real man compofed of a real fail and body ? Or are we to underftand, by a real man, nothing more than \ jlejh and bloc;!, as it refpects Chrift; asallthofe do, who make the Word, which in the beginning was, and was with God, and was God, the foul of Chrift. If Chrift is realty God, and really mar., has he not two diftinct natures ? Or mail we fuppofe as fome have done, that his divinity and humanity are fo blended together, that it is impious to talk of any diitinction in thefe natures ! And if Chrift is really God and really man, is it not rational to fuppofe, that his humanity was brought into exiftence, in union with his deity ? And if this be a fa£t, is it not rational to conclude with the Aflembly of Divines, and all others, except thofe tainted with the Socinian and Arian here- fies, that he has two diftinct natures and one perfon forever ? If thefe things be true, where is the mighty jargon of words our Author fo bitterly complains of ?
Reply.
STRICTURES, &c 37
Reply. It is plain, our Author denies that Jefus Chrift has a real, proper, created foul, in any fenfe like other men, and like- wife holds, that the whole of his humanity confuted in mere fiefh and blood. For, in p. 46, complaining of Dr. Hopkins, for having reprefented the human foul of Chvift, by rcafcn of its union with his divinity, as becoming greater than Angels, he fays, " But if it is fo necefTary (that is, as the Doctor hath re- prefented it) to believe, that Chrift took a real foul like that of other men, as well as a human body, and was made in both thefe reipects like his brethren, it may be feared," &c. And in p. 48, he afks, " How is it inconfiftent with Chrift's real hu- manity, to fuppofe, that his foul, was the Legos, or that divine perfon who made the worlds, emphatically named the Word ?" And he fays, p. 49, " It is very remarkable, that whenever the f;:cred writings fpeak of the incarnation of the Son of God, not a fmgle word is mentioned of taking to himfelf a foul."
From thefe quotations, is it not obvious to every difcerning mind, that our Author holds that Jefus Chrift has no human created foul, like that of other men ?
1. I would reply, by proving that the Son of God in becom- ing incarnate, took to himfelf a real created foul as well as body.
2. That this foul was not the Logos, emphatically named the Word.
3. That it is not true, "that when the facred writings fpeak of the incarnation of the Son of God, not -a. Jingle nvord is men- tioned of taking to himfelf a foul." And left I fhould make fome difagreeable impreflions upon the minds of common peo- ple, as being fmgular in my fentiments upon this fubject, I would j uft remind them, that the Aflembly of Divines in their Shorter Catechifm, fay, " Chrift the Son of God, became man, by taking to himfelf a true body and a reafonable foul," &c.
1. In fcripture language Chrift is ftiled a man ; the/on of man ; the man ivhom God ordained ,• the man Chrift Jefus. Now if we can form any proper idea of a man, we may eafily determine whether Chrift has a human created foul or not. For he is a man I "Is not this the melt familiar idea we can form of a
man,"
38 STRICTURES, &c.
man," that he confifls of a created body, inhabited by a created fpirit ? Or in other words, that man confifts of a foul and body in union with each other.
If the Son of God had taken to himfelf a created fpirit like that of the foul of Abraham, and not a body like Abraham's, could he have been properly called a man ? He might be faid to be like a man, in one refpeel ; but not In all things. So, if Chrift fhould have taken to himfelf a created body like that of Abraham's, and not a created foul like that of his, he might be faid to be like a man, in one refpect, but not in all ; and fo could not with propriety be called a man, the feed of Abraham. But Chrift is called a man, the feed of Abraham, made in the like- nefs of his brethren. " For verily, he took not on himfelf the nature of Angels ; but he took on him the feed of Abraham : Wherefore, in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." In all things, not in one fingle thing only, which rauft be the cafe, if he had not a created foul, as well as a created body ; therefore, Chrift muft have a human created foul.
