An Essay on the plan of salvation : in which the several sources of evidence are examined, and applied to the interesting doctrine of Redemption, in its relation to the government and moral attributes of the Deity

^

K,.. /

OF Tiir

PRINCETON, N. J.

SAMUEL AG NEW,

OF PHILADELPHIA, PA

q4^o

Division /A,

Case. I

D Booh, .N» |.

sec ^

AN ESSAY

PLAN OF SALVATION.

IN WHICH THE SEVERAL SOURCES OF

EVIDENCE

iir^E EXAMINED, AND APPLIED TO THE INTERESTING DOCTRINE OF

REDEMPTION^

IN ITS RELATION TO THE GOVERNMENT
AND MORAL ATTRIBUTES

OE THE

DEITY.

BY ASA SHINN, MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL.

«^ Truth never was indebted to a lie"— Fomwi;'.

« Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
John viii. 32.

" In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiv^-
tiess of sins, according to the riches of his grace."— £p/i. i, 7i

BALTIMORE: "^

PUBLISHED BY NEAL, WILLS AND COLE.

Senjamin Edes, printer.

1813.

DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, ss.

Be it remembered, that on this fourteenth day of
September, in the thirty-eighth year of the Indepen-
dence of the United States of America, Asa Shinn of
said district, hath deposited in this office, the title of a
bookj the right whereof he claims as author, in the words and fi-
gures following, to wit:

"An Essay on the Plan of Salvation, in which the several sources
of Evidence are examined, and applied to the interesting doctrine
of Redemption, in its relation to the government and moral attri-
butes of the Deity. By Asa Shinn, minister of the gospel."
"Truth never was indebted to a lie." — Young.
"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
John viii. 32.

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgive-
ness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." — Eph. i. 7.

In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States,
entitled, " an act for the encouragement of learning, by securing
the copies of maps, charts, and books to the authors and proprie-
tors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned;" and also
to the act entitled, " an act supplementary to the act entitled, " an
act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of
maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such
copies during the times therein mentioned," and extendingthe ben-
efits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching histo-
rical and other prints.

PHILIP MOORE,
Clerk of the District of Maryland.

PREFACE.

THE following Essay was written, and is now offered to the
public, from a full and deliberate conviction that truth, rightly
understood and believed, tends to the general and permanent hap-
piness of mankind; — that the doctrines therein contained are true;
—and that they are truths in which we are all particularly inter-
ested, and which cannot be too attentively examined, or too gener-
ally understood. If either of these positions be erroneous, it must
be confessed that error has had an influence in giving birth to the
present publication. But admitting them to be correct, they are
deemed sufficient to furnish justifiable motives for publishing this
book, nothwithstanding its defects, or the obscurity of its author.

The general design of the Essay, as signified by the title, is to
point out and ascertain, with some tolerable degree of accuracy,
the rules of evidence by which alone the human mind can be suc-
cessful iu the search of truth; — in order especially, to apply those
rules, or to use them with attentive regularity, in the investigation
of the important and great principles of Christianity, concerning
the redemption of mankind, and the general plan of saving them
from sin and misery, by our Lord Jesus Christ. It is entitled au
Essay on the Plan of Salvation, because the design of it was, not
to investigate precisely and exclusively, the doctrine of the atone-
ment, but to view that interesting doctrine in its connexion with
the general plan of restoring fallen creatures, and in its relation
to the moral attributes and government of the great Creator.
The reader will find that one whole chapter was written before
the subject of atonement was introduced; and that chapter may be
considered, by some, to be totally foreign from the plan of salva-
tion, and to contain matter which cannot, with propriety, be in-
cluded under such a title. It may be necessary, for the sake of
such readers, to obviate the objection in this place, lest an unhappy
prepossession should cause them to stumble at the very threshold,
and to cast the book by with inditterence, before they come to the
main subject to which their attention is solicited.

It must be acknowledged by every reflecting mind, that a clear
view of the method by which truth is to be discovered and ascer-
tained, is of great advantage in the pursuit of it; and that confusion
in our conceptions of the proper grounds of credence, is a very gene-
ral and fatal source of error. A man is in little danger of taking his
enemy for his friend, or his friend for his enemy, who has a clear
and steady conception of the constituent principles of friendship
and of enmity; because he can apply those principles to each parti-
cular case, without much danger of being mistaken; but he who is
at no pains to regulate his view of this subject, is liable to take

(

PREFACE.

th^t for a proof of friendship which is a proof of the contrary,
and thus to expose himself to the insidious arts of intrigue and
deception. In like manner, while we remain unacquainted with
the rules of evidence, or have but an indistinct and obscure view
of them, we are liable to take that for a sign of truth which is a
sign of falsehood, and to wander in the wilderness of delusion,
till our adherence to sophistical evidence will become habitual;
and then surely we shall be in a fair way to fake bitter for sweety
and sweet for bitter; — darkness for light, and light for darkness.

It cannot therefore be justly considered amatterof inditterence,
much less of censure, that in an Essay upon the great doctrines of
religion and morality, on which our present and eternal happiness
depends, an attempt should first be made to distinguish betweea
true and false evidence; for how can truth be discovered or prov-
ed, but by the use df sound and genuine rules of proof, and by
carefully guarding against those which are false and delusive?
And how can this be done, if we be at no pains to distinguish the
one from the other?

Nor can itbe justly said, that such an examination of evidence
belongs not to the plan of salvation: for is it not God's method of
saving sinners, to bestow his spiritual blessings upon them in eon-
sequence of their embracing the truth? And how can truth be dis-
covered or believed, but by means of that evidence which distin-
guishes it from falsehood? AH men will agree surely, that truth
cannot be embraced ivithout being distinguished from falsehood:
and how can this be done, if we are indifferent to the mer/iorf by
which they are to be distinguished? As the plan of saving sinners
implies, therefore, our understanding, believing and obeying the
truth; and as truth cannot be understood, believed, nor consequent-
ly obeyed, but by means of proper evidence, this first chapter,
upon the nature and rules of evidence; and the distinction between
the sound and the unsound, properly belongs to an Essay on the
plan of Salvation.

It is true, that in illustrating this subject, notice has been taken
of our intellectual or judging faculties, and some may perhaps ob-
ject, that a disposition has been manifested to wander too far into
the regions of philosophy; but when we consider that some philo-
sophers have done more to involve the evidence of truth in confu-
sion and obscurity, than almost any other men, it can hardly be
thought improper to follow them in their ingenious speculations,
so far at least, as to detect the stratagems, by which they have
laboured to conceal the evidence of religious truth, and of moral
obligation, from the human mind. Infidelity, it is well known,
affects to come forth under the sanction of philosophy: It eagerly
embraces the ingenious theories of some acute metaphysicians, as
the ground of its opposition to Christianity; therefore we cannot
disarm our unbelieving opponents, without attacking the hypothe-
ses of that science, false hj so called, on which they take their stand,
and by means of which they have imposed upon the understand-
ings of the unwary, have made a plausible defence against the
dictates of conscience and reason, and have been but too successful
in the establishment of a pernicious scepticism.

PREFACE.

But it is yaiu to hope, that all the objections can be obviated in
a preface, which will be apt to occur against the doctrines of this
Essay; for it is extremely probable, not to say morally certain, that
there will be some hundreds. And for this plain reason, that the
author, from the beginning to the end, has been governed by acon-
Tiction that he ought to follow evidence wherever it should lead,
without ever suppressing or departing from any part of it, through
the fear of deviating from the sentiments of any man, or any num-
ber of men in the world. Hence one part of the subject may differ
from one sentiment, long sanctioned by authority; another part
from another; and upon the whole, every denomination of chris-
tians may peradveuture find something that will be esteemed ob-
JBctionabie.

Indeed, there is reason to presume that some who entirely ap-
prove the leading doctrines here advanced, and whose friendship
the writer of these pages has long had the happiness to enjoy,
will be obstructed in their progress through the Essay, by some
considerable objections. Without attempting to predict what par-
ticular points will be considered erroneous, it may suffice to notice
objections that are more general. These may perhaps be the fol-
lowing: (l.) That the subject is treated in a manner too abstruse
and metaphysical, and (2.) that the peculiar boldness and novelty
of several parts of it, ar» of a suspicious character, and indicate
a strong presumption, that some very serious errors have been
adopted.

In answering the first, it may be sufficient to say, that great
care and pains were used to make the subject as simple and intel-
ligible as its nature would possibly admit of; and though some
things have been introduced that are abstruse in their nature, be-
cause it was impossible otherwise to do any justice to the subject,
yet it is presumed, there are few things introduced, but such as
may be understood by common minds, provided their method of
reading and understanding subjects be that of attention and dili-
gent thinking. And 1 hope no person would request a man to
write a book that may be understood without thinking. Must it
not be a very superficial and frivolous performance, that can be
comprehended by a careless inattentive glance, that is hardly suf-
ficient to keep the reader from falling into a profound sleep? And
however intelligible, conclusive, or important a treatise may be, it
will contain nothing clear, convincing or interesting, to an un-
thinking mind: because his intellectual supineness renders him
incapable of entering into a subject, or of properly relishing any
truths it may contain. The discourses of our Saviour ajid his
apostles are remarkably simple and perspicuous; yet the man who
presumes he has a right understanding of them, without close and
habitual meditation, is in a greater error, perhaps, than those of
whom he is disposed to complain.

As to the second objection, the candid and friendly reader is
assured, that great solicitude occupied the mind of the writer,
through the whole of this Essay, to guard against error: if the
reader will devote an equal degree of attention to discover and
point out erroneous opinions, that was employed to avoid them, he
y/ill doubtless be entitled to a fair hearing; and whatever a,id his

PREFACE.

friendly strictures may afford, will be received with gratitude.^ —
But as to those persons, if any such there be, who upon the tirst
careless glance are entirely prepared, and think themselves fully
qualified, to fix the charge of heresy upon a publication, their
sovereign and masterly decision, 1 think, is beneath the attention
of every reflecting mind. Their great and capable minds, it
would seem, are under no necessity to submit to the drudgery of
close and laborious thinking, in order to distinguish truth from
falsehood; but are at once prepared, with intuitive infallibility, to
judge of every book and of every subject, without the pains of ex-
amination, or even almost without reading or hearing them. —
AVhat is the evidence on which they decide? Such as the follow-
ing: the thing is a novelty: — I never heard it before: — my father
never believed it: — It is not believed by our party: — I am sure it is
false. — Hoping the reader will pardon me for supposing it possi-
ble, that there may be persons of this sort in the world, 1 drop the
present allusion, and proceed to notice a few other particulars.

It is not impossible, that some persons, into whose hands this
hook may chance to fall, will be grievously offended, because so
little deference appears to be given to creeds, established by the
authority of divines, or to the opinions of the learned; especially
to those of philosophers and doctors of law and divinity. 'Ihey
may perhaps think this performance, however destitute of the
grace of novelty in other particulars, affords a new species of im-
pudence and self-sufficiency.

It is indeed a very pleasing reflection to an enlightened mind,
that there are many men of learning in the world: — men who have,
a complete knowledge of the different languages, as also of sci-
ence in general; — it would be a blessing if their number was in-
creased ten fold;— and every friend to human improvement must
consider it desirable to be possessed of their advantages: — but
though a degree of deference is due to their authority, yet if any
one should conclude that authority alone is a sutficient ground for
all our opinions, it might not be improper to propose to him a few
plain queries.

1. Are divines and philosophers the only men to whom God has
given the right to think and judge for themselves.^ 2. Must all
persons who have been unhappily deprived of their advantages,
either hold their peace, or frame all their opinions according to
the exact model furnished by their learned superiors, however the
clearest evidence may seem to lead to a contrary conclusion.^ 3.
Is a man incapable of reasoning or judging correctly, because he
is not a critic in foreign languages, or has not become master of
astronomy or navigation? 4. If any pers(»n were charged with hav-
ing no independence, — -of framing all his opinions according to the
fashion or authority of great men, without having any opinion of
his own, — would he not consider it a reproach, and be disposed to
repel the charge.^* 5. Is it not very inconsistent then, for any per-
son to complain of another, for using that freedom of thought and
independence, the want of which cannot be imputed to himself^
w ilhout being received as a reproach, or even as an insult.'*

The reader, it is hoped, bearing these queries in mind, will pe-
ruse the following sheets w ith some indulgence, and will not be

PREFACE.

fiasty in attributing that to a want of respect for great men, whieU
originated only from a desire to avoid the unreasonable preposses-
sions of fashion and authority.

As to the manner, or execution of this work, it is not to be
doubted that the judicious reader will meet with many deiiciencies;
some from errors of the press, some from the inability of the au-
thor, and others from the peculiar disadvantages under which he
laboured. A candid and liberal indulgence is solicited; and if any
harsh or uncharitable expressions have been permitted to pass, it
is hoped, that, being imputed to inadvertency, more than malevo-
lence, by impartial and generous minds, they will be forgiven.

This book may be thought by some to copy too much after the
modes of expression used by moralists, philosophers, or even So-
einians; and though the sentiments may be true, yet the expres-
sions may be thought not sufficiently evangelical. Instance, the
frequent use of the words virtue, rectitude, morality, &c.

This has been done for the sake of precision and perspicuity.
Those words, though sometimes limited to external conduct only,
are frequently used to signify the whole of christian righteousness,
obedience and holiness. Does not the law of God enjoin perfect holi-
ness? And is it uot truly denominated the moral law? Then does
not the word morality, comprehend the whole of that law which
enjoins the perfect love of God, and of all mankind? And why
should christians, or men of reason, dispute about words, and be
otfended at each other for particular modes of expression? To re-
ject truth on this account, is like a person refusing to partake of
the common sustenance of life, because it is not served up in that
kind of table furniture which is most agreeable to his fancy.

And suppose there should be a considerable deficiency of style,
or even a few serious errors of opinion, if the doctrines are true in
the general, and worthy of all acceptation, they surely ought not
to be rejected with disgust or indiiference, because a few errors es-
caped attention, and unhappily found their way into this publica-
tion. To reject a treatise in this way, is to act like those persons
who reject or despise a whole religious community as hypocrites,
because a few of its members have been found to be deceitful.
Would such an objector be willing his own character should be
treated in this manner, and be unequivocally exploded as a bad
character, because a few blemishes had been discovered? Reader,
wilt thou slay the truth ivith the error, and that the truth should be
as the error? That be Jar from thee. Shall not every candid person
imitate the judge of all the earth in doing right?

But if Dr. Brown be correct in his views of mankind, this will
be a very unfashionable, and therefore unpopular book: "As few
men have the courage" says he, "to sacrifice their interest, their
pleasure, or their fame to their regard for truth and justice, the
great concern is, to speak and act, not as reason and virtue dictate,
but as interested views, in conforming to the opinions, humours,
and manners of others, may require. For, how is tlie favour of the
greater part of men to be caught, but by adulation and servile res-
pect? And what so efficacious for incurring their displeasure, as
that manly and generous conduct and conversation, v\hich indicate
less solicitude to secure favour, than to enjoy self-esteem, a greater

PREFACE.

iove of mankind than respect for individuals? Hence, mostih'eB
Lave an opinion for every company they frequent, and change
their sentiments oftener than their dress. — Politeness is making
constant demands— propriety imposing new laws — men are al-
ways the slaves of custom, and seldom follow the bent of their
own genius and temper. Society is a species of stage, on which
the actors appear in their turns, and play their parts. He is most
applauded, and bears the highest price, who appears least him-
self, and personates most successfully the assumed character.

" The man who presumes to think, to speak, or to act, ditierent-
ly from the generality, even in matters of singular importance to
the common good, is looked upon as an unsocial savage being,
who, separating himself from his species, is entitled to no share of
their regard and afteetjon. It is well, if he is not exposed to the
severest effects of resentment and hatred." Browii's JV*atural
Equality of Men, page 130 and 134.

According to this bold representation, which Dr. Brown has
had the assurance to make, it would appear, that an honest mau
is not to expect much esteem in this world; but that, in order to be
popular, a man's chief concern must be to conform himself to the
fashion. Such a concern had little inftuence in producing the pre-
sent Essay, and therefore, judging by the above representation, it
is not difficult to foresee its fate.

THE AUTHOR,

Baltimoref September ±2, 1813.

IISTRODUCTION.

l^EAViNG the busy multitude to pursue their momentary
schemes. 1 sit down, thoughtful and retired, to consider myself,
my origin, my Author and my end. 1 live in the world, pos-
sessed of various faculties to think, and feel, and remember, I
know not how. I want to know tchat I am, zchence I am, and
whither I am bound.

I find I am a creature capable of being eitlier happy or mis-
erable, and that happiness and misery are within my po^vcr,
and, in a considerable degree, depend upon my voluntary ac-
tions. There are many objects around me, some of which are
calculated to hurt me, and others to minister to my wants.
There are millions of creatures in the world, beside myself,
some possessing similar faculties to those which 1 possess, and
others of another kind. They rlso are capable of happiness
or misery, and it depends upon my choice, whether I act in a
way calculated to injure them, or to promote their felicity. Our
nature, our feelings, and our wants are common; and the ques-
tion presents itself, whether I should consider my own conve-
nience alone, and gratify myself in every particular, however
others may be injured; or, whether 1 ought to regaji'd the gen-
eral welfare, and sacrifice some of my private gratiHcations,
to promote the native liberty and enjoyments of my fellow men?
The latter appearing to be self-evident, I feel bound to use my
thinking 2)ow ers, that I may learn, not only the means of hap-
piness and misery to myself, that I may pursue the one and
avoid the other; but also what is calculated to guard others
from misery, and to promote the tranquillity of universal so-
ciety. _
B

vi. INTRODUCTION.

Happiness is the end of general knowledge; and any part of
knowledge that has no tendency to this end, (if any such there
be) is altogether useless and insignificant. I find that I desire
liapjKness by an nneontrolable necessity in my nature: I need
no increase of knowledge to stimulate me to pursue this end;
but the means of it are as diversified as the works of God. and
my ignorance of them is such that there is need of perpetual
meditation to discover them; and I presume there would still be
great room for improvements, were my life protracted for ten
thousand years.

As the means of happiness, when known, must be applied or
reduced to practice, I conclude that in all my reflections I
should have a reference to the regulation of my conduct; and
'that which shews nie immediately how to act right, is the most
important of all knoM'ledge. He who pursues knowledge with-
out any regard to practice, is like a man sitting by the way
side, enquiring of every one, that he may learn the road to any
certain place, in order to sit still and never follow the direc-
tions he receives with so much apparent solicitude.

In vain may he pretend that disinterested benevolence influ-
ences him to acquire knowledge, that he may direct others into
that path of right conduct, in which he refuses to walk him-
self; for his own snpine indifference refutes this pretension and
evinces to every attentive spectator, that his benevolence is so
very superficial that it only recommends that which he esteems
not worth pursuing. It is some selfish principle, and not a ge-
nuine love of truth, which influences the empty speculations of
8ueh an individual; and it is well if he does not spend more
time in learning how to excuse and justify his own indifference
to virtue, than he docs in teaching others how to pursue and
enjoy the benefits thereof. Believing, as his conduct proves he
does, that he can be more happy in the neglect of right conduct
than ill the practice of it, he will directly or indirectly recom-
mend the same immorality to others, and will excuse or defend
the delusion, by all the insinuating sophistry in his power.

I am not only ignorant, 1 find, of many things which it con-
cerns uie to know; but 1 am perpetually liable to fall into error,
which is worse tlian ignorance. If I use my intellectual fa-
culties as 1 ought. 1 may through Divine assistance, I conclude.

INTRODUCTION. vii.

acquire all that knouledgo which my Maker has made neces-
sary for my present state of being, as well as to prepare me for
eternal happiness hereafter; but there are many things which
I cannot know, because the Almighty Jias not given rae the
means and the power to know them. If I believe nothing con-
eerning them, bnt live contented in a state of ignorance, in
matters which God has put beyond the reach of my understand-
ing, I shall continue safe and happy; but if 1 form hypothesis,
and resolve to believe without evidence, I shall fall into delu-
sions that may have a pernicious influence upon my virtue and
tranquillity.

Hence it appears necessary for me to be at due pains to dis-
tinguish between those things which may be known by mankind,
and those which surpass the limits of human understanding,
lest 1 should spend my time in fruitless endeavors to compre-
hend that which is incomprehensible. In so doing I should
weary myself in vain: I should darken counsel hj words ivith-
out knowledge, bewilder the understanding of others, as w ell as
my own, and involve truth in the shades of impenetrable ob-
scurity. I should waste and abuse the time and talents which
the Parent of goodness has lent me for a season, and should
remain ignorant of truths which might be known, by prepos-
terously neglecting them to pursue those subjects which God
has reserved for the contemplation of superior intelligences.

To distinguish between things knowable by me, and those
which are not so, I purpose to regulate my studies chiefly by
this single rule: When a subject of apparent difficulty presents
itself, if the impossibility of conceiving it more clearly do not
appear self-evident, I must give it a full trial; I must avail
myself of the most happy season, when my thinking faculties
are in the best order, and labor to understand it with all neces-
sary attention and perseverance: if in this attempt my concep-
tions become more clear and distinct, I receive it as evidence
that I am not out of my proper sphere; but if every attempt be
fruitless — if my pains and labors serve no otlier purpose than
to weary my spirit, and involve the subject in greater obscu-
rity, I take for granted that tliis is a subject beyond the grasp
of my understanding, and must immodiatoiy give up the pur-
suit.

viii. INTRODUCTION.

Among the vast variety of subjects witljiii the compass of
human thought, I ought to select those for my most serious and
attentive iir.esiigalion, that appear to have the most essential
relation to the solid and perpetual happiness of mankind.
Those of secondary importance should have but a secondary
dv.'gree of attention, especially as our stay in this world is so
short, tliat we must necessarily remain ignorant of many par-
tierlars for want of time to examine them.

By the study and communication of trutli, I hope to glorify
juy Creator, and to promote the welfare of my fellow creatures,
as well as my own, by exhibiting those amiable and august per-
fections of the Deity, which are the foundation of all felicity
in every part of the universe. I hope, through the mediation
of my Saviour, to, answer, in some degree, the end of a rational
being, and to stand approved before Him whose vast intelli-
gence scrutinizes the secret thoughts cf every creature. I hope
to contribute my mite to the support of truth and righteousness
among the descendants of Adam, and to assist, as I may be
able, the benefactors of mankind, in defeating the dark designs
of malevolence, which have appeared in all ages, and which
have sometimes threatened to banish ail truth and virtue from
the world, and to fill it with the intolerable darkness of super-
stition, or of open atheism.

But how shall I guard against splitting upon the rocks or
running upon the shoals which stand threatening on either
hand? How many good men have fallen into great mistakes.''
In attempting to steer our vessel upon the calm and unruffled
current of reason and revelation, that we may reach our de-
sired haven, much caution is needful to guard against the dan-
gerous whirlpools of passion and of prejudice. Many, alas!
have missed their course in a dark and a cjoudy day, and hav-
ing run a ground were unable to get forward and have long
stood exposed to the waves of prejudice and passion; while
others to avoid a similar fate, have unhappily kept at too great
a distance, and tliereby have fallen on the rocks upon the other
shore. " Nothing is inore common," says Mr. Fletcher " thau
for men to run into one extreme under the plausible pretence of
fjtvoidjng another."

Bhall I presume then, that I ^vill be able to avoid all dan-

V INTRODUCTION. ix.

ger, and to keep constantly on the even channel? I dare not
presume so. Yet I cannot believe that all men are destined to
run into dangerous errors of necessity, without charging my
Maker foolishly. And "to run away" from the search of
truth, on account of danger, "is but a coward's trick:" the ex-
amples which history affords, of the multiplied and dangerous
errors of mankind, ought indeed to make us wary; but they
ought never to cause us to fold up our hands and do nothing,
under the whimsical imagination, that we shall mend the mat-
ter by laying an embargo upon our rational faculties.

God gave us talents that we might improve, not bury themj
and I must be permitted to presume that a right use of them
will lead to the end intended: and unless that end was to de-
ceive mankind with various delusions, 1 conclude we may avoid
all dangerous mistakes, provided we move cautiously, after
having taken due pains to set out right. Jf we take a wrong
direction when we first set out upon a journey, the farther we
advance, the more we wander out of the way. To avoid this,
let us begin by examining what method God has established to
lead his creatures to the knowledge of his truth. Let us labor
to conceive and ascertain the proper method of distinguishing
truth from falsehood, that we may trace out the causes which
have led thousands so far into the wilderness.

AN ESSAY

FLAN OF SAJLYATIOET-

CHAPTER I.

WON THE METHOD ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATOR, THROUGH
WHICH MANKIND ARE TO DISTINGUISH TRUTH FROM FALSE-
HOOD.

SECTION I.

^ general view of truth and evidence.

CxoD has given us power, by means of various faculties of our
nature, to conceive many things, to distinguish between them^
to compare them together, and to notice their connexion or
repugnance to each other. The exercise of these faculties
produces in. us an immediate belief or conviction that some
things are true and others false. Of all this we are conscious,
as of our own existence; and if we discredit the evidence of
consciousness, we may at once abandon all farther inquiry and
resign ourselves to "the great profundity obscure" of uni-
versal scepticism. I know my own existence; I find by con-
sciousness alone; and if I cannot have a sure knowledge of this
it is certain that I can know nothing else. If I exist not, I
have no faculties, and of course no capacity of knowing;
otherwise knowledge is acquired and truth discovered, by the
intellectual faculties of nothing.

By the word truth, in its general application, I understand
th«8e propositions, or decisions of the judgment, which accord

12 AN ESSAY ON THE

with the real existence, properties and relations of all things.'
those which do not thus accord with real existence, properties
and relations, are false.

The ground on which all truth rests, or the criterion by
which it is to be ascertained, is called by the general name of
evidence. This may appear in all possible degrees, from the
slightest probability to the most absolute certainty: and that
judgment which is according to truth, is regulated by the- de-
gree of evidence appearing in the subject on which it decides.
If I judge that to be certain which is only probable, my judg-
ment is erroneous; it is equally so, if I judge that to be only
probable or doubtful, which is accompanied with evidence that
is certain and indubitable.

A falsehood is to be known or ascertained by its repugnance
or opposition to all evidence. As truth is known by its connex-
ion with evidence; and as truth and falsehood are opposites, it
follows that falsehood and evidence stand in contradiction to
each other.

A doubtful proposition or hypothesis, is known by its entire
want of evidence. If evidence appear for it, it is found to be
a truth; if against it, it is found to be a falsehood; and in either
case it no longer remains a doubtful proposition, or hypothesis.
I will suppose a proposition is advanced that there are elephants
and crocodiles in the moon. Is this to be received as a truth or as
a falsehood.^ It cannot be ascertained as a truth, because there
IS no evidence for it; nor as a falsehood, because there is none
against it: therefore to receive it for a certain truth Avere to
espouse an hypothesis, and till some proof be produced either
for or against it, I feel disposed to conclude that it is beneath a
rational being to believe any thing concerning the matter. This
conclusion must stand, or else the following one must fall, namely
that it is the part of a rational being to regulate his belief by evi-
dence, and by nothing else. If we deny this, we say it is right
and proper for men to believe without evidence, and if so, how
rediculous and vain are all our demands for testimony, argu-
ments and demonstrations, before we Avill consent to receive
every thing we hear as a proper object of our belief?

But as all truth is to be known in this way, it appears very
desirable to understand what this certain something is, which

PLAN OF SALTATION. 13

we call evidence. If truth is known by this, and by nothing else;
and if we have no power to discover evidence or to conceive
any thing concerning its nature, it is plainly impossible for us to
know any thing concerning what is true and what is false.

But am I able to give wliat is called a logical dehnition of
evidence? I think 1 am not. And shall 1 thence conclude that I
have no conception of it, and that it is a word which has no
meaning? If I conclude so, I find many similar conclusions will
follow. No such definition can be given of existence, of time, of
space, of power, of agency, thought, or intelligence. And must I
therefore conclude that men have no conception of these things,
and know nothing about the distinction between existence and
non-existence ? If so, I must contradict my consciousness, give
up my own existence, and lay by my pen and paper for the moles
and the bats.

Not being willing so speedily to abandon my pursuit, I repeat
the enquiry, v.hat is evidence ? sliall I answer that it is testimo-
ny, argument and demonstration ? This is only giving the names
of ditt'erent kinds of evidence, witliout explaining what the thing
is in itself, demonstration is one thing; testimony is another;
but that certain thing we call evidence is common to them both.
I know there is a city in England called London, and another
in France called Paris; but I never saw either of them, and their
existence was never demonstrated: yet I am as certain of their
existence, from human testimony, as I am of any other truth by
demonstration. And my belief in the existence of those cities is
founded on evidence, as well as in those truths which are con-
tained in Euclid's Elements.

What is it in human testimony whicli we call evidence ? Will
it be said we believe the testimony of men so far as their vera-
city has been ascertained by experience ? I still pursue the sub-
ject, and ask, what is it in our experience which we call evidence?
Why must I believe a thing to be true, because it accords with
my experience ? And why must I believe a thing to be <rue be-
cause it is demonstrated ? How do I know but demonstration is
the very thing that supports falsehood ? I suspect no rational
answer can be given to these questions, but that tliere is some-
thing in testimony, experience, and clear demonstration, that ip
jiaturally calculated to pVoduce belief or conviction in an intel-
C

14 AN ESSAY ON THE

ligent being that the tiling thus proved is true: and this certain
something which natiirally tends to produce belief or conviction
is what we mean by evidence. We find that experience, human
testimony, consciousness, the external senses, and the decisions
or operations of memory, have all the same tendency to produce
conviction. It is the united judgment of mankind, that however
these sources of knowledge may differ in many particulars, there
is something common to them all: and that something is denomi-
nated evidence. A man believes that he thinks; that there is so-
lid ground beneath his feet; that a great general once lived called
GEORGE Washington: but none of these thiligs have ever been
demonstrated; and yet his belief is founded on evidence from
three sources: from consciousness, sensation, and human testi-
mony.

Although the nature of evidence cannot be fully comprehended
or logically defined, yet it frequently shines as the beams of
light, to which it is often compared in the Holy Scriptures. I
may be unable to define light, or to comprehend its essence; yet
I have no difficulty in perceiving objects while it shines around
them. As light is something which enables me to discover the
existence of things about me, so evidence is something which il-
luminates my understanding, whereby I discover many truths,
and am able to distinguish them from falsehood. If I shut my
eyes and refuse to admit the light till I can completely compre-
hend its nature, I may grope in darkness at the blaze of noon:
in like manner, if I refuse to admit the light of evidence till I
completely comprehend how it enables me to discover truth, I
may walk in unbelieving darkness to the end of life.

1 know it is true that I am now thinking. But how do I know
this ? I know it by consciousness. But w hat is this conscious-
ness } All I know of the matter is that it is some kind of illumi-
nation in my mind, or whatever else you may please to name it,
that produces an immediate and invincible conviction, that I
now think. If the evidence of our thinking be doubtful, that of
demonstration is equally so, because demonstration depends
wpon thinking, w ithout which it could aftbrd no evidence at all.

Can any man give a reason why we should yield to mathema-
tical demonstration, any more than other kinds of evidence ?
Will He oft'er this for a reason, thj|t it is stronger than any other

I>LAN OF SALVATION. m

kind ? I know not what he means by its being stronger, unless
it be that it is naturally calculated to produce a stronger or more
firm belief in a rational nature, than any other kind; and if this
be his meaning I must dissent from him, or give up my consci-
ousness: for the evidence I have of my existence, and the exis-
tence of this paper before me, is as strong and naturally tends
to produce as firm a conviction as any demonstration ever did
or can do.

Will he say it is a more reasonable kind of evidence than any
other ? This is easily said, but what proof will he condescend
to give us of its truth ? Has it ever been demonstrated that no
other kind is so reasonable as this ? If not, he obtains the
knowledge of this truth (if it be a truth) from some other source
of evidence less reasonable than that of demonstration. And if
so, is it not as unreasonable to receive this truth from that in-
ferior source of knowledge, as any other ? Is he conscious that
demonstration is the most reasonable kind of evidence .^' If so,
consciousness has furnished him with a discovery that his boast-
ed demonstration could never furnish, and he has no reason to
give a preference to the latter, but what he professedly derives
from the former.

Will he say it is more intelligible, more clear, than the tes-
timony of sense, of consciousness, or any thing else? How
does he know it? Has it ever been demonstrated? If not, he is
indebted to one of the less reasonable sources of knowledge,
for one of his most unshaken principles of faith; namely, that
our belief ought to be regulated by demonstrative reasoning, iu
preference to every thing else. And just as much reason as he
has to give this the preference, so much he has to admire that
source of knowledge without which he would never have made
the discovery. This conclusion will remain undeniable till it
be demonstrated that demonstration is the most reasonable kind
of evidence.

It will perhaps be- said that mathematical truths are more
^lear and certain than any other kind, because they are neceS'
sary, and it is impossible for them to be false. How do we
know it is impossible for them to be false? In vain may it be an-»
swered that they have been demonstrated; for the first princi-
ples of necessary trath are takftn for granted, as well as all

16 AN ESSAY ON THE

other first principles. Has it ever been demonstrated that " a
part is less than the whole," and that " equal quantities added
to equal quantities will make equal sums?" No: every mathe-
matician knows that these principles are taken for granted
without proof, and if they be denied, all demonstration is at an
end. I repeat the question, how do we know that these princi-
ples are true, and that their contrary is impossible.^ The only
answer is, that God has given us faculties whereby we perceive
their truth with immediate conviction, as I now immediately
perceive this paper lying before me. In like manner, by the
faculties God has giVen me, I perceive this truth, with immedi-
ate conviction, that I now exist, and that it is impossible for me
to exist and not exist at the same time. The first principles of
mathematical truth are seen no less immediately, and in a man-
ner no less unaccountable: and 1 will wait patiently to hear what
reason can be given why we should discredit those faculties God
has given us, in their immediate decision of what' is true, any
more than in their decision of what must necessarily be so.

SECTION II.

Concerning the several sources of our knowledge^ and first, of
those principles which are self-evident.

Perhaps all the sources of human knowledge may be reduced
to this general division, first, intuitive certainty, comprehend-
ing all truths that are self-evident: secondly, the evidence of
reasoning: and thirdly, the evidence of Revelation. I do not
conclude absolutely that all evidence is comprehended in this
division, or enumeration of the general sources of it; but I pre-
sume there will be few exceptions found, if any, and till they
appear, I must confine my remarks to the different members of
this division.

And first, we will consider the principles of intuitive certain-
ty, that are self-evident. By their being self-evident, I metm

PLAN OF SALVATION. 17

that their evidence is contained in themselves, and (he mind
perceives it immediately, independent of all external proof or
argument.