2. It is teftified in Luke, ii. 5 2, that " Jefus increafed in wif- <lom and ftature and favour with God and man." Now to fay that his flefh and blood increafed in wifdom, is notfenfe ; and to fay that his divinity increafed in wifdom and ftature, is down- right blafphemy. The unavoidable confequence is, that Jefus Chrift had a created foul, capable of increafing in wifdom, as well as a created body, capable of increafing in ftature. In Ifaiah, liii. 3, Chrift is faid to be " a man of forrows, and ac- quainted with grief :" And in Matt. xxvi. 38, Chrift fays, " My foul is exceeding forrowful, even unto death." By a man of forrows, and by a foul exceeding forrowful, cannot be meant mere flefh and blood, nor the divinity : The confequence muft be, that Chrift had a created foul, capable of thefe things.
When Chrift prayed en the crofs, it cannot be meant that his flefh and blood prayed, nor yet his divinity ; fo when he bowed his head, in the dull of death, it was his human foul, fpirit or ghoft, that he gave into the hands of his father, and not his divin- ity. And fpeaking of the deftru£tion of Jerufalem, which was a pitlure of the day of judgment, he fays, "But of that day :<n4
that
m
STRICTURES, R 39
that hour krioweth no man, no not the Angels which are ih Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father," Mark, xiii. 32. To affirm that the mere flefh and blood of Chrift, knew not the day and hour referred to here, would be faying nothing to any valuable purpofe ; and to fuppofe that the divinity of Chrift was ignorant of this day and hour, would be inconfiftent with all our ideas of Deity : Therefore, this Want of knowledge, can be predicated only of the human foul of Chrift : But this could not be done with propriety, unlefs he had fuch a foul ; therefore, we may rationally conclude, that Chrift has a created foul.
3. That the human foul of Chrift, was not the Lcgost, emphat- ically named the Word, is evident from following confiderations, viz. the human foul of Chrift, was a created intelligent fpirit, as has been proved : But the Logos or Word, is the uncreated Jeho- vah. For it is affirmed in John's gofpel, that in the beginning -was the Word, and the Wcrd was with God, and the Word was God; ^all things were made by him, and without him, was not any thing made, which was made. So that even the human foul and body of Chrift, himfelf, was made by the Word ; who is ftiled God, and is the Creator of all things. So that the uncre- ated Word, cannot be the created human foul of Chrift. To get rid of this argument for the divinity of the Word, Dr. Prieftley endeavours to prove that the introduction of John's gofpel, is a real forgery.
4. It is not true, that whenever the facred writings, fpeak of the incarnation of the fon of God, not a fingle word is mention- ed of taking to himfelf a foul.
Nov/ if it be true that a created foul is. an efleutial part of the compound being man,fervant,fcn of man, feed of Abraham, &c. then it muft be true that when the facred writings, fpeak of the incarnation of the Son of God, they muft fay fomething of his taking to himfelf a foul, as well as body. For though the word foul, is not made ufe of in thofe texts, which fpeak of the incar- nation i yet other words which fignify the foul are. And the Word was made fejh, and dwelt among us. Flefh, here, is not mere matter; but man ; compofed of a created foul and body.
CWft,
4o STRICTURES, &c.
Chrift, fpeaking of the troubles which were to iffue in the de- ftruclion of Jerufalem, fays, '* Except thofe days fhould be fhort- ened, there fhould no flefh be faved." Plejh, here is ui'cd in the fame fenfe, as it is, in all thofe texts, which fpeak of the incarna- tion of the Son of God ; and figniftes the foul, as well as the body of man. " God was manifeft in the flefh. Flefh, here, muft mean the human foul of Chrift, which was exceeding forrow- ful, under his fuffering in the garden of Gethfemane, as well as body, which was torn and mangled on the crofs. " For we have not an high prieft, which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities ; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without fin. See Heb. iv. 15. Chrift, our high prieft, had a body, capable of pain, agonies and death ; and a foul, ca- pable of fore temptations : Neither of which, can, with truth, be affirmed of his divinity. Therefore, thofe texts which fpeak of the incarnation of the Son of God, muft always mean an uni- on of the fecond perfon in the Trinity, with a real man, even the man Chrift.
It may not be amifs here, juft to obferve, that although our Author, would lead us to believe, that the foul of Chrift, is the Logos, the Word, the Creator of the worlds, and that divine per- fon who was made Jlejfj, and dwelt among us : Yet he feems very careful, to admonifh us, againft fixing any diftinguifhing i- deas of fouls, left we involve ourfelves in the clouds ; that is, in the depths cf metaphyfics. His own words are, "How is it in- confiftent with Chrift's real humanity, to fuppofe that his foul was the Logos, or that divine perfon who made the worlds, em- phatically named the Word ?"