Such principles are the foundation of all rational conclusions
or deductions in every science, and we cannot begin to reason,
till we first perceive some truth immediately, on which to take
our stand; for all reasoning consists in inferring one truth from
another, and we must be in possession of the first truth, before
we can reason or draw an inference from it, otherwise the infer-
ence is not drawn from truth at all; and if the premises be not
true, how can the conclusion be so.''

Some first principles have been mentioned already, and ex-
amples might be given in every science or branch of human
knowledge. This has been done by Dr. Reid and others; and
all that is necessary for our present purpose is to present a feAv
examples before the reader, and appeal to the immediate dic-
tates of his judgment, as well as to the common judgment of
mankind.

Concerning truth in general, there are some self-evident
principles, that are perceived by intuitive conviction, and bor-
row not their evidence from any external proof. The first
principle of this kind is, that there is a distinction between
truth and falsehood. This is self evident, and if it be contra-
dicted, nothing in the world can be proved by any argument:
for after the clearest demonstration is laid before a man; how
easy is it for him to reply, " your argument proves nothing to
be true, any more than the most trifling sophism; and it is im-
possible it should, seeing there is no distinction between truth
and falsehood." Truth and falsehood are the same thing:
therefore demonstration and sophistry are both alike, for they
both support something; and whatever it be, it is all falsehood
and all truth, because there is no manner of difference between
them.

Now if I were disposed to turn sceptic, and to shelter myself
in this strong hold, how in the name of reason and common
sense should 1 be beaten out.^ Would you undertake to convince
me by argument that there is a distinction between truth and
falsehood? What is the arsrumeut by which it is to be proved r

18 AN ESSAY ON THfi

Will it be said that reason, or the human faculties, perceive
aorae things to be true and others false; that those faculties arc
correct in their decisions; and therefore there is a ilistinction
between truth and falsehood? And what is this but merely af-
firming the thing to be proved, namely, that God has given us
power to perceive, w ith immediate conviction, that some things
are true and others false? This is taken for granted because it
is self evident; and if we conclude God has given us deceitful
faculties, and refuse to believe the contrary till it be proved by
argument, we may remain forever in our unbelief; for no argii*
ment can be given but what depends upon the exercise of those
very faculties which have before been supposed to be deceitful.
For us first to suppose that our faculties are deceitful, and then
to prove by arguments, produced by the exercise of those very
faculties, that they are not so, is like our suspecting a certain
man to be a thief and a liar, and then proving by his own testi-
mony that he is an honest man. The veracity of our original
faculties is taken for granted in every argument we use, and in
every belief we form, from the beginning to the end of life; while
we refuse to credit them, we must discredit every thing in the
world; and if we resolve to believe that God has stamped a lie
upon the human intellects and senses till our reason is able to
muster up some argument for their veracity, besides that imme-
diate conviction of it that exists in every rational being, we may
at once give up all our knowledge, lie down in the profound
and universal ignorance of scepticism, and believe nothing that
ever was presented to the human understanding, excepting this
one proposition, that our faculties are deceitful.

Another self-evident principle is, that truth and falsehood
are opposite to each other, or in other words, that it is impoS'
siblefor tico contradictory propositions both to be true.

Every man possessing the human, faculties, excepting hira
who is in a state of insanity, immediately perceives the truth of
those principles, and a thousand metaphysical arguments Avould
not make them more clear, or more evident, than they are w ith»
out them.

Indeed, all such principles are incapable of being proved by
any direct argument; except, perhaps, where two such truths
are so related that one may be inferred from the other; because

PLAN OF SALVATION". le

every true argument is built upon something more evident than
the thing to be proved, otherwise it brings no additional evi-
dence to the subject it was brought to support; and it is irra-
tional to give any more credit to the principle, after the pre-
tended support of such an argument, than we did before it was
brought forward. And if two truths equally evident, are in-
ferred the one from the other, this may serve for illustration;
but no additional evidence is brought to either of them. But
what principle can we find, on which to found an argument that
is more evident than this, that truth and falsehood are opposite
to each other, or that he who contradicts truth speaks that which
is false? If we can find no other principle more evident than
this, w ith which it stands connected, and from which it may be
logically inferred, how is it possible for its evidence to be increased
by any argument.''

Another self-evident proposition, connected with the former,
is, that it is possible for truth and falsehood to be distinguished
from each other by the human mind. If this be not believed upon
its own evidence, it will never be believed at all: for it is impos-
sible to prove it by any argument but such as will take for grant-
ed the very principle itself as its foundation. For whatever
the argument be, its premises must be true, before a true con-
elusion can be drawn; and therefore the man takes for granted
that he distinguishes truth from falsehood in the premises, be-
fore he comes to his conclusion: and to say the conclusion proves
the premises to be true, w hen itself has no evidence but what
it derives from the premises, is to reason in a circle, and to take
for granted the very thing in question.

We need not here introduce the various principles belonging
to the different sciences: but a few thoughts upon the subject of
morals, or of right and wrong, may not be improper, because the
value of truth consists chiefly in leading us to pursue that which
is right, and to avoid that which is wrong. This is the more
necessary, as the subject of right and wrong has been sometimes
represented as being so loose and unsettled, that every man may
draw the line for himself, and make right and wrong to suit his
own taste, and may change them as he pleases. It has been said
to depend entirely on education,and that which is right with one
many or with one nation, is wrong with another; and different

20 AN ESSAY ON THE

nations of men may if they please, form systems of morals direct-
ly opposite to each other, and the sltimate conclusion is, that
they are all right, and there is no such thing as wrong in the
M'orld, only so far as men are pleased to frame such an imagi-
nation to themselves. This I suspect, has long been a pleasing
theme of atheism; and I think it will stand firm to the end of
the world, if it be indeed true, that there are no self-evident
principles of morality; but if there be such principles; moral
duty has as firm a foundation as mathematics.

I am far from supposing that alLmoral duties are self-evident;
thousands of cases niay occur, in which we will be at a loss to
decide Avhat is right, and we are liable to err in moral subjects
as well as in all others: I am only disposed to contend that there
are a few general principles that are self-evident, and which
stand from age to age as the basis of all moral reasoning.

That our first conceptions of right and wrong do not depend
solely on education, is evident from the following reflections:

1st. Our fathers could not teach us a system of morality, with-
ontfirst having conceptions of moral subjects themselves; other-
wise you say they could commnnicate that to us, of which they,
themselves were entirely ignorant. How did they come by their
knowledge of right and wrong? why to be sure from their fathers
and instructors. And so we may trace it back to Adam, and
the question still recurs, how did the first man receive the con-
ception that one kind of conduct is right and another wrong.^
He must have received it from God, either by immediate revela-
tion, or by the genuine dictates of his original faculties. Both
are the voice of God in man, and I confess I cannot see why we
might not as well believe that he gives a deceitful revelation,
as to believe the genuine and immediate dictates of our original
faculties naturally tend to deceive and lead us into delusion.

2d. Adam's children must have had some conception of the
distinction between right and wrong, before they could under-
stand any of his instructions on the subject: otherwise you say
one man can give another an original conception that is not the
immediate dictate of any faculty of his nature. And ifa crea-
ture can be instructed in those subjects, who has no original pow-
er to oonceive of moral obligation, why do wc not educate our
horses and dogs to become subjects of moral govemiBent, and

PLAN OF SALVATION. 01

proper members of civil society? They cannot understanrl Our in-
structions upon right ami wrong, for this reason only, that they
have no original conception of justice or of right, and it is impossi-
ble for us to give it to them. Of course the reason why we can
instruct our children in morality, and not our domestic animals, is
that they have some faculty from whence the hrst conception
arises, which brute animals have not: this conception they receiv-
ed, aot from us, but from brod their maker, in a manner best known
to -himself.

3d. Let it be granted, that a man's moral opinons depend very
much upon his education, and that his faculties have been much
assisted by it in arriving to that maturity which they have acquir-
ed: what then,^ Will it follow that his conception of the firs*
principles of morals was as much received by education as any
•ther opinion.^ If we conclude there is no real distinction between
right and wrong, merely because our moral judgments may be
warped by education, we might with equal reason conclude there
is no distinction between true uml false; for surely our reasoning
faculties are dependent on education as well as our conscience,
a,nd our belief of true and false is as much received from our fa-
tilers, as our views of right and ivrong. And if the latter affords
just ground to conclude that men may draw the line of justice
^vhere they please, the former affords the same ground to con-
•lude that they may draw the line of truth w here they please: and
thus while with one hand we give up all righteousness in favour of
atheism, we give up all truth, with the other, in favour of that
•'sceptical philosophy" which teaches that all things are equally
doubtful, and of course, that there is no such thing as knowledge
in the world.

4th. If the human soul has no original conceptions of right and
ivrong, it would be as easy and natural for men to believe one doc--
trine of morality as another, and we might reasonably expect to
see whole nations of them seriously believing and instructing their
«hildren, that barbarity to a man's dearest friends is the most
lovely virtue he could possibly practise, while every species of
kindness is immoral and wicked to the last degree. Did any
savage in the wilderness ever believe this, and teach it to his
children ? And why not, if it be as natural for us to receive one no-
tion of right and wrong as another?

But while we renounce this flimsy plea of the libertine, shall we
vun into another extreme, under pretence of supporting revelation,
and maintain that the Bible is the only source from whence man-
D

22 AN ESSAY ON THE

kind have derived all their kuowledge of right and wrong? Some
christians appear to think that we discredit revelation, whenever
we admit of any other source of knowledge, especially the know-
ledge of duty. Who can tell us what is our duty, say they, or
what is the will of God concerning us but God himself? This
he has done in the Holy Scriptures, and they are the only sure
guide for us to follow in matters of morality.

I answer, if the Bible be our only guide, I would be glad to
know where it teaches the doctrine now under consideration:
where is there a passage from Genesis to the Revelation, that says
the Bible is the only source^ whence man derives his first concep-
tions concerning right and wrong ? If this be a truth, and if they
have learned it either from the Old or New Testament, I confess
it is a perfectly new discovery to me; for I have never been able
to find any such declaration in all the scriptures. And if they
have learned it from any other source, and not from the writings
of the prophets or apostles, then tliey have violated their own rule,
and have gone to another standard to learn something concerning
morality.

It is true the Bible says. If any man speak, let him speak as the
oracles of God, and if they speak not according to this ivord it is he-
cause there is no light in them: 1 Pet. iv. 11. Isa. viii. 20. And I
very readily admit that if Ave hold any opinion that is not accord-
ing to, or which contradicts this rule, it is an error, and is neither
received by intuitive conviction, nor by the right exercise of rea-
son: because God will never give one kind of evidence to contradict
another. But those passages only affirm that the Bible is a true
rule, and therefore that which is not according to it, is false, be-
cause it is impossible for truth to contradict itself.

Do tlie inspired writers set out, by teaching us first of all, that
there is a difterence between right and wrong.^ It is surely neces-
sary for us to know this in the first place, and then we are ready
to hear what is right, and what is wrong: but there is no
such passage in all the Bible: it is every where taken for grant-

his nature.

If MO had no other conviction of right and wrong but what we
derive from the inspired writings, the precepts thereof would,
to us, be perfectly arbitrary, and we should have nothing in our-
selves to correspond to their fitness and rightou«.iiess; whereas one
of those writers himself declared that thev addressed themselves

PLAN OF SALVATION. 23

to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 2. Cor. iv. 2. The
Bible itself is an address to our reason and conscience; and if we
did not perceive its connexion with the genuine dictates of our
rational and moral faculties, wc should have no evidence of its di-
vinity.

Supposing a bible had been given, containino;' ten such com-
mandments as these:

1st. Thou shalt hate the Lord thy God with perfect detesta-
tion and abhorrence.

2d. Thou shalt blasplieme his name perpetually, and en-
courage others so to do.

3d. Thou shalt murder every upright man thou canst find in
the world.

4th. Thou shalt loathe and abhor thy parents, and take every
opportunity to torment them to distraction.

5th. Thou shalt steal all thy neighbour's goods, and do thy
uttermost to starve him to death.

6th. Thou shalt frequently put coals of fire in thy childrens'
bosom, and keep them in lingering torment, as long as there is any
life in them.

7th. Thou shalt debase thy reason by drunkenness and do
every thing in thy power to ruin every faculty of thy nature.

8th. Thou shalt avoid all truth as deadly poison, and establish
thy soul in lying and hypocrisy as perfectly and thoroughly as pos-
sible.

9th. Thou shalt encourage and regard all murderers and assist
them to destroy all mankind, but themselves, from the face of the
earth.

10th. Thou shalt pull out the eyes of thy horses and cattle and
C5Ut pieces of flesh from their bones, till they are gradually tor-
mented to death. And lastly, thou shalt cut thine own throat,
with all the rage of an infuriated devil, and thus put a finishing
stroke to animal existence, and to all happiness under the sun.

Now let me ask any man that has a conscience, to lay his hand
upon his heart, and say .if a bible containing such commandments
would not be contradicted by the invincible dictates cf his na-
ture, and cause his soul to shrink back with liorror! Hut if we
have no conception of what is right and wrong, but what we derive
from the inspired writings, it would be as perfectly natural and
easy to believe these precepts to be right as any others, and uo-
thing more would be necessary to convince us that we ought to
practise them as our sacred duty, but to find them ia the bible.

3* An ESSAY ON THE

Whereas if a bible had been given, as a book of inspiration,
containing such precepts, however artfully it might have bee*
brought forward, and under whatever specious appearances, I pre-
sume its morality alone would couviuce every rational man that
it originated from the devil.

But if we had no conception of the nature of morality from any
other source, if no conviction of the kind arose from the constitu-
tion of our nature, one kind of morality exhibited in revelatioa*
would be as readily received, and as much adapted to produce
conviction as another.

If no conviction, on these subjects, arises from the native dic-
tates of our conscience, or moral judgment, the purity of chris-
tiaii morals would afford no evidence in favour of the Gospel: for
with what sense could 1 appeal to the purity of the scripture pre-
cepts, as evidence to convince a man that they came from God, if
there was nothing iji his soul to dictate that one kind of morality
is more pure, or more \vorthy of God than another.^

The two principal sources of argument in favour of revelation,
are, iirst, that it recommends itself and its credentials,-to the plain
dictates of our rational faculties; and secondly, that it appeals to
ev?ry m(t,n''s conscience in the sight of God. But if reason and con-
science are to be laid aside, or entirely distrusted, as some would
seem to insinuate, under pretence of exalting revelation; we should
thereby sap the very foundation of every argument by which Chris-
tianity is supported, shake hands with the sceptic, and acknow-
ledge that the Gospel can be proved by no rational evidence. But
while some of us are vainly supposing we do honour to revelation*
by undervaluing our intellectual faculties, and almost insinuat-
ing that the Gospel cannot prosper while reason or conscience is
tolerated; there are others, with no such fondness for revelation,
hut e<[ually willing to lampoon conscience out of the world, who
maintain, under pretence of exalting reason, that all true concep-
tions of morality are discovered and proved by argument.

I am almost templed to suspect that such persons do not fairly
understand what an argument is: for how can an argument be formed
till some truth is first known as the ground or premises, from which
the conclusion is inferred ? 1 presume every logician in the world
will tell us that sound reasoning consists in drawing consequen-
ces f)r conclusions from premises that are true. They will tell ug
that if ilio premises be false, the conclusion must be equally so: and
how, ] ask, did we discover that the premises were true ? Were
they regularly and logically drawn from other premises ? Theji

PLAN OF SALVATION. 25

Ifow did we discover that those others were true ? Thus we may
trace the matter back till we come to the first link of the chain,
the truth of which must have been discovered by some other means
before it was possible for any argument to be formed.

All our moral reasonings therefore, must rest upon some first
principles of morality, discovered by the human mind, independent
of such reasoning. Let us specify a few principles ofthiskind^
and examine whether they have been discovered by argument.

1st. There is one kind of conduct that is right and another kind
that is wrong.

2d. Right and wrong are opposite to each other, and it is impos*
sible that they should be the same.

3d. All mankind ought to do that which is right, and to avoid
doing that which is wrong.

4th. That conduct which tends to promote general happiness is
right, and that which tends to promote general misery is wrong.

These principles are no where expressly laid down in the scrip-
tures, but are every where taken for granted: and I presume they
have never been proved by argument since the world was made;
yet there is no point in revelation, or that has been proved by rea-
soning, more evident than these, because they are the clear and
immediate dictates of our moral faculty, and are discovered as in-
dependently of all reasoning, as the first principles of mathema-
tics.

The principles just stated are so far from being discovered by
argument, that they themselves are the foundation of all reason^
ings in moral subjects, and it is impossible for any point in morality
to be proved without them. Let us give an example, that the mat-
ter may be plainly laid before the reader.

I propose to prove, by argument, that hypocritical lying is
wrong:

First, I take my stand on mathematical principles;
A part is less than the whole;

All the parts taken together are equal to the whole;
Therefore hypocritical lying is wrong.

If the reader receives no conviction by this argument, we will
try another from astronomy:

All the planets move round the sun:
But this earth is one of the planets;
Therefore lying is wrong:

Take a third from metaphysics:

All things which we perceive are ideas;
But vve perceive our friends ami relations:

36 AN ESSAY ON THE

Therefore lying is wrong.
Another from intellectual philosophy:

Whatever is perceived by the immediate dictates of our original
faculties is true; but they immediately dictate that there is solid
ground beneath our feet; therefore lying is wrong.

All this may appear like trifling; but I presume it is far worss
trifling to impose upon the souls of men, by persuading them that
they or their fathers had no moral conception till it was first disco-
vered by argument. Let me suppose myself in this condition in
which 1 am able to reason, but at the same time have no conception
of any thing belonging to morality: I must certainly begin to reason,
then, from something which 1 know; and having tried four kinds of
premises, 1 find their regular conclusions would leave me as pro-
foundly ignorant of all moral subjects as 1 was before. Where then
shall I take my stand ? I may run through every other branch of
human knowledge to form my premises, with no better success,
till the premises themselves are formed of moral principles: the
reason is, that no sound argument can contain any thing in the
conclusion but what is contained in the premises and is derived
from them: therefore if the conclusion be of a moral nature, the
premises must be equally so.

Let us now try what success we can have, when we begin to
build upon the right foundation.

That conduct which injures viankind, and tendsto promote gen^
eral misenjis wrong; hut hypocritical lying has this tendencT/; there-
fore hypocritical lying is wrong. Now the conclusion stands clear
and can never be overturned, unless it can be made to appear that
one or both of the premises are not true. If this can be made ap-
pear, the conclusion must fall; for it has no evidence but what de-
pends upon their truth, and upon its connexion with them.

If a free-thinker should take it in his head to deny the minor
preposition, and declare that lying and hypocrisy do not tend to the
general mi«ery of mankind: he thereby proves himself a fool for
uttering so many complaints against the dreadful evil that has
been done in the world by hypocrisy and priest-craft: and if he
deny the major, and insist that it is not wrong to do that which
tends to general misery, he equally excuses all priests and hypo-
crites, and proves himself to have less regard to morality than a
barbarian.

If he is forced to acknowledge that it is wrong to do that which
tends to (he general misery of mankind, 1 must repeat the enquiry,
how did he come by the knowledge of this truth? Has it ever been
proved to him by argument .^ If so, what were the premises,

PLAN OF SALVATION. 27

from which this conclusion was drawn ? They must have been as
evidently true, as the principle which he says has been proved by
them, otherwise it has as much evidence without their assistance
as with it. And if he has deduced this conclusion from some other
principle of morals, more evident than this, how did he come by
the knowledge of that.^ was it inferred from principles still
more evident? from what then were they inferred,^ Thus we may
run him back acl infinitum, and he is absolutely forced to confess
that all rational argument begins upon principles that are self-
evident, or upon such as have no evidence at all. If the former,
the point for which I contend is gained; if the latter, all the prin-
ciples of true reasoning are contradicted, which are founded on
this axiom in logic, that the conclusion can never be viore evident or
more true, than the premises from which it is drawn.

SECTION in.

Two objections answered.

It may be objected, first, that the general principles of right and
wrong here laid down are not self-evident to the human mind, oth-
erwise all men would agree in them: whereas many have disbe-
lieved them, and Avhole nations have contradicted them in prac-
tice. I answer:

1st. It is true, that all sinners contradict them in practice;
but if we conclude no rule of right can be self-evident to a man
while he has power to violate it in practice, we make the rule of
right consist in doing what a man is forced to do of necessity. And
if we suppose a man's doing wrong, is a proof that he knows no
better, we suppose that all sinners perpetrate their crimes from a
suspicion that they are right, and if they were fully convinced of
the wrong they would not do it: whereas their acting in opposition
to that conviction is the very ground of their criminality, and
without it they would be no more accountable than a beast.

2d. A man's professing to disbelieve first principles is no proof
against them. Many have professed to disbelieve them, and tried
hard to do it, in order to quiet their consciences and rest satisfied in
their inexcusable vices: and wishing to conquer their natural con-
victions of justice, they are fond of professing their unbelief, and
gladly eftcr what arguments they can in defence of it, that fhry

28 AN ESSAY ON THE

may influence others to do so, and thus they hope to gain nnmhei^
on their side, and strengthen themselves by the soothing influence
of authority.

Some sceptics have professed to discredit their senses, and to be-
lieve the present existence of the world is not self-evident: yet they
will as cautiously avoid the fire and the water as other people.

In like manner some libertines may profess to have no evidence
to convince them of the first principles of morals: yet when they
themselves are injured, they immediately resent it: and manifest as
full a conviction of right and wrong as their neighbours. They^
may purposely stifle the dictates of conscience, respecting their
own duty, and then pretend they have no evidence of what is right;
and so a servant may stop his ears when his master is giving di-
rections, and afterwards excuse himself by saying, "Sir, I did not
hear you:"' but Be not deceived, for God is not mocked; whatsoever
a man sowetli, that shall he also reap.

3d. If men labour for a long while to do violence to their nature,
and at last ruin their faculties, till they are lost tcf the plainest dic-
tates of common sense, is this deception produced by the genuine
dictates of their faculties ^ or by the great pains they have taken
to subdue them ? shall 1 put out my eyes, and suppose 1 have there-
by produced a very clear argument, that the eyes God has given
to mankind are not naturally calculated to enable us to see ? or
that seeing is not accompanied with a self-evident conviction that
the objects before our eyes do actually exist ? If 1 am now blind,
■who is to blame ? Is God to blame for not giving me better eyes,
or I myself for having pulled them out ? And if a man debases his
rational faculties till he is no longer able to distinguish between
sense and nonsense, who will offer this as a serious argument that
the reasoning powers of maiikind are naturally deceitful ? We
might as well say that the case of a man, who through long and ha-
bitual melancholy has been led to believe that his head is made of
glass, might justly be produced as a powerful reason to convince
us that the dictates of common sense are all fallacious, and that it
is impossible for us to distinguish, with any certainty, between a
piece of glass and a man's head.

4th. I would be glud to know w hat evidence has been produced
of an instance, I will not say of whole nations, but of a single in-
dividual of the human race, Jew or Gentile, savage or barbarian,
that ever seriously questioned, or doubted, whether right conduct
is that which tends to the general happiness, or that which tends
to the general misery of mankind.

PLAN OF SALVATION. S?

*We hare often been referred to those persecutors whe murdered
the upright and thought they were doingGod service, as instances
in point; as also to tliose heathens who burnt their own children in
the fire, from a conviction of its being their sacred duty.

But I hope it may be made appear that these instances afford
no manner of evidence against the principle which, with so much
confidence, they are brought to disprove. Why did those persecu^
tors murder the upright ? was it not because they believed them
to be a nuisance in the creation, and that they would render an
essential service to mankind by putting them out of the way ? If
so, they were so far from disbelieving the principle, that it is right
to do tliat which tends to general haj)pinesst> that they acted upou
it in those very actions wliich are produced to prove that it was
not acknowledged by them. Their error consisted, not in taking
for granted that a man ought to jjromote gemral happiness rather
than misery, which is self-evident to every savage in the wilder-
ness, but, in supposing that the general welfare would be promo-
ted by the mm*der of those men. They were led into this wicked-
ness, not by the genuine dictate of their conscience, which produ-
ced a conviction of the former principle, but by the influence of
their prejudice and malice, which influenced them to espouse the
*atter.

And why did those heathens sacrifice their own children ? Was
it from a conviction that it was right, to do every thing in their
power to banish all happiness from the face of the earth ? not at
all: They believed, as well as we, that it is right to promote gene-
ral happiness, and wrong to do the contrary; but from the phren-
sy of their superstition, they were led to suppose that the sacrifice
of their children was necessary to secure the general welfare, by
averting the judgments of their angry Gods. In this their error
consisted, and this was no dictate of their moral faculty; but they
espoused it through passion and faise reasoning, which led
them to multiply their deities at pleasure, as imagination
should suggest, and then to attribute to them the malevolent
affections of devils and wicked men.

And because the heathens abused their reason, by yielding themr
selves up to their wicked passions, we are disposed to apologize
for them, are we? and are not for attributing any of tJieir absurdi*
ties to the inexcusable indulgence of abominable passions; but the
whole must be resolved into the deceitfulness or deficiency of the
original faculties which God Almighty had given themi In this
manner, I fear, some christians think they da God serviccj and

eo AN ESSAY ON THE

support the honour of revelation, by supposing the heathens have
•no certain knowledge of right and wrong, and of course that they
are pefectly excusable, in the midst of all their crimes!

Revelation declares the contrary, in the most unequivocal terms:
« For when the gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the
things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law
unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their
hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts
the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." Rom. 1. 14.

And were they perfectly excusable in that superstitious idola-
try which led them te burn their own children? Was it plainly
impossible for them to know any better .^ It was not: "Because
that which may be known of God, is manifest in them: for God
hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from
the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, eveii his eternal power and God-head; so
that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God,
they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became
vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fooLs, and changed
the glory of the incorruptible God, into an image made like to cor-
ruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping
things." Rom. 1. 19. &c.

Thus the Apostle declares positively, that their barbarous idol-
atry did not arise from any deficiency in either their reason or
conscience; but from their pride — ^professing themselves to be
wise: and from reasonings built upon their vain imaginations, or
hypotheses.

The second objection is, " that if we admit that there are first
principles, which are to be taken for granted without proof, men
may receive what they please for a first principle, and shelter
themselves very securely ^k-om all argument, by pretending that
their opinions are too evident to admit of reasoning. By what
criterion are your self-evident principles to be ascertained.^ and
how will you make it appear, that we are in no danger of being
deceived in these matters?" I answer:

1st. If we are to conclude there are no self-evident principles,
-because it is possible to receive that for self-evident M'hich is not
so; the very same argument would drive all kinds of evidence out
of the world. Let us try the virtue of this formidable objection,
and trace its invariable applieation:

PLAN OF SALVATION. ,^

Men may be mistaken, and take that for a first principle which
is not so; therefore there are no principles that are self-evident.

Men may be mistaken, and take that for a sound argument
which is not so; therefore there is no sound argument in the world.

Men may be mistaken, and take that for the true meaning of
scripture which is not so; therefore the scripture has no true
meaning.

Men may be deceived, and take that for true christian experi-
ence, er immediate inspiration from God, which is imaginary;
therefore no christian experience, or inspiration from God, is de-
serving any credit.

Thus we have a plain and short road to scepticism, infidelity
and atheism.

2d. It is a vain thing to attempt to muster up any other criterion
of truth and certainty, than the plain dictates of those faculties
which God has given to man; for none other can be had; and if we
refuse to credit these, I presume our unbelief is more perfectly in-
curable than the lunacy of any man in Bedlam.

Suppose a man, being afflicted with the gout or pleurisy, tells
us he is in great pain or misery: is this true or false? if true, how
does he know it? not by scripture, argument, or demonstration: he
knows it, because it is self-evident You ask him, by what criterion
he knows that he is in a state of misery: he immediately answers,
<'I know it is so, because I feel it." Now if we should wander
through the wilderness of metapTiysics to eternity, I presume we
should never give a better answer, or a better criterion.

A witty philosopher might reply, "You say you know it is so,
because you feel it; but how do you know that your feeling 'are
notfallacious ? By what criterion do you determine whepihey are
according to truth, and when they are not? Can yo« make it ap-
pear that it is impossible that you should be deceived?"

I suppose the man of common sensdpo reply: Sir if you will not
allow me to believe any thing, till I can make it appear that it is
impossible for me to be deceived, I must not believe you are any
thing difterent from a quadruped; for it is surely as possible for me
to be deceived in taking you to be a man, as it is in believing the
reality of whatlfeel. This, if I have right conceptions of it, would
be answering a fool according to his folly; and I leave the reader
to decide which evinces the most solid reason and judgment, the
philosopher's queries, or the sick man's reply.

3d. The man that rejects all first principles, because he may
possibly be mistaken, and may receive something for self-evident.

H2 AN ESI§AY ON THE

whichis uotso, manifests almost as much wisdom as he, who having
received a number of eagles or guineas, casts them all into the sea,
because some of them may happen to be counterfeit, and because he
may possibly be mistaken in judging some of them to be pure me-
tal when they are not so. Or the wisdom of such a person may
perhaps be considered to equal his, who refrains from all food un-
till he starves himself to death, for fear he might partake of some-
thing poisonous, or might possibly be mistaken in judging that to be
wholesome food which was not wholesome. And indeed if it be
true, as some philosophers appear to imagine, that our senses are
very deceitful, and we never know when they are lobe trusted, we
are all foolish, for supposing that we can distinguish, with any cer-
tainty, between gold and iron, bread and poison: for it is by means
of our senses only, that the understanding is able to judge of these
matters.

Permit me to suppose that two philosophers have each received
a certain sum of money." one of them belongs to the old academy,
and the other is a genuine disciple of Dr. Reid. They sit down,
and reason together, upon the proper disposal of their treasure.

They both agree, first, that more or less of their coin may be
counterfeit. They agree, secondly, that it is possible for them to
err, and to take a counterfeit piece to be genuine.

They agree, thirdly, that it is a matter of great importance to
distinguish the precious from the vile.

But though there is this perfect harmony between them, con-
cerning the premises, yet they differ very widely in their conclu-
aions.

The sceptic concludes, his wisest course is to cast his money in-
into the sea, without farther ceremony, lest he should be deceived.
The other concludes, the wisest course is to examine each piece by
itself, in a clear light; and after comparing them together, form the
best judgment he can. a any one appear evidently to be base
metal, and if there remain no room for reasonable doubt concern-
ing it, he consents that it may be cast into the sea; but he will not
cast any away, upon the first appearance of their being suspicious,
but will reserve them for farther examination. Those which he finds
to be evidently good, he applies to their proper use, and resolves,
tbat w here he can see no good reason to doubt, he w ill not doubt.

The sceptical gentleman addresses his companion in these terms:
^ you, sir, have admitted, that there may be base metal in your
possession, how little or how much you know not: you have granted
also, that you may possibly be mistaken io your judgment, Mshan

PLAN OF SALVATION. 33

you attempt to distinguish the precious from the vile: now you
ought to consider, that your counterfeit coin, will go into circulation,
and deceive others as well as yourself: therefore I counsel you to
lay aside your dogmatical spirit and cast your treasure at once in-
to the ocean, lest the whole should prove to be counterfeit." His
friend replies, " If sir, I cast all this money indiscriminately in-
io the sea, on account of the abstract possibility of my retaining
6ome peices that are counterfeit, I might as well cast all my food
into the sea likewise; for it is equally possible for me to mistake
its quality: and if all mankind should adopt your short method of
avoiding poison, and should abstain from all kinds oi aliment till
they starve and perish, would you receive it as a demonstration of
their wisdom and profound philosophy ? This would indeed re-
duce them to the state, in which your philosophy supposes them
now to be; for, provided they had no existence after death, all
things to them would be equally uncertain and unknown: but
while mankind are permitted to live, and to enjoy their present
faculties, I must presume, that your metaphysical refinements will
never be able to shake their firm conviction in the plain dictates
of common sense."

Leaving the reader to judge of the logic of those minute philor
sophers, I return to the objection.

4th. I am far from supposing, that all first principles so impress
themselves upon the human soul, that every man is absolutely
forced to perceive their evidence whether he will or no. We may
hold it self-evident that mankind have eyes, by which they are
enabled to see, without supposing that every man is oompelled
to see by some fatal necessity. A person may shut his eyes if he
be so disposed, or may put them out and remain in total darkness.

A self-evident pi'inciple may long be concealed under the rub-
bish of sophistry, and men have not the opportunity to see it in a
clear light: remove the rubbish, bring it out of the enormous tem-
ple of hypothetical metaphysics, set it before a man of common
sense, «n its own native simplicity, and he will immediately per-
ceive its truth with self-evident conviction. It needs no foreign
argument to support it; let it only be brought to open view, where
it can be properly and distinctly understood, and it m ill shine by
its own native lustre, like " the powerful king of day, rejoicing in
the east."

First principles are like the sun, and the fixed stars of heaven;
they scorn to depend upon a borrowed light; and for us to attempt
to support them, by arguments drawn from some other quarter, is

34 AN ESSAY ON THE

like holding a candle to the sun, under pretence, that his own rays
are not enough to satisfy our profound intelligence of his existence.
Some of the brightest luminaries of truth have been long concealed,
and almost totally eclipsed, by the thick fogs, of metaphysical
dust, that have been raised to obscure their evidence: nothing more
is wanting, to restore them to their native dignity, than a removal
of the hypotlieses and sophistry, which have interposed as a dark
cloud, and obstructed their influence upon the human understand-
ing.

And shall we conclude that they are not self-evident, because it
is possible for them to be obscured? We might as well believx there
is no such thing as light in the world, or that its existence is not
self-evident, because it is possible for men to retire into a dark
cave where its beams are excluded, and where all is silent and
gloomy as midnight, in the "great profundity obscure."

When the woman lost her piece of silver, she immediately be-
took herself to sweeping and searching the house, in order that
she might find it: let us suppose that a sceptical philosopher had
purposely concealed it, under some rubbish in one corner of the
house: after removing the rubbish she perceives it, takes it in her
hand rejoicing, calls in her neighbours, and concludes, certainly,
that she has found her money that was lost. But the philosopher
comes forward, hoping to deprive her of her property, by mere
dint of argument. " Madam," says he, " how do you know that
you have certainly found your silver.^" "Ihold it now in my hand,"
says she, "and see it before my eyes." But you ought to consider (he
rejoins) that it is but a very little while since this money was con-
cealed from you, and you could not perceive it: therefore your pre-
sent perception of it is not self-evident, because nothing isself-evi-
dent,but what is immediately present to the mind from the cradle to
the grave: nothing can be self-evident but an innate idea, and as
there is no such thing, nothing can be certainly known to be
frue in this way: tlicrefore you ought not to believe that you have
found your silver, till it be proved by argument. Your senses are
very deceitful, and though you seem to see this money, very plain-
ly, and to feel it in your hand, yet you ouglit not to receive such fal-
lacious representations, or you will expose yourself to perpetual
delusion. And besides, it is impossible for you to perceive any
thing but an idea, and therefore the piece of silver you so much
rejoice over, is nothing but an idea, ami that, itself, is not contained
in your hand, but in your brains. I therefore counsel you to drop
this vulgar notion, and go again in pursuit of your lost treasure,"

PLAN OF SALVATION. 33

Qrtery. — Would the neighbours conclude, that this gentleman was
seriously employed, in striving to benefit the woman, by instructing
her in the knowledge of truth, or that he had a secret design to
wheedle her out of her money ?