We anfwer, that we have proved,
1. That Jefus Chrift has a created human foul.
2. That this foul, was not the Logos, which is ftiled God, the Creator of all things. Therefore,
3. It muft be inconfiftent, to fuppofe that the foul of Chrift is the Logos, &c. „ t
But our Author fays, " Is not this the moft familiar idea we can form of man, that he confifts of a body inhabited or animat- ed by an intelligent fpirit :"
We
STRICTURES, 8fc, 41
We anfwer, yes •, if by the intelligent fpirit be meant a cheated fpirit, artd not the Logos, who is ftiled God.
In clofe conne&ion with the above queftions, our Author fays, " We know nothing of the difference between one foul and anoth- er, and cannot refine our ideas very far, without being involved in the clouds" ; that is, we know, no difference, between the foul of Chrift, which he fuppofes to be the Logos, the Word, the Creator of the worlds, and any other foul. Notwithstanding this affec- tionate caution, againft metaphyfical refinements about fouls, we will venture to inquire, whether we cannot perceive a difference between the foul of Chrift, according to his defcription of it, and the foul of Dr. Langdon, and whether there be no perceivable difference between one created foul, and another ?
1. If the foul of Chrift be the Logos, the Word,the Divine perfon, who made the worlds, as our Author fuppofes, and Dr. Langdon's foul be a created fpirit, muft there not be a perceivable difference between them ? Yea fuch a difference, as might be perceived without being involved in the clouds. In this inftance, is not the difference as great, as that between Creator and creature ? The plain truth is, our Author i* miftaken about the foul of Chrift. The Logos was not the foul of Chrift, but his divinity ; which was united to the feed of Abraham — as man, cempofed of a created foul and body ; as has been proved.
1. But let us inquire whether there be not a perceivable difference between the fouls of common men ?
Is there no perceivable difference between the enlarged pow- ers and piercing genius of Dr. Langdon, and the unlearned and weak brother, who can form no rational idea of metaphy- fics ?
Is there no difference between the improved fduls of a Newton, a Locke, an Edwards, and an Hopkins, and the untu- tored foul of an Hottentot ? If there be, then our Author mull conftfs,, that his ^al to guard his readers againit the fascinat- ing charms of metaphyfics, has led him beyond the bounds of common fenfe, in faying, that " we knew nothing of the dif-- ference between one foul and another."
lf -Again,
42 STRICTURES, be.
Again, our Author fays, "Neverthelefs, Dr. Hopkins difpute9 largely, and with great zeal, againft a poflhumous work of Dr. Watts, on the Glory of Chrift, &c." This muft appear exceed- ingly wicked to zealous and good people, who generally efteem Dr. Watts, as one whofe praifes are in all the churches, and coufequently muft reflect great odium on Dr. Hopkins. But how aftonifhed will all thofe be, who have never fcen the Syf- tem, when they are tcld, that Dr. Hopkins has never fo much as mentioned Dr. Watts, nor his poflhumous work on the Glory of Chrift, in his whole Syftem ?
This feemsto bealmoft equal to ■zjkilful management of doubt- ful ivords and phrafes, proving almojl any thing, however falfe. It certainly will have the fame influence upon many minds, as our Author attributes to metaphyfics.
We now pafs to take notice of wh?.t our Author fays upon Dr. Hopkins' idea of the Trinity : He fays, " It is very evident that Dr. Hopkins thinks of Chrift in his divine nature, fimply confidered, as a diftinct perfon in the Deity, and fo divides the divine eflence itfelf into diftincl: perfons, each having diftinct characters, and to be believed entirely diftincl: from each other : Which feems to come very near making three Gods inftead of one."
Does this remark look like the language of a Trinitarian ? Does it not look like the fneers of thofe men, who love to be called Unitarians ? If the personalities in the Deity, come very near to the making of three Gods, inftead of one ; the fcripturcs do this, when they fay, there are three, that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghoft, and thefe three are one : Therefore there muft be one God, in three perfons.