5th. Although self-evident truths, need only be seen, to be be-
lieved; yet several things are necessary to their being properly
seen:

First, our faculties must have arrived to some degree of matu-
rity; because, in a state of infancy, we are incapable of exercising
that voluntary attention, which is necessary to the conception of
some of the plainest and most evident truths. But if no truth is
to be admitted as self-evident, because it is not perceived to be so
by an infant, then no argument can be a sound one, because it is
not perceived to be so by an infant.

It is an easy thing to suppose (1st.) that a self-evident truth
and an innate idea are the same thing, and (2d.) that man has no
innate ideas: the conclusion then very evid,ently follows, tliat man
perceives nothing that is self-evident.

I confess it is beyond my power to comprehend whether men
have innate ideas or not; for I cannot understand what an idea is,
if it be any thing different from a thought: and I hope nobody Mill
say, it cannot be self-evident to a man that he thinks, because he
is unable to prove that any of his thoughts are innate. I know
thati now think, andthati do not receive this truth by reasoning, but
by self-evident conviction: if you could prove, by ten thousand argu-
ments, that I have innate ideas, this truth, that I now think, would
be no more evident to me than it now is; and if you prove by as
many more, that I have them not, you will make it no less evi-
dent.

I know it is impossible for me to be in Europe and America at
same time. How do you prove that says a philosophier.^ I answer
I cannot prove it at all, because it is self-evident. But if it be self-
evident, says he, then it must be an innate idea; but an infant has
no such idea, therefore it cannot be innate: consequently you do
not know any such thin^, and ought not to believe it, till it be
proved to you by some argument.

Thus am I brought to a point at once, and what shall I now do ?
I must appeal to the good sense of mankind to decide which would
be the more reasonable course for me to take. To go in search of
some argument to prove that I cannot Jive in FiUrope and America
at the same time? Or to attempt to make it appear that the philoso-
pher's dbctriue coacermng ideas is a jmers fiction, invented to ac-

Sd' AIS ESSAY ON THE

count for our perception of external objects, and which contradict*
the plainest dictates of the human faculties, and ends in universal
gcepticisni? The latter has been done eftectually, by Dr. Reid,
Dr. Beatty,Dr. Campbell, and others: and 1 suspect that those who
Still adhere to the old jargon, concerning ideas in the brain, have
either never heard of those authors, or dare not read them, for fear
of being convinced; or else they are very indifferent about the
matter, and are willing to be content with any system, provided it
have a sufficient number of votaries on its side.

Secondly, our faculties must be in a sound state, in order to
judge of self-evident principles.
A crazy man may hold it very doubtful whether there be any truth
in the testimony o^ his senses: and, as a proof that he does really
distrust tliem, may wplk carelessly into the fire; but when we ex-
amine the genuine dictates of the human faculties, I hope yve will
not go to Bedlam to draw our conclusions. If a physician should
chance to find a man with a disorder in his eyes, which made him
pur-blind, and should thence infer, that the human eye cannot disr
tinguish objects, at the distance of fifty yards, would he not be just-
ly suspected of insincerity, or of being more disordered in his un-
derstanding than the poor man was in his eyes?

Thirdly, The plainest truths may be unnoticed and undiscover-
ed, merely for want of that attention and habitual thinking which
is necessary to a clear conception of them. We have no immedi-
ate conviction of their truth at present, not for want of argument,
but for want of such explanations as shall set them in a clear light
before us, separated from that confusion in which our own obscure
thoughts, or the sophistry of others, had involved them. Sophis-
try is often more disconcerted by such clear statements and fa-
miliar illustrations, as serve to take of every veil, and to set the
truth in a fair light before the mind, than she is by direct argu-
ment: because, if self-evident truths be kept out of view, or the at-
tention be diverted from them; and if her darling hypothesis can
be kept from too close a scrutiny, she can put on the appearance
of the most clear and conclusive reasoning. One conclusion is
built on another, in the most exact order, until they grow into a
system. The world is invited to behold the beautiful fabric: op-
ponents are challenged to show any defect in the reasoning: and
all is safe, so long as it can carefully be kept out of view, that a
secret hypothesis is the chief corner stone of the building, and sup-
ports the sbining castle in the air. An hypothesis too, which is
not only destitute of any evidence, but which, if properly examin-

PLAN OF SALVATION^. ^

ed, will be found to be an absurdity, shocking to the coramoa
sense of mankind, and perhaps subversive of all human know-
ledge.

The longer this is kept out of sight, the greater numbers will be
led into the delusion, till at last the mighty fabric becomes s&
venerable by age, and has received such support from authority,
and at the same time has so many respectable names and authors
to plead in its favour, who have been unhappily drawn into the
snare, for want of due care and attention to distinguish between
first principles and hypotheses, that it becomes a kind of heresy^
presumption, or dogmatism, for a man even to suspect the founda-
tion of this vast building, which has been reared by such able and in-
genious hands. If you affirm that there are some first principles
which are self-evident, and ought to be believed very confidently,
you are branded with being dogmatical; but if you indulge the least
doubt or suspicion concerning the hypothesis, which has been taken
for granted without proof, and which has only numbers and author-
ity to plead in its favour, you are entirely too sceptical. These are
very ingenious stratagems, but I am a little inclined to think, that
truth can do very well without them. Fourthly, another thing es-
sentially necessary to the clear conception of first principles, is,
that sincere love of truth, that candid honesty of mind, which will
give every subject a fair and dispassionate hearing. "Pi'ejudice is
blind," says Mr. Fletcher, and I persume it will never be any thing
better than a blind guide to the end of the world. Its influence on
our minds is so pernicious, that instead of leading us to pursue
truth by the pure light of evidence, it leads us to resist conviction,
when the evidence almost overpowers us. By doing so for a long
time, it becomes formed into a habit, the judgment becomes warp-
ed and enfeebled, the most evident truths are rejected with in-
diflference, or perhaps with detestation, till we seem almost inca-
pable of judging by any other rule, than that of our passions, our
interest, or the opinions of our party.

We are all prone to this great weakness, to say no worse of it;
and if each one of us would spend that time in examining its influ-
ence on himself, which is spent in casting the reproach on others,
how would the shades of error fly before truth's illuminating rays!
If every one would spend that time in cultivating a spirit of can?
dor, which he spends in search of sophisms, or of something
worse, to support the opinions of his party, or his pride, which he
is resolved to defend at every hazard, how delightfully would
. truth and happiness flow in upon mankind!
F

d« AN ESSAY ON THE

' But without pretending to decide who is most guilty of* this
evil, christian or deist, jew or gentile, another man or myself, I
only 'nention it here, as it is a chief cause of our being often blind
to the clearest evidence, wheth r that evidence be contained in
an argument, or in a first principle, as the fouiidation of it.

f3th. Lastly, if there be a doubt concerning any principle, whe-
ther it be self-evident or not, there are several tests by which it
can be tried.

First, if it be self-evident, every man of common understand-
ing, and in his right mind, is capable of judging of it; and needs
only a clear statement of it, to perceive that there is something
ia it tending to produce conviction that it is a truth: of course
there will be a general agreement among men concerning it, so
far as they understand it, and are unbiassed by partiality. Who
can doubt that men generally agree in such truths as these; —
There is a m.aterial world of earth and water, on which we live —
There are men in this world, and other living creatures — these
are living creatures, have power to walk, and some of them
to fly — Men have power to think, and to make known their
thoughts to each other. Many of them that once lived, are now
dead — There, is a difference between a dead man, and a man that
is alive.

Does any person want arguments to prove the truth of these
things.'* No: it is more likely that many will almost suspect me
of a partial derau'gement, for gravely laying such things before
them. But they ought to be informed, that some of
those very propositions have been denied by several of our philo-
sophers or wise men, Avhile others have been seriously employed
in search of arguments to prove them.

Secondly, when a proposition appears at the first view to be a
truth, and yet we cannot prove it by any argument, but such as
will take for granted the very thing in question, this is an evident
mark of a first principle. Several examples of this kind have
been given, to which we may add the following:

I lay this down as a first principle: a sound argument always
contains evidence of truth. Now if I refuse to take this for grant-
ed, how will I prove it? Let me offer what argument I will in its
support, I take for granted the very thing in question; otherwise
1 suppose my argument, whatever it is, to have no evidence,
though a sound one; and, therefore, the principle is left just as
destitute of evidence as it was before I produced my argument.
Thus all^mcn are forced to admit first principles, and take them

PLAN OF SALVATION. ^S

ibr granted, or their boasted reasoning itself, falls lifeless to the
ground.

Tliirdly, though self-evident truths cannot be proved by direct
reasoning, yet they may be supported by argume»ts ad ubsurdimi:
I mean, that we may suppose the contrary to be true, and shew its
consequences to ije a cliain of manifest absurdities. This method
of reasoning is often used by mathematicians, and it may be ap-
plied with equal force to any other subject, when self-evident prin-
ciples are contradicted, which, alasl is but too common.

For an example, we will propose this as a first principle: Jl de-
gree of credit is due to human testimony. Now if this be denied,
we can suppose the contrary to be true, and trace its consequen-
ces, which the objector is forced to take along with him, or give
up reason as well as common sense.

If no regard is due to human testimony, then it is unreasonable
to believe the testimony of any man in the world, otherwise you
say it is reasonable to believe that which is incredible. It fol-
lows, also, that no man in the right exercise of his reason, will
believe any thing he reads in history concerning Alexander, Sir
Isaac Newton, General Washington, or any other man.

He will not believe in the existence of any nation, country or
city, until he sees it himself, nor even then, if his senses are not to
be ti'usted.

When he is informed of immediate danger from savages, or oth-
er hostilfi enemies, he will not believe it, so much as to move from
his seat, until he sees them with his own eyes, and thus he will
become an easy prey to their barbarity.

Children, to act reasonably, should never believe the testimony
of their parents, or of any others; that there is danger in poisonous
drugs, or any thing else, till they make the trial by experience,
and thus would the race of men soon perish from the earth.

These and such like absurdities, are insepariible fi'om the prin-
ciple, that it is unreasonable to give any credit to human testimony:
and hence the opposite is self-evidently true.

I shall frequently have. occasion to use this method of reason-
ing, perhaps, through the present essay, because I may find it
necessary to rescue some of the most interesting truths from the
sophisms under which they have been concealed.

For a farther account of these matters I refer to Reid's Essays
on the Intellectual and Active Powers of Man. I might support
the sentiments here advanced, by many quotations from his works,
but I M ill close the present section by the following quotation
Irom Dr. Watts.

4a AN ESSAY UN THE

« Intelligence relates chiefly to tliose abstracted propositions
which carry their own evidence with them, and admit no doubt
about them. Our perception of this self-evidence in any proposi
tion is called intelligence. It is our knowledge of those first princi-
ples of truth, which are, as it were, wrought into the very nature
and make of our minds: they are so evident in themselves to every
man who attends to them, that tliey need no proof. It is the pre-
rogative and peculiar excellence of these propositions that they
can scarce either be proved or denied: they cannot easily be pro-
ved, because there is nothing supposed to be more clear and cer-
tain, from which an argument may be drawn to prove them. They
eannot well be denied, because their own evidence is so bright
and convincing, that as soon as the terms are understood, the mind
necessarily assents; such are these, whatsoever acteth hath a be-
ing; Nothing has no properties; a part is less than the whole;
nothing can be the cause of itself."

" These propositions are called axioms, or maxims, or first
principles; these are the very foundations of all improved know-
ledge and reasonings, and on that account these have been
thought to be intimate propositions, or truths born with us,"

<^ Some suppose that a great part of the knowledge of angels
and human souls, in the separate state, is obtained in this manner,
namely, by such an immediate view of things in their own nature,
whieh is called intuition."

Logic: or the right use of reason, page 162.

SECTION IV.

Of the evidence of reasoning.

Having spoken of reasoning in the preceediug section, to show
jts connection with first principles, there is the less occasion to
dwell largely on it in the present.

All true reasoning consists sinjply in tracing the connexion of
one truth with another, by direct argument; or in tracing the con-
nexion of one falsehood witli another, not to establish errors, but
to exhibit their absurdity, and thereby tp establish t]\e opposite
truth.

All direct reasoning must stand or fall with these two proposi-
tions: (1st.) that the premises of every true conclusion arc either

PLAN OF SALVATION. it

self-evident, or may be regularly deduced from principles that
are so. (2d.) That every regular and sound argument contains
evidence of truth.

All indirect reasonings, or arguments ad absurdum, must stand
or fall with this principle, that truth and falsehood are necessa-
rily opposite to each other: for if this be denied, it is vain for us
to attempt to support any thing as a truth, by shewing that its op-
posite leads to an evident absurdity, because the whole force of
the reasoning rests upon the axiom, that truth and falsehood stand
in necessary and invariable opposition to each other.

That a true conclusion will never follow from false premises, is
not only so evident in itself, that the contrary is ridiculous to any
man of common understanding; but it is a matter in which all logi-
cians have agreed, from the days of Aristotle to the present time;
and if all treatises on logic w ould distinctly exliibit the simple
rules of reasoning, and separate them from the obscure and un-
meaning jargon of the schools, I presume the art of logic, or the
right method of reasoning, would become an art of great respec-
tability among mankind.

If the arts and sciences are disgraced and filled with perplexity,
by those who delight to darken counsel by words without know-
ledge, truth and reason are not to blame; for simplicity and per-
spicuity are the strong hold of both; while error and sophistry
gladly retire from the light, and derive great advantage from the
most inpenetrable and profound obscurity.

A few short quotations from Dr. Watts, who is acknowledged
to stand among tli<e most approved logicians, may be necessary to
set the matter in a proper light, and to confirm the view of it for
which I contend.

*' The third operation of the mind," says he, «is reasoning, which
joins several propositions together, and makes a syllogism, that is,
an argument whereby we are wont to infer something that is less
known, from truths which are more evident.

" Axiom — Particular propositions are contained in universals,
and may be inferred frqm them; but universals are not contained
in particulars, nor can be inferred from them."

" Rule II. The terms in the conclusion must never be taken
more universally than they are in the premises."

<' Rule IV. If one of the premises be negative the conclusion
fnust be negative."

"Rule V. If either of the premises be particular, the conclu-
sion must be particular,"

43 \N ESSAY ON THE

" These two lost rules are sometimes iniitcil in this single sen-
tence: The conclusion always follows the weaker part of the pi-e-
mises." — Logic, or the right use of reason; page 251 — 258,

Now if all sound reasoning consists in argument, whereby
we are wont to infer something tliat is less known, from truths
which are more evident; and if the conclusion always follows the
weaker part of the premises; it is very obvious not only that both
the premises must be true, but that they must be more evident in
themselves, than the conclusion to be supported by them. If
either of the premises be a falsehood, the conclusion certainly is
not proved to be a truth. If either of the premises be doubtful,
the conclusion is doubtful. If either of tbe premises be an hypo-
thesis, the conclusion is an hypothesis.

Consequently, in every good argument the premises are either
self-evident, or must themselves be proved by some other premi-
ses, before any true conclusion can be inferred from them. If
they are to be proved by other premises, then tho*e others must
be self-evident, or they also stand in need of proof: thus by trac-
ing the matter back, we clearly perceive that all true con-
clusions of I'easoning ultimately resolve themselves in those ax-
ioms which stand as the foundation of all human knowledge.

Let us illustrate this matter by one or two examples from the
same author.

« Every human virtue is to be sought with diligence; prudence
is a human virtue; tlierefore prudence is to be sought diligently."

Logic p. 257.

Now every reasonable man at once perceives that this conclu-
sion depends upon the truth of the foregoing propositions, and if
either of them be false, they aftbrd no evidence of the consequence
inferred.

That every human virtue is to be sought with diligence, is an
immediate consequence of a self-evident truth before stated ;
namely, that all mankind ought to do that which is right, and a-
void doing that w hich is wrong. For we must know the right in order
to do it, and therefore every virtue is to be sought with diligence.
If the first truth be contradicted, it ©an never be proved by direct
argument, but only by shewing the absurdities which would follow
from a denial of it. That prudence is a virtue, is evident, be-
cause it tends to general happiness, and the contrary to misery :
it is therefore clearly deducible from another axiom, which hag
been before examined.

Again: " No liar is fit to be believed;

Every good christian is fit to be believed;

liar." — Logic p. 26 J,.

FI.AN OF SALVATION. 43

The first proposition in this argument is a clear fleduction from
the axiom, that triith, rightlu understood and believed^ tends to the
happiness, and deceit and falsehood to the misery of vwnkind.
This principle has indeed been questioned by Mr. Hume, as well
as the other branches of human knowledge; but his authority has
but little M-eight when we consider that he questioned the exis-
tence of God, of angels, of earth and water, of sun, moon and stars.
of human souls and bodies, and believed that there is nothing in
existence but ideas and impressions. Whether the ideas were
spiritual or coporeal, I have never been informed: and as to the im-
pressions, it seems, there is supposed to be no agent to make them,
and no soul or body on which the impression can be made.

The second proposition is a clear principle of revelation; for a
christian is a man who follows tJie precepts and example of Christ;
all deceit and lying are by him forbidden, and therefore no good
christian is a liar; or, which is the same thing, no liar can be a
good christian.

From what has been said, it is plain that all our reasonings
must ultimately be founded, either upon self-evident truths, upon
manifest falsehoods, or upon hypotheses, which have been invented
by the flights of imagination and conjecture. It is easy to affirm,
that such things cannot be immediately distinguished from each
other; and if such a declaration is to pass for truth, we are at
once at a full stand; but I presume a better method, though not so
short an one; would be to produce examples of each kind, and ap-
peal to the dictates of common sense. The examples follow:

Jxiom — The soul of all virtue consists in a perpetwal will, to
honor God and promote the general happiness of man.

Msurdity — The soul of all virtue consists in a perpetual will
to disbelieve and abhor the Creator, and do our uttermost to de-
stroy all human felicity.

Hypotheses — Jupiter was created twelve hours sooner than our
earth. The philosophers of Europe will be ten times wiser at the
beginning of next century, than men have ever been since the world
was made. There are many robberies and murders eommilted by
the inhabitants of the moon.

From the axiom, many interesting conclusions may be drawn,
concerning the duties of mankind in the various relations of life.

From the absurdity, a string of consequences may be regularly
deduced, sufficient to shock an inquisitor, and to insult the good

4* AN ESSAY bN THE

From the hypotheses, we might build mauy castles in the air, to
allure and impose upon the human mind; but though we should
draw our conclusions with as much logical regularity as ever ap-
peared in any mathematical demonstration; and though we should
rear the mighty fabric into a system that Mould fill twenty vo-
lumes, and should engage, in its defence, the most sublime geniuses
of the age, yet Mould every conclusion remain as desititute of all
rational evidence, as the hypothesis on which it was founded.

And will any man, but an idiot or a lunatic, seriously profess
to be incapable of perceiving any moi'e evidence in one of those
positions than in another? Will any man affirm, in the face of
Heaven, that, to hitn, they all appear equally evident, and that he
needs proof or argument to satisfy his soul of the truth of any one
of them, as much as another? To such a man, I have nothing
more to say. It would be far more agreeable for me to spend my
time in casting straws against the wind, than seriously to reason
with him, or to enter into the amazing depths of his philosophy.

It is true, that a great deal depends upon confounding hypothc-
ses with first principles, and upon promoting a general persua-
sion, that it is very difficult, or altogether impossible, for the hu-
man mind, with any certainty, to distinguish between them: for if
men in general can be prevailfed on to neglect the plain and im-
mediate dictates of their intelligence, and to take for granted, that
their faculties are incapable of furnishing immediate evidence of
any proposition, and that all truth must be proved by philosophi-
cal arguments: — what an easy matter is it for an ingenious man to
impose upon them by forming a conjecture, and by artfully con-
cealing it from public inspection, to put on the appearance of most
masterly reasoning? His conclusions are drawn with beautiful
regularity, and in a form the most scientific and plausible; the hy-
pothetical foundation is overlooked, because our attention is di-
verted from it by the symmetry of the superstructure; and who
can suspect any deficiency in reasonings so conclusive and philo-
sophical? I grant the reasoning may be unexceptionable, as to the
regularity of inferring one consequence from another; but let it be
remembered that the principle whence they set out, was a mere
conjecture, destitute of evidence, and therefore the consequences
deduced from it, are a string of fanciful opinions, drawn from an
unsupported fiction, and imposed upon the world as the genuine
productions of sound and unadulterated reason.

One or two examples may suffice to illustrate and confirm thi?
tiew of the subject.

PLAN OF SALVATIOI^. 45

<* Are \ve td suppose," says Mr. Paine, "that every world, in
the Ijoundless creation, had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a Re-
deemer? In this case, the person, who is irreverently called the
Son of God, and sometimes God hiraself, would have nothing else
to do, than to travel from world to Morld, in an endless soccession
of death, with scarcely a momentary interval of life."

^ge of reason, part 1. page 69.

Thus it would appear, if revelation be true, respecting our need
-«i;f a Redeemer, that Christ must have suffered often since the fouv,'
dation of the world. And it equally follows that all the other
worlds, " in the boundless creation," must have a bible for their
'instruction: they must have ministers, magistrates, and physicians:
they must have representatives, governors, lawyers and judges:
i\vij must have penalties, prisons, penitentiaries, and hangmen:
and they must have swords, muskets and great guns, to carry on
their wars, and acquire " military glory." In this way, it would
be easy to multiply our conclusions, until we should form a poli-
tical and military system for the inhabitants of Jupiter. We might
amuse ourselves with the philosophical ideas of men chasing
foxes in the moon, and almost fancy we can hear the report of the
enormous guns discharged by the armies of-Georgium Sidus!

But let not imagination fly too high; let her pliant wings be res-
trained a little, till we pause a few moments, and enquire, whence
are all these wonderful conclusions."* Common sense gives a secret
whisper to the soul, and says, All these interesting matters are
built upon this solitary unsupported hypothesis: that every world
in the boundless creation, is inhabited by just such men and women,
and other animals, as we see walking up and down opon the face
of our world.

I doubt not but many of Mr. Paine's jovial and tame disciples
have not only been convinced and established by such flimsy argu-
ments, but have been highly delighted at such a masterly display
■of philosophical genius, as they see exhibited in this humorous
argument, conoerning "An Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a Redeem-
er:" but I hope there is good sense enough left in our country, a»
well as in other parts of the world, to see through the veil of so-
phistry, and to decide that an age of reason, and an age of ridicule
and conjecture, are very different things.

Let us produce another example of more magnitude, and one
which has made a great noise in the philosophic world.

We will state two propositions, which stand against eacli
G

4ff AN ESSAY ON THE

other, andlet tlie reader judge which appears most like a self-
.evident truth.

1. God has given us the sense 2. By the sense of seeing,
of seeing and hearing, and oth- hearing, feeling, tasting and
cr senses, whereby we immedi- smelling, we perceive nothing
ately perceive many external but ideas in oitr frroin; and all the
objects, with an immediate con- knowledge we can have, of any
viction of their present exist- thing in the world, is by iw/ere«ce
ence. from the ideas which we per-

ceive.
Which of these positions are we to receive as an axiom of
truth, on which to build a system? Which of the two appears te
stand most in need of argument to prove it? Is it enough for a man
to tell us, very gravely, that the first is a vulgar error, and the
other is altogether philosophical? So would his holiness, in St.
Peter's chair, inform us, that we must contradict our senses, and be-
lieve that a piece of bread is really a god, otherwise we are vul-
gar heretics that have no just ideas of the true divinity.

" It seems evident," says Mr Hume, "that men are carried by a
natural instinct, or prepossession, to repose faith in their sensesj
and that without any reasoning, or even almost before the use of
reason, we always suppose an external universe, which depends
not on our perception, but would exist, though we and every sen-
sible creature w ere absent or annihilated.

"But this universal and primary notion, of all men, is soon des-
troyed by the slightest philosophy which teaches us, that nothing
can ever be present to the mind, but an image or perception, and
that the senses are only the inlets through which these images
are received, without being ever able to produce any immediate
intercourse between the mind and the object."

This philosophy has been very fully examined by Dr. Reid,
to whom I must again refer the reader. See his Essays, vol. 1. p.
205. All I have to do with the matter, is to illustrate the differ-
ence between a first principle and an hypothesis, as the proper
ground of reasoning.

If "this universal and primary notion of all men" be really
true, that there is " an external universe" which we perceive by
means of our senses, then the science of astronomy has a solid
foundation; — then navigators and surveyors of land are really
measuring the parts of an external universe, and are not employed
in marking the distance of one idea from another in their brains. If
<his " natural instinct," by which we are led " to repose faith in ouj.

PLAK OF SALVATION. *y

senses," be permitted to stand firm, then meolianical employments,
merchandise, and agriculture are preserved from metaphysical
annihilation, and the husbandman, when following his plow, is
really making a furrow upon solid ground, and not upon an idea
in his brain. AVhen he returns from the labours of the day, he
finds a real house, composed of certain parts of " an external
universe;" his wife and children are all real beings, and he is ena-
bled to enjoy an " immediate intercourse" M'ith them. But if he
had "the slightest philosophy," it seems, this universal and pri-
mary notion of all men would be soon destroyed;" and he would
immediately make the astonishing discovery that the house, which
sheltered him from the storm, was nothing but an enormous idea
that contained his whole family in its bosom! Being fully instruct-
ed in the metaphysical transubstantiation, he would understand
that on his wedding day he was married to an idea, and that his
ehildren are all young ideas, growing up like olive plants around
(tlie idea of) his table.

Mr. Hume, or others, would perhaps reprove me for descending
to such vulgar illustrations, and inform me that these are matter*
too serious and important to be trifled with in this manner; and I
suspect that some learned doctors of divinity, would be apt to give
a similar rebuke, in defence of the Holy Eucharist; but if I have
drawn any wrong conclusion it must be imputed to my ignorance,
for I really thought these consequences would follow, if it be real-
ly true, that we see, and hear, and feel nothing but ideas. But per-
haps I do not understand the subject rightly: let us attend to those
riews of the matter " which philosophy teaches us."

"But this universal and primary notion of all men is soon des-
troyed by the sliji;htest philosophy, which teaches us, that nothing
can ever be present to the mind, but an image or perception."

Is Mr. Hume right in saying that philosophy teaches this ? Dr>
Reid says he is right, and that this had been taken for granted as
a first principle of philosophy, for more than a thousand years.
And it appears that Mr. Locke, though a man of a most amiable,
candid, and penetrating mind, unhappily received the same theory,
and took it for granted without examination. When speaking of
the word, idea, he says, " I have used it to express whatever is
meant by fantasm, notion, species, or whatever it is which the
mind can be employed about in thinking, and I could not avoid
frequently u?ing it.

" But what shall be here the criterion ^ How shall the mind,
when it perceives nothing but its own ideas, know that they agree-

4» AN ESSAY ON THE

with things thcmselvps? This, though it seems not to want difii-
culty, yet 1 think there are two sorts of ideas that we may be as-
sured agree with things." See the introduction to Locke'^s Essay on
Huma n Under st a nding.

Thus is Mr. Hume right when he informs us what philosophy
teaches, and his position, '^ That nothing can ever be present
to the mind but an image or perception," is explained by Mr.
Locke, Mhen he says '^ The mind perceives nothing but its own
ideas."

Let the question stand clear of every embarrassment, as truth
delights to stand. I am now sitting on this chair, with the paper
before me; on my Hght hand I see a number of books of different
sizes; Now 1 want to know, whether I really perceive this chair
and paper, that table and those books, or not.

Answer: " Nothing can ever be present to the mind but an image
or perception." I do not ask whether the books be present to my
mind, but whether I now perceive them, and am now thinking
about them? Answer; the word idea signifies " whatever it is
which the mind can be employed about in thinking. The mind
perceives nothing but its own ideas." While I hold this book in
my hand, then, and look at it, am I to suppose that I perceivq
the book and the idea at the same time, and am thinking
about them both.? If it be granted, that I really perceive the
book, and am now tliinking of it, this is all I ask: the thing
which I now see and feel I perceive to be a real book, con-
taining the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God, composed of
solid paper, leather, and printed letters variously arranged. —
Grant me this, and I find no occasion for the idea of a book, to
enable me to see it; and could I perceive the idea as clearly as
I now perceive the book, I would not ask for arguments to prove
its existence. And if it be said that the idea is the instrument or
medium through which, or by means of which, I perceive what I
/now hold in my hand, this I feel willing to concede, provided it be
granted that it is really the book which I now perceive, and about
which my mind is now employed in thinking. The idea may
gerve as an instrument or medium of perception, as well as 1 he
eye and car, or any other organ of sensation; and no harm is done,
so long as I am permitted really to perceive and behold this exter-
nal universe which God has created; but if i4leas should usurp the
place of other things, and obstruct my sight, so that 1 can perceive
nothing but themselves; my soul! come not thou into their secret,
but be pontent to walk the old beaten path of common sense.

Bot suppose we ^ndergtapd thq philosophers really and literal-

VLAS OF SALTATION. 4^

iy to ntean, that the mind perceives nothing but its own ideas, aad
that every thing is an idea and nothing else, about which it ever
can be employed in thinking: are we permitted to take the conse-
quences along with us ? or must we sacrifice our reason to the god-
dess of philosophy, and espouse a number of palpable contradic-
tions?

If I perceive nothing but ideas, it is plain that this pen, which
I perceive, is an idea; held by the idea of a hand, belonging to the
idea of myself, and making the idea of writing, upon the idea of
paper, in order to form the idea of a book. But I am told that I
form the idea of a book, whenever I think about it: strange then,
that after studying and writing so long, I only form the same
idea which can be formed in a moment. I am now thinking of
Mr. Hume's, history of England: is that history nothing but an
idea.-* If so, why did not Mr. Hume form the idea by thinking
of the English history for a few moments, without so much ex-
pense of thought and labour, to bring forth this great work, that
the ideas of men might read it, after the idea of death should take
him to the idea of eternity.

I do not mention these things to east any unfair reproach upon
the subject, but because I cannot understand it in any other way;
and I hope philosophers will not blame me for speaking about va-
rious kinds of ideas, since they declare it is impossible for me to
think about any thing else.

"What more does philosophy teach us.'' Answer: " That the
senses are only the inlets through which these images are receiv-
ed." But what are the senses themselves? and what is it thqft
receives the images throHgh them? Are they all ideas? One
idea receives another, through another; and I do not see why
Ihey might not as well have continued asunder, and wandered
through the glooms of chaos, with the atheistic atoms, which have
long wandered through the fathomless abyss, till they luckily met
together to form the idea of a world.

And if images come not through the inlets of the senses, from
whence come they? from the "external universe." It seems then
that they had a separate existence before they came through those
inlets, unless yoij say, that which has no existence can move from
one place to another, through certain channels, till it seats itself
in the human brains. And if ideas had a separate existence before
they came through the channel of our senses, millions of them
might have floated about the atmosphere, or some where else, if
no living creature had been ever made.

',f* The Bouses arc only the inlets through M'hich these injages

06 AN ESSAY ON THE

are received, without ever being able to produce any immediate
intercourse between the mind and the object."

Is Mr. Hume right in this last conclusion, or is it an unjust in-
ference which he drew from the doctrine of ideas? I think his
conclusion is perfectly correct; for if "The mind perceives no-
thing but its own ideas," and if the word idea is to stand for
<« whatever it is which the mind can be employed about in think-
ing," it is plain that the mind cannot perceive or think about any
object but its own ideas: and what immediate intercourse is there
between my mind, and an object, which I can neither perceive nor
think about?

I see a candle standing before me: but the thing which I per-
ceive and think about, is not a candle, you say, but the idea of a
candle. The idea, it is said, came from the caudle, through the
inlet of my senses; but how do I know this? did I perceive it com-
ing from the candle? if so, I perceived the candle as well as the
idea, otherwise I could not see the one coming from the other.—
And if I perceived the candle, as the idea was leaving it, I no lon-
ger stood in need of the idea, to enable me to perceive it. But if
I perceived nothing but the idea, how do I know that there is in
fact any thing else? did the idea bear witness that it came from a
real candle, of which itself was the image? if so, it enabled me to
think about a real candle, otherwise you say it brought me this tes-
timony, and yet did not enable me to think about it, and of course,
I was left as much in the dark as ever.

When an object is before me, and I look at it, I am told that I
perceive nothing but an idea; and when it is absent, and I think
about it, it is not the object itself that I think about, but its idea,
or image in my mind: consequently, it is impossible for me to have
any manner of evidence for the existence of any thing else but
ideas, otherwise 1 may have clear evidence for the existence of
what I can neither perceive nor think about.

If I may be permitted to trust my senses and consciousness, I
never perceive an object double: when my friend stands before me,
I see him very clearly to be one and undivided; and if philosophy
should teach me, that I, at the same time, perceive two objects,
one being the real body of my friend, and the other his image, in
my brain, this is a new discovery, and a secret for which I can find
no evidence in nature, but the ipse dixit of my learned instructor.

When my friend is absent, I distinctly remember how he ap-
peared when present, and can recollect even the features of his
countenance: here also the object of my thought is one and no

PLAN OF SALVATION. 51

move. I am not thinking of two objects, precisely of tlie same
figure and appearance, one of which is really my friend, and the
other his image; and if the single object of which I am now think-
ing, be nothing but an image or idea, it is plainly impossible for
me to think of the man at all. When he was present, I perceived
him standing before me; the object I now conceive or think about,
is the very same I then perceived by means of my senses; and if
it M as nothing but an idea I then perceived, it is nothing but an
idea I now remember, and of course, my knowledge of what is pre-
sent, and of what is past, consists in the perception of ideas, and
in nothing else.

I do really perceive my friends, when they are present, and think
about them, Avhcn they are absent, or I do not; if I do, the world
.stands firm against the encroachments of metaphysics; if I do not,
then ideas and images are all the friends I ever had — at least alJ
I have ever seen or thought about, since the first moment of my ex-
istence. And unless you can prove the existence of that to me, a
single thought of which cannot possibly enter into my mind, I re-
main solitary and alone, in this imaginary universe, with only

ideas for my companions, from the beginning to the end of life

Thus are we handsomely conducted to universal scepticism, by a
chain of consequences, clearly deduced — from what.' — from a hy-
pothetical fiction, that denies the plainest dictates of commoa
sense, and overturns all human knowledge.