We pafs to the next particular, noticed in the Syftem, by our Author ; which is Dr. Hopkins' fuppofition, " that there are no other rational creatures befides Angels and men." Our Author fays, " Though it is granted, that the fcriptures make mention only of Angels and men, there is but little force in tins argument. For it looks too much like the argument of vulgar minds, againft the Newtonian, philofophy, that the earth
cannot
STRICTURES, &t *s
cannot move round the fan, becaufe the fcriptures conftantly reprefent the fun as moving round the earth."
The fcripture argument then, according to our Author, muft fall. Let us hear the mighty one, which is oppofed to it. " For how do we know/' faith our Author " how many differ- ent orders of beings fuperior to man, are included in the term Angels ? They are fpoken of as innumerable, and of various ranks, capacities and employments ; Archangels, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers : And who can be fure that endlefs orders of beings, riling in gradation above man, are not intended by the general name Angels ?"
Ah fure enough, and what has Dr. Hopkins faid againft all this I Why nothing at all. Why then did our Author find fault with the Doctor's fuppofition, " that there are no other rational beings than Angels and men ?" We can form no opinion of this matter more rational, than that our Author had gotten into fuch an habit of finding fault with Dr. Hopkins, that he exercifed no reafon in what he wrote againft him, on this particular ; for the world muft allow, that whatever aid he received from his rational powers, on other points, his reafon wholly failed him on this : Unlefs we can fuppofe him poffeffed of a new kind of metaphyfics, by means of which, he can prove a propofition falfe, by the bare repetition of that identical pro- pofition. But this looks too much like jugglery for to good a man as our Author : Therefore we pafs it by, to take notice bf what he fays concerning Dr. Hopkins' notion of the Millennium. " That I may not be thought deficient in the great duty of difnterejied benevolence" faith our Author, " I will leave Dr. Hopkins in the full enjoyment of his happinefs, in the profpect of that millennium, which he has fo particularly defcribed ; yet, as he is fo very confident, that fuch a happy ftate is drawing- nigh, as to write a dedication of his work to the inhabitants of the world, in that glorious era, I will fay nothing which will have a tendency to prevent its reaching to their time."
Reply i. In our Author's laft remark on Dr. Hopkins, his reafon feemed to have left him. In this, his prudence treats him in the fan:-.- manner ; otherwife, how could he have laugh- ed
44 STRICTURES, &c.
ed at the duty of difmterefted benevolence ? " That I may not be thought deficient in the great duty of difinterefled benevolence" — (evidently by way of ridicule.) What muil our Author bej, provided he rs deftitute of that charity, which feeketh not her own, but another's welfare ? And is not this difmterefted be- nevolence ? How then could he, in the exercife of prudence,, call fuch a fneer upon it ?
i. Muft not the friends of Dr. Hopkins' idea of the millenni- um, be, greatly obliged to our Author, for his great forbearance, in not faying any thing which may have a tendency to deftroy what the Doclor had written upon this important fubject ?
It fcems that our Author would lead us to think, that a touch or two of his mafterly pen, would have blafted the labours pf many years ; and fo prevented the world, in the days of the millennium, from ever feeing what Dr. Hopkins has written up- on that glorious <zra.
What a melancholy inftance of human weaknefs and vanity is this !
In our Author's concluding remarks on the Syftem, he fays, " I fee all the fubtilties of artful reafoning made ufe of, inftead of a plain inanifeftation of the truth." p. 53. And comparing Dr. Hopkins with the Apoftles, he fays, " They carefully avoid matters of doubtful difputation."
Reply 1. As our Author begins his remarks on the Syftem, with branding it, as a metaphyfical performance, in part at leaft ; fo he ends them.
The beginning, middle, and end of his book, contain one mpft eamefc and faithful warning, againft the awful influence of met- aphyfics, which according to him confift in a Jhilful management of doubtful ivords and phrafes, proving almofl any thing, however falfi.
Thus, inflcad of reafoning clofely, philofophically, and fcrip- turally, againft any fuppofed error in the J>y'tem ; our Author has endeavoured to flight the world from looking into it, by af- furmg us, that be (i fees all the fubtilties of artful reafoning made ufc of, infi.ead pf a plai^ mamfeftafc»9n of ^he truth." Yea, he
folemnly
STRICTURES, &c, 45
iblemnly affirms, that Dr. Hopkins, "certainly rcafons on fever- al doctrinal articles' in a metaphyfical way."