" Mr. Locke had taught us," says Dr. Reid, "that all the im-
mediate objects of human knowledge, are ideas in the mind:" Bi-
shop Berkeley, proceeding upon this foundation, demonstrated very
easily, that there is no material world. And he thought, that^
/or the purposes, both of philosophy and religion, we should find
uo loss, but great benefit in the w ant of it. But the Bishop, as be-
came his order, was unwilling to give up the world of spirits. He
saw very well, that ideas are as unfit to represent spirits, as they
are to represent bodies. Perhaps he saw, that if we perceive on-
ly the ideas of spirits, we shall find the same difficulty in infer-
ring their real existence from the existence of their ideas, as we
find in inferring the existence of matter from the idea of it; and
Therefore, while he gives up the material world, in favor of the
system of ideas, he gives up one half of that system in favor of
the world of spirits: and maintains, that we can, without ideas,
think, and speak, and reason, intelligibly about spirits, and what
belongs to them.

•• Mr, Hume shows no such partiality ia j'avaur of the world of

55 AN ES8AY ON THE

spirits. He adopts the theory of ideas in its full extent: and, in
Consequence, shows that there is neither matter nor aiiud in the
universe; nothing but impressions and ideas. What we call a
body, is only a bundle of sensations; and what we call the mind,
is only a bundle of thoughts, passions, and emotions, without
any subject.

" Some ages lience, it will perhaps be looked upon as a curioui
anecdote, that two philosophers of the 18th century, of very dis-
tinguisli£d rank, were led by a philosophical hypothesis; one, t«
disbelieve the existence of matter; and the other, to disbelieve the
existence both of matter and of mind. Such an anecdote, may not
be uninstructive, if it prove a warning to philosophers to beware
of hypotheses, especially when they lead to conclusions which
contradict the principles, upon which all men of common sense
must act in common life." — Essay II. Chap. XII. p. 191.

When I consider that these are the natural productions of hy-
pothetical reasoning, I no longer wonder that men of common un-
derstanding, are suspicious of that thing called philosophy. I
am no more surprised that the term, metaphysics, is a word which
carries something gloomy to the human mind; or that men in gen-
eral should be reluctant to enter into a fantastical wilderness,
where they will be in such imminent danger of losing body and
soul together, in a fog of species, fantasms, ideas, images and
chimerical impressions.

This, together with the fantasms of Popery, has given birth
to that reproach, which has sometimes been cast upon "the noble
faculty," as Mr. Fletcher terms it, "which chiefly distinguishes
us from brutes." This has caused many to undervalue the noble
gift of reason, and to discourage the regular and diligent improve*
ment of our intellectual powers. But let it be remembered, that
those ideal conjectures, and atheistic conclusions, are as opposite
to true reasoning, as darkness is opposite to light, and truth to hy-
potheses and absurdity.

" When we find philosophers maintaining," says Dr Reid,
" That there is no heat in the fire, nor colour in the rainbow: when
we find the gravest philosophers,/rojnl>es Cartes down to Bishop
Berkeley, mustering up arguments to prove the existence of a ma-
terial world, and unable to find any that will bear examination:
wheu we find Bishop Berkeley and Mr. Hume, the acutest
metaphysicians of the age, maintaining that there is no such thing
as matter in the universe; that sun, moon, and stars, the earth
uhich we inhabit, our own bodies, and those of our friends, are

PLAN OF SALVATION. ^

dniy ideas in our minds, and have no existence but in thought:
when we find the last maintaining that there is neither body nor
Blind; nothing in nature but ideas and impressions, without any
substance on which they are impressed; that there is no certainty,
iior indeed probability, in mathematical axioms; T say, when we
consider such extravagances of many of the most acute writers on
this subject, we may be apt to think the whole to be only a dream
of fanciful men, who have entangled themselves in cobwebs spun
out of their own brain. But we ought to consider, that the more
elosely and ingeniously men reason from false principles, the
more absurdities they will be led into; and when such absurdities
help to bring to light the false principles from which they are
drawn, they may be the more easily forgiven." Essay 1. chap. vi.
page 73.

If all lovers of truth would consider the matter according to
this just and candid representation, they would find no cause to in-
dulge that misplaced indignity which has sometimes been cast
upon the exercise of our reason, in the pursuit of truth, merely
because our rational faculties may be abused or misapplied. We
should hear no more complaints of the great uncertainty there is
in all subjects relating to the mind, and its intellectual powers.
What subject will not be uncertain, if men suffer themselves to
beat the air with wild and fanciful conjectures, that are repugn
nant to truths the most evident that can be presented to the hu-
man understanding ?

The theory of ideas, has not only proved metaphysical subjects
to be very uncertain; but it has proved every branch of human
knowledge to be equally so, "mathematical axioms" not except-
ed; and if we are to judge by this rule, we must conclude that re-
ligious doctrines themselves, are as uncertain as any others; for
where shall we find a greater jargon of nonsense and contradic-
tion, than has been passed upon the world, under the name of
Christianity.

The truth is, there will never be any regularity or consistency
in our systems till we agree to lay the foundation in first princi-
ples, carefully examined, before we raise our superstructure. All
probable reasoning, as well as any other, is founded on principles
that have a self-evident probability. This matter has been fully
explained by the author last quoted, and we may have occasion
to notice it more particularly in a subsequent section.
H

M AN ESSAY ON THE

SECTION V.

Of the evidence of Revelation.

By the term, revelatioii,"we understand certain truths made
known to the human mind, by the supernatural influence of the
Divine Spirit, with a clear conviction, not only that the matters
thus made known are true, but that the knowledge of them is im-
mediately from God.

They are accompanied with self-evident conviction, as first
principles are, with this difference only, that intuitive principles
are immediately known to be true, and those which are revealed,
are not only known certainly to be true, but are also known to be
immediately from God, by a supernatural communication.
Let us consider Paul on his passage to Rome: he had
certain evidence of the truth of these two propositions:
1st, Tliat they were then driven and tossed upon the rolling
billows, by a dreadful storm. 2d, That the ship would be destroyed,
but that the men would all escape with their lives, to the shore of a
certain island. His knowledge of both these truths was immedi-
ate and self-evident; it was impossible for him to be more certain
of the latter than the former, though the latter was received by
immediate revelation, and the other was a truth discovered in a
natural way, and was as well known by every man on board as
by himself.

God was as truly the author of his knowledge of the former, as
of the latter: he gave him a natural conviction of the one, by means
of his senses; he gave him a supernatural conviction of the other,
by means of a divine influence upon his consciousness; and the only
difference of the cases consisted in this, that in the latter case he
received his knowledge by an immediate communication from his
Maker; in the former, by that constitution of his mind, which God
Lad established in his original formation. And had Paul believed
that God stamped a lie upon his original csnstitution, on purpose
to deceive him, he might with equal reason have recei\ ed the pre-
sent i-evelation as a lie that ought not to be regarded; for its truth
was so essentially connected with the veracity of his senses, that
a denial of the latter would be an equal contradiction of the for-
mer. If it was not true that they were then tossed upon the ocean,
it could not be true, that th\^ would be directly removed from the

PLAN OF SALVATIO^fj 65

ocean to a certain island. So that the man who discredits his
senses and other natural faculties, gives the lie to God, as immedi-
ately as the prophets and apostles would have done, had they re-
fused to believe the truth of those revelations which they received.

The ridiculous objection of scepticism will hold good in both
cases alike; for in neither case can the absolute impossibility of
being mistaken be made appear, in any other way than by taking
for granted the truth of the very faculties in question. And for
us to refuse to give them any credit, until other faculties are given
by which to judge of their veracity, and of the abstract impossi-
bility of their being fallacious, is nothing more nor less, than to say
to Almighty God, " our profound and ingenious philosophy refu-
ses to give thee any credit, till thou shalt give us other faculties
whereby we may sit in judgment upon those which we now pos-
sess: and as there will still be an abstract possibility that those
others may also be fallacious, we shall require another set, where-
by we may judge of them: and as the third set may also be falla-
cious, we must require a fourth and so on ad injinitum.^^ Such whim-
sical and inveterate unbelief, is not only a ridiculous insult to all
reason, but it is a principle of deep and hateful immorality, and is,
I presume, amain pillar of all the wickedness that ever prevailed
in either earth or hell.

That God is able to make such a supernatural communication
to any human mind, is acknowledged even by Thomas Pain, and
the fact of his having done so, is not absolutely denied by him;
nay, it is admitted, for the sake of a case, that such revelations
have been given; but the evidence of it, he says, can never be com-
municated from one man to another. His words are these: " But
admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed
to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is re-
velation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person,
a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be
revelation to all those; it is revelation to the first person
only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently, they are not
obliged to believe it." Jlge of reason., part, i.page 8.

That it is immediate revelation to the first person only, is grant.
ed; and it can never become such a revelation to any other mind,
till a similar communication from God sliall give him a similar
conviction of its truth, and not of its truth only, but of the divine
influence by which it was revealed.

But the question is, whether a true revelation made to one man,
tvill become faJse by hifs declaring it to another; and whether no

56 AN ESSAY ON THE

evidence ought to convince the other, but anew revelation to him-
self, to prove the reality of the one attested by his neighbour?
That mere hearsay is not sufficient evidence, we freely acknow-
ledge; and 1 presume our adversaries will acknowledge as freely,
that a truth communicated from God to a certain person will not
become a falsehood, Avhen he declares it to another; of course, the
only question which remains, is, whether sufficient evidence can
he given to one man, that a revelation has been made to another^
without his having it confirmed by another revelation exactly si-
milar?

To answer this in the negative, as Mr. Paine has done, is to
contradict, 1st, all the evidence of common sense; 2d, the evidence
of reasoning; and 3d, the evidence of revelation itself.

1st. The evidence of common sense. From the signs of power,
wisdom, and goodness, in the eflect, we may infer with certainty
that those attributes exist in the cause which produced it. This
is a first principle, self evident to every rational being. Deny
it, and all evidence is gone, of the power, wisdom, and goodness
of the creator, as exhibited in the grand and intelligent arrange-
ments of the works of creation. Deny it, and all evidence is gone,
of there being an intelligent creature upon the face of the earth,
excepting the consciousness a man has of his own intelligence: for
it is impossible for me to see another man's soul, or to know any
thing concerning his power, wisdom or goodness, but what I learn
from the signs of those qualities that I perceive in the effects
which he produces. I read the works of Milton, and sir Isaac
Newton, and infer with certainty that the authors were men of
uncommon penetration: but I never saw the bodies of those in-
genious men, much less their spirits, and if the axioms above
stated, be denied, there is no evidence left that the authors of
those works were wise men, or even that they had any author.
The letters might have jumbled themselves together by chance,
and formed the beautiful poem called Paradise Lost, and the same
mysterious goddess might have made all the philosophical disco-
veries attributed to sir Isaac Newton!

The same may be said of a friend standing before me: I per-
ceive the signs of intelligence in his countenance, actions, or lan-
guage, and infer with certainty that the cause of this peculiar cast
of countenance, action, or language, is an intelligent being. I
cannot see that intelligence, but by the signs of it in the eft'ectg
■ produced; these signs I perceive m ith intuitive conviction; and if
I resist this conviction, till i can see my neighbour's soul, inde-

PLAN OF SALVATION. gy

pendent of these signs, or till the qualities of his mind be proved
by some other argument, I may live and die in the persuasion
that there is not a being in the world possessed of intelligence be-
side myself: and such a persuasion, I presume, would prove that
I possess but a very scanty share of it.

Now unless it can be made appear, that God is not able to ex-
hibit signs of power, wisdom and goodness, in proof of an imme-
diate revelation given to some of his creatures, for the general
benefit of all, equal to those which appear in the visible creation,
nothing can set aside the conclusion, that such a revelation given
to one man, may be proved to another, but a denial of the axiom
above mentioned: and a denial of that, saps the foundation of all
human knowledge, and at once precipitates us into the dark chaos,
«mong the atoms and blind goddesses of atheism.

2d. The evidence of reasoning is equally abolished by our au-
thor's logic: for as first principles are the foundation of all sound
reasoning, if they be denied, the superstructure must of necessity
fall in ruins to the ground. All our reasonings conceniiug the
wisdom or folly, the virtue or vice, of this or any former genera-
tion, are sophistical delusions, if the axiom be not true, that the
$igns of such qualities appearing in the effect, affords certain evi-
dence of their existence in the cause.

When the Lord Jesus calmed the roaring elements, by saying,
peace, be still, and evinced by other immediate acts of power, that
the laws of nature were at his command, in proof of that revela-
tion which he brought from Heaven, this, according to our au-
thor's philosophy, would afford no evidence of divine power, and
therefore no proof of a revelation. Then the creation and preser-
vation of the world affords no such evidence; and the building of
houses, and other common effects produced among mankind, af-
ford no evidence of human power.

Sd. As the original dictates of our faculties are thus denied, our
author, it seems, would be as far from conviction as ever, if an
immediate revelation were given, to prove the truth of our scrip-
tures; the kind of evidence which he professes to believe alone
sufficient: for, as a sceptic can say, how do I know it to be impos-
sible for my senses to deceive me? how do I know but the world
sprang into being by chance.^" So might Thomas Paine have said
of such a revelation: how do I know it to be impossible for me to
he deceived in this matter } Does God address himself to my
senses, by declaring with a voice from Heaven, that the Bible is
trne.^ but I mnst remember that mv senses are deceitful, and are

58 AN ESSAY ON THE

not to be trusted. Does he address himself to my consciousness,
and produce a supernatural conviction, that the Bible is true? but
is it not possible for this to be enthusiasm? And suppose it is not,
by what argument can 1 prove that my consciousness is not falla-
cious. And suppose it is not, hovv can i prove it impossible that
Ood should communicate a falsehood to me?

And besides, if Christ could calm the boisterous ocean, either by
imposing upon the people's senses, or by the agency of devils,
how do I know but this immediate communication to my mind is
from some devil that intends to deceive me?

Thus it is evident, that a new revelation itself, would be insuf-
ficient to convince those who are resolved to reject every other
kind of evidence, and our boasted champion of reason, in his
i^Jge of Reason,^^ has contradicted reason, and boldly defied every
kind of evidence by which truth is communicated to the human
mind.

Such pitiful unbelief is perfectly incurable, and if they hear not
Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded though one
rose from the dead.

The next question is, whether God has in fact exhibited suffi-
cient evidence for the truth of revelation?

It is an easy thing, 1 know, for a person to affirm that he has
not; and so it is for an atheist to affirm that the earth and starry
Heavens aflFord no proof of a Deity; or for David Hume, esq. to
affirm that "the slightest philosophy will soon destroy the uni-
versal and primary notion of all men, that there is an external
universe:" but as those philosophers affect to be so very unwil-
ling that any thing should be taken for granted without support
of argument, I hope they will excuse us from taking their asser-
tions for granted.

The arguments in support of Christianity are various and abun-
dant: so much so, that my present plan will not admit of a full
enumeration of them; but, as I have made the assertion, I must
mention some of the grounds on which those arguments are built.

The doctrines of Christianity exhibit the wisdom of God; its
precepts exhibit his holiness; the benevolence of its design and
tendency exhibits his goodness; and the miracles wrought by our
Saviour and his apostles, displays his power and authority, as the
fulfilment of his promises and prophecies does his veracity and
infinite knowledge.

For the two first classes of evidence, we must appeal the Bible
its«>lf. especially the New Testament, where alone the doctrines

PLAN OF SALVATION. 69

and precepts of Christianity are to be found, and not in conclaves,
creeds, or confessions of faith.

For the third, we must appeal to the nature of man, and to the
nature of those motives, enjoyments and prospects, which the re-
ligion of Jesus proposes, to guard him against misery, to subdue
his vices, to sweeten his earthly comforts, to console him in cala-
mity, to disarm the king of terrors, and to ensure him a happy ex-
istence forever.

For the fourth, we must appeal to human testimony, and for
the fiftli to the Bible, in conjunction with the general history of
the world.

As the premises of every argument must first be known to con-
tain evidence, either as axioms or as regular deductions therefrom,
before they can give any strength to the conclusion; so revela-
tion must be known to be true, by its correspondence with the
human faculties, before it can be consistently received as a ground
of evidence to support any other truth whatever.

Several revelations have been proposed to mankind, as being
inspired from Heaven; but that contained in the Bible is the only
one, that has been able to stand the test of a candid and rational
examination. It has been examined by Jews and Gentiles, by
friends and enemies, by priests aud infidels, by the learned and
the unlearned, by rustics and philosophers, by fools and wise men.
Its evidence shines forth as it goes through the crucible, and it
has carried conviction to a Bacon, Boyle, Newton, Hale, Addison,
Locke, Littleton, Reid, Beatty, Campbell, Watts, Wesley, Fletch-
er, and an innumerable company besides, of the wisest and best of
men.

Mean time it has been contradicted by a Hobbes, Bolingbroke,
Gibbon, Hume, Voltaire, Paine, Palmer, and other metaphysicians,
who would give us to understand, that, however this priestly re-
velation may carry away the vulgar, it has not been able to stand
the test of philosophy. And no wonder, since earth and sea, ani-
mals and vegetables, the bodies and souls of men, and the very
heavens themselves, have been unable to stand this test. We
must have a revelation made up of nothing but ideas and impres-
sions, before it will stand the test of the metaphysical philoso-

But let self-evident principles resume their native dignity:
let reason be delivered from the shackles of hypothesis and me-
taphysical sophistry; let conscience retain her authority in the
human bosom; let prejudice, pride and malice be laid aside; let

60 AN ESSAY ON THE

every man think for himself, without being biased by priestly iti*
fallibility on the one hand, or philosophical authority on the other:
then let liis mind be regulated by the calm influence of humility;
reflection and candour, and Christianity has nothing to fear.

As the diligence of his enquiry increases, the beauties of revela-
tion will shine around him, like stars iu the expanded concave of
heaven. Let him compare the doctrine of man's apostaey, with
matter of fact, and daily observation; let him compare the doc-
trine of redemption with the responsibility of man, and with the
Batureand moral government of God; let him compare the digni-
fied simplicity of the Lord Jesus and his apostles, with the nature
of truth, reason, siiicerity and moral goodness; let him compare
the common objections of infidels to the objections urged by athe-
ists against the wisdom of God in the creation; let him compare
the great prospects held forth in the bible, with his native desire
and need of an immortal life to come; finally, let him compare
the pure morality of the gospel, to his own consciousness of obli-
gation to God and man; and if this holy religion, as it has been
sometimes scoftingly termed, does not recommend itself to his reason
and conscience in the sight of God, he may then, as an intelligent
being, and not before, give up the Bible and go some where else to
seek the proper knowledge of his Maker.

I can do little more at present than suggest some of the general
sources of evidence, without pursuing them; but as infidels have
one argument which they consider most masterly, it may be ne-
.^sessary to dwell upon it a little more particularly.

" The chief support of this revelation, it may be said is that of
miracles; of course miracles are a very essential part of the evi-
dence on which it is to be believed; but we have seen no miracles
wrought in its defence; therefore we are destitute of the very evi-
dence on which your bible itself professes chiefly to rest its au-
thority." Answer:

It is true that miracles are essential to the giving of a revelation
from God to man, because the very act itself is truly miraculous; it
is also necessary that it should be delivered to others by prool of
miracles, in order that Divine ^?0M'er may be manifested in its sup-
port: but this is only a part of the evidence in favour of our reli-
gion, and the otherparts arcsoessential,thattliis alone would not be
sufficient: for if there were no displays of wisdom, goodness and
holiness, in the christian religion, 1 presume a mere exhibition of
power alone would only serve to confound and astonish us.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 6^

Suppose there were no signs of wisdom or goodness in the visi«
ble creation, but merely of power, wouid this be a sufficient proof
of the god whom we worship ? An Almighty God without wisdom
and goodness, would be an object of terror and dismay, and his
presence would be sufficient to cause men and augels to long for
an immediate end of their being. Rather than live under a mere
government of might, where there was no moral attribute to regu-
late the destinies of creation, every intelligent creature would
loathe his existence, and wish to drop into the unconscious re-
gions of annihilation. But as the power of our Almighty Father, is
unchangeably employed in subserviency to perfect goodness and
infinite wisdom, we glory in his omnipotence, and rest securely
under the shadow of his wings.

Now a revelation from such a God must bear his image and su-
perscrijjtion: miracles are necessary to display his power; but the
revelation given must also illustrate his wisdom, and correspond
vi'ith every moral attribute of his nature, in order to carry convic-
tion to the soul of man, that it came from that benevolent and Al-
mighty Being, who created the heavens and the earth, and the sea,
and the dry land. Miracles cannot be spared, any more than the
signs of power can be spared, that are exhibited in the creation;
but it is as improper to say they constitute the chief part of the
evidence, as it is to say the omnipotence of God constitutes the chief
part of his nature, or that the signs of omnipotence are the prin-
cipal part of the evidence given of his nature, in the heavens whieh
declare the glory of God, and the firmament which shozveth his han-
dy work.

Thus we rectify the first proposition of the deistical argument,
that miracles are the chief support of revelation. But as ouf
statements imply, nevertheless, that the evidence of miracles is a
part of the evidence which cannot be spared, we must now notice
their second proposition, which affirms, that all men in these lat-
ter ages are destitute of this kind of evidence. I hope this pro-
position may be shown to be a falsehood, and if so, their conclu-
sion is good for nothing.

In the days of our Saviour and his apostles, the evidence of mi-
racles was conveyed to the minds of men, through the medium of
their senses; in all succeeding ages the same evidence has been
conveyed through the medium of human testimony. That a degree
of.credit is due to human testimony, has been already established
as a first principle, by showing the palpable absurdities that will
ftoUow from a denial of it; and as some philosophers have spurn-
I

p;8 AN E«SAY ON THE

ed at this channel of commuuicalion, so they have equally denied
the veracity of our senses, and set all human knowledge at defi-
ance.

What a despicable figure will thatman make who shall undertake
to demonstrate that Christ might have imposed upon the senses of
the thousands of mankind, in the performance of those great mira-
cles attributed to him in the New Testament! or to demonstrate
that the accounts of those matters might have been written in the
-days of Augustus Cesar, at the time when the facts are said to
have transpired, without affording the world any opportunity to
detect such fraudulent and pitiful pretensions, which thousands of
living witnessses could contradict in the face of heaven.

Most of our objectors, I suspect, are beginning to be ashamed of
this method of philosophical demonstration, and fondly hope to
"obstruct the channel of human testimony, by another subterfuge.

The history of Jesus Christ say they, was not published to the
-world till some hundreds of years after those great events are said
-to have occurred: it was invented in after ages, and has succeeded
in imposing upon the natural credulity of the vulgar; but philoso-
phers can see through the fraud.

And what but hypothesis can philosophers give for this bold
assertion ? They affect to be very fond of demonstration, and in-
sinuate that no other kind of evidence is to be trusted; but w hen
the secret is out, we find they are only fond of demonstration,
when something is to be proved by their opponents; when proof is
called for, in support of their own assertions arbitrary conjec-
tures and professions of superiority to the vulgar, appear to be alto-
gether sufficient.

Those great events are said to have transpired in the reign of
Augustus Cesar; and their own historians have informed the
world that the Christian religioiu was spread through the Roman
empire in less than half a century afterwards: the history of those
events, as narrated by the evangelists, declares that this religion
took its rise from Jesus Christ, who proved its divinity by aston-
ishing miracles wrought in the presence of thousands: this ac-
count is true, or it is not; if it is, all infidels are fighting against
the truth; if it is not, then the christian religion rose from some-
thing else, as the world very well knew; therefore, whenever this
pretended history came out, no matter w hen it was, every man ac-
quainted with Christianity would know it to be a falsehood.

If these accounts were not published, till some centuries after
the facts are said to have taken place, every man that would open
his eyes and read them, would gee falsehoed upon the face of

PLAN OP SALVATION. 6S

ihem, fkr more clearly than any man ever saw images upon his
brain; for the authors agree to declare that they were eye witnes-
ses of the facts that they relate, which they could not be if the facts
occurred some hundreds of years before they were born. And more-
over, they not only declare they were eye witnesses, but tliat they
wrote their history and their epistles, and published them in their
own time: Peter, who was one of the chief apostles and followers
of Jesus Christ, declares that his beloved brother Paid \\a.d then
published several of his epistles^ which some had already begun to
■wrest, as they did also the other scriptures, totheiroum destruction.
Luke informs us, in the introduction to his history, that several ac-
counts of those matters had been published by others before he
began his account; and manyother references might be enumerated
in proof that the New Testament writers openly profess to be
eye and ear witnessses; to have lived in the days of Jesus Christ,
aod to have published their accounts to that generation. But if those
accounts never made their appearance in the world till some hun-
dreds of years afterwards, in all thase particulars they would car-
ry conviction of their being the production of deceivers, to every
man that had eyes and ears to see and hear them.

Thus, if our objectors theory be admitted, with all their con-
tempt of the credulous vulgar, they involve themselves in a cre-
dulity similar to that which they so much explode; and prove
clearly that the great Roman philosophers and historians have
failed in the detection of a fraud that might be detected by the
common sense of a Hottentot.

According to the character and extraordinary actions, which the
New Testament ascribes to the Lord Jesus, no person ever lived
whose history is of such importance to mankind: he must have
been the greatest and the best personage that ever appeared in
mortal flesh, or else Christianity must be a fraud the most amazing
and unparalleled, of any thing that has ever yet appeared among
the human family. This religion, if true, was hot hid in a corner,
but blazed out in the face of open day: and if false, it must have
been somehow hid in a corner, more secret, deep and obscure, than
the fantasms of Aristotle, or the unexplored and secret dwelling
place of the philosopher's stone. If the Lord Jesus was in fact
controlling the elements of heaven through the land of Judea,
and his apostles through the Roman empire, the Gospel is true;
if they were only attempting to do such things by slight of hand
»r the art of magic, were the people's eyes, or the historian's pen?
that such fraud* should succeed and silently glide dowa to poste-

tii4< AN ESSAY ON THE

rity? If the history of those great matters was invented and pub-
lished two or three hundred years afterwards, why did not the
wise men of that age cast it at once into the fire, or favour the
world with some account of the hypocritical stratagem? And if
the New Testament was really written by the apostles and evan-
gelists, but never made its appearance till some centuries after
they were dead, in what secret corner of the world did it lie con-
cealed?

Suppose a certain person, or threescore of them, united if you
please, should some centuries, say four or five hundred yearg
hence, publish a history of general Washington, professing
themselves to be the authors of the history, and that they were
officers ofthe UnitedStatesarmy,actingforyearsunderhis immedi-
atecommand: suppose this history should state thatgeneral Wash-
ington professed to be the Son af God, and, in proof of it, raised se-
veral dead men to life, eonqut-red thousands of the British troops, by
merely pointing his sword to heaven, and led his own army across
the Delaware bay on dry gioinul; having first caused the Maters to
stand as walls on either hand: would this be really such a puz-
zling case, that ail the wise men of America and Europe together
must necessarily fail in attempting to detect the imposture, and
would be obliged to yield to the mighty torrent, and let the delu*
sion descend to the latest posterity.

Or suppose they should make Martin Luther the hero of their
tale, or invent some other name and attribute it to a man who
never existed, declaring that in and about the city of London,
Paris or Philadelphia, he fed five thousand men with five small
loaves of bread, cured hundreds of the plague or yellow fever by
the simple touch of his finger, and raised some of them to life af-
ter they had been four days in the grave; and finally, that he him-
. self arose from the dead, appeared to more than five hundred of
the inhabitants, and afterwards in open daylight ascended up in-
to heaven: — rwould it be an easy matter to establish these won-
ders, and spread them over the earth to the latest generations?
If it would, let deists make the experiment, and after carrying
their project to ji sufficient height, they can lay open the secret*
and thereby produce a stronger argument against Christianity
than the wit of philosophers has been able to muster from the
days of Porphyry, or Julian,tothose ofthe heroical Thomas Paine.

It being foreign to the present design to enter into a regular de-
fence of Christianity, further than to take a view of revelation
fis one of the general methods whereby the Father of the spirits of

PLAN OF SALVATION. 65

ail flesh, conveys a knowledge of his truth to the human miudj
I omit any farther illustrations of the present argument.

Any candid mind may perceive, by reflection, that the more
closely (he subject is examined, the more manifest it will appear,
that although miracles are not wrought in our time, yet the evi-
dence oi' them is conveyed to us, through the channel of human testi-
mony, as well as to the ancient Jews and Gentiles, through theme-
dium of sensation; and he who rejects one of these means of com-
munication, might as well reject the other, for I presume as great
a proportion of our knowledge, depends upon the veracity of hu-
man testimony, as upon the truth of our senses; and if we reject
either of them, consistency will require an equal surrender of ev-
ery other kind of evidence, and thus, we must abandon our-
selves to the regions of universal doubt, or, which is the same
thing, to universal ignorance.

If any should be disposed to make such a sacrifice, and give up
all their knowledge to get clear of the restraints of reason and re-
ligion, we must leave them in quiet possession of their retreat, till
something more powerful than argument shall rouse them from their
strange and philosophical delirium. The gospel has been offered to
their acceptance, to use the words of bishop Watson, and from what-
ever cause they reject it, I cannot but esteem their case to be dan-
gerous.

I would not be understood to mean that the evidence of miracles
is conveyed to us in its whole force, or in the same degree it was
conveyed to the people in the days of our Saviour and his apos-
tles: miracles, to them, were self-evident, being addressed imme-
diately to their senses; to us they are ascertained by the deduc-
tions of reason. We take our stand on this axiom, that some de-
gree of credit is due to human testimony; we reason concerning
the degree that is due in this particular ease; w^e find the number
and character of the witnesses to be unexceptionable; we find their
testimony accompanied with such circumstantial marks of vera-
city, that we cannot suppose it false without involving ourselves
in several unaccountable.absurdities; we find the system of truth
attested by them accords perfectly with the holy nature of God,
and with the unbiased dictates of our reason and conscience:
Hence, we conclude that we are compelled to renounce our reason,
or to believe that the miracles attested by the apostles were really
performed by our Lord Jesus Christ, in proof of that revelation
which the goodness of God has transmitted to mankind.

Will philosopherf? reject this eridencej merely because it is de-

ft6 APf ESSAY ON THE

rived through the medium of inference or consequential reasoning,
and not through the immediate dictates of sense?

If S)6, it would seem that they change their ground as conve-
niency may require: one while, they seem disposed to spurn at the
dictates of common sense, as a vulgar kind of evidence, and must
have argument for every thing; hut (mark their inconsistency)
when the subject of miracles is under discussion, they abandon
their former ground, refuse to believe upon tlie mere evidence of
consequential reasoning, and cry. Let us see miracles performed —
let us have the sure evidence of sense, and we will then believe
you, and not before. Let God establish the truth of revelation,
by an immediate communication of it to my consciousness, says
Thomas Paine, and I will be a christian; but this is the only pos-
sible way I can be convinced: the plainest deductions of reason-
ing will avail nothing, however obvious and incontrovertable: and
nothing short of immediate inspiration to my own soul, shall ever
overcome my infidelity. And yet this is the gentleman who came
forward in such a pompous manner, and called his feeble, though
angry and declamatory productions. The Jlge of Reason! But with
all his affected fondness for reason, he holds the evidence of re-
velation to be so vastly superior, that no other kind of evidence
can deserve any more regard than mere hearsay.

Now if no other evidence is to be regarded in the case, but im-
mediate revelation alone, it evidently follows that if the utmost
force of evidence were given, that reasoning was ever able to con-
vey, it ought still to be rejected. Thus is reason discarded, in our
age of reason, and declared to be utterly beneath the attention of
mankind. " And consequently, they are not obliged to believe it."

SECTION VL

Jlie connexion of those three sources of evidence, and their depen-
dance upon each other.

Among the various mistakes and inconsistencies of mankind,
perhaps none is of more serious tendency, than the practice of
separating and tearing in sunder what God has joined together.
If common sense and reason, and revelation, are really a three-
fold method whereby truth is communicated to the human under-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 67

standing, they all tend to the same end; and for a man to neglect
and despise one, under pretence of exalting another, is like a per-
son neglecting the use of his eyes, in order to devote more time to
the faculty of hearing: or like one who despises the insignificant
sense of smelling, under pretence of improving his taste.

We will suppose half a dozen men surround a table together,
to partake of the blessings of providence for the refreshment and
support of their nature; immediately they begin tp dispute about
the most proper method of eating, one contending that the use of
a man's eyes, is most essentially necessary at table, to perceive the
food before him, and to distinguish one part from another; a se-
cond observes, that a person's hands are most essential, without
which his eyes can be of no service; a third insists that hands and
eyes together might as well be neglected, and that eating depends
chiefly, if not entirely, upon the proper use of a man's moutlu

While they are employed in this ridiculous contention, their
companions, smiling at the metaphysical controversy, begin very
deliberately to use Iheireyes, hands and mouth in the proper place,
and thereby receive a suiiieient supply, before the disputants haye
well adjusted tlie outlines of their mighty argument.

In this manner many infidels have warmly contended that rea-
son is onr only guide to truth and happiness; some christians have
been disposed to conclude, with equal confidence, that revelation
is our only guide: while both together have agreed to reject, or to
devote but little attention, to the original dictates of those facul-
ties which enable us immediately to discover all the first princi-
ples of truth, and without which we could neither reason nor re-
«eive any evidence of revelation.

AVhile those persons appear to rest satisfied, on both sides,
eaeh one believing with great assurance that he is in the right
and that his antagonist is a fanatic or a heretic, it may probably
be worth while to enquire if they be not both in the wrong, and
whether they will ever be in the right till they consent to lay by
the dispute, and to meet each other on the harmonious medium
where mercy and truth have met tog-ether, and where reason and
revelation have kissed each other. I am resolved, says one,
that " Righteous and immortal reason"* shall be my only
guide, without any of your dreams and ghostly revelations. 1 am
equally bound, says another, to follow the holy scriptures, as ex-
plained by the infallible church, without bringing its mysteries to
« The profane eye of human reason."!

* Palmer, f The Popish doctor of Hexham,

68 AN ESSAY ON THEi

And I am equally resolved, says a third, to examine whether
the three sources of evidence above explained, be not so united that
they must stand or fall together, and whether the opposite parties
who attempt to separate them, be not at open or secret war, both
with reason and revelation. I am aware that this cannot be done,
w ithout my being stigmatized, by the one party, as a mongrel
kind of deist, and by the other, as a da,ngerous enemy to " Rights
eous and imm^i'tal reason;" but when a person is reduced to the
dilemma of either sacrificing truth to the favour of parties, or sa-
crificing tlieir