What could have been faid, more effectually to ruin the Sy£» tern, in the view of all thofe, who believe our Author's defcrip- tion of metaphyfical reafoning i Muft not fuch folemn declara- tions as thefe, by a man o£ his age, experience, /earning, and piety, fhock their minds beyond meafure ? And forever guard them from looking into the Syflem again. However, as an antidote, calculated to expel the poifon of fuch frighted imaginations, I would recommend the careful perufal of Dr. Watts on On* iology, Mr. Locke on the Human Underftanding, Bailey and Sheridan, on the figniftcation of the word Metaphyfics.
By this mean, they may learn, that writing m a metaphyfical way, is fo far from a fkilful management of doubtful words and iphrafes, proving alrnoft any thing, however falfe, that it confifts in the art of explaining iiiords, phrafes, and things, in fuch a man- ner as to eftablifh the truth.
Metaphyfics, or ontology, is a fcience, which treats of immate- rial beings, fuch as God, Angels, the fouls of men, their properties and affections. Its great object, is to difplay the truth, concern- ing thefe invifjble beings, their properties and affections ; con- fequently, the moral character of God, the virtue and" vice .of men and Angels, their rewards and punifhments, are fubjects of metaphyfical difquifition.
Upon thefe fubjects Paul reaioned in a metaphyfical way, a- vaiiing himfelf of all thofe helps, derived from ancient revelation, and immediate infpiration, as is evident from his epiftles, his fpeeches, and orations, left on facred record.
2. Our Author fays, the Apoftles " carefully avoided matters .of doubtful difputation." By which he would lead us to under- fiand, that they did not meddle with fuch fubjects as thofe are, on which Dr. Hopkins has- written and he remarked.
But is it poffible for any man, with the Apoftle's writings be- fore his eyes, fericully to conclude^ that they conftantily avoided all talking, preaching and writing, on the great doctrines of the divine decrees ,• particular cleclion ; the prornife of eternal life ljii-ie to Adam and his posterity, or. condition of bis perfect ob*-
dience^
46 STRICTURES, k
dience to the law, under which he was made, through his proba- tionary ftate ; and the threatening of eternal death, upon his dif- obedience j human depravity ; regeneration ; J.n and hol'mefs ,• human liberty ; divine agency ; that Chnft has a proper, created foul, as well as body ; together with the latter day glory ? About which, our Author has not feen fit to avoid all deputation. For had this been the cafe, his book never would have feen the light. The Apoftlcs, in converfation, preaching,and writing,did con- tend earneftly for the truth, once delivered unto the faints, and in doing this, have fet us an example ; why then fhould we be frighted from the performance of this great duty, by one, whofe words and example clalh with each other ?
CONCLUSION.
IN writing the preceding pages, I have endeavoured to fet that ufe which our Author makes of metaphyfics, in that light, in which it ought to appear. For nothing can be more ridicu- lous, than the ufe, which he and many others make of this word, in their polemical writings ; his book would read every whit as well, were the word metaphyfics expunged, and witchcraft placed in its ftead.
But our Author cannot ferioufly confider the Do£lor as in league with the Devil ; why then has he treated him in this in- decent manner ? Is not this the plain reafon, that he thought this mode of reafoning would anfwer for a thoufand arguments j and consequently cut the work of confuting his antagonift ex- ceedingly fliort, and fo gain a triumph without the labour of clofe thinking, and clear and fcriptural reafoning ?
What has been written upon the feveral points, which our Author difputcs, has been little more than ftating a few argu- ments for their foppcrt, principally defigned for the benefit of thofe who have never feen the Syftem, in which they are amply difplayed and fcripturally proved.
My original defiga in thefe meets, was to militate againft the pernicious effe&s of our Author's book, upon the minds of fomc of my lefs informed friend-;.
That
STRICTURES, &c.
47
That the great and precious doctrines, which this Poflfcript avouches and advocates, may with rapid courfe, fpread through the world of mankind, is the humble prayer of
Dear Sir,
Your unfeigned friend,
And mod humble fervant,
£BENE?ER BRADFORD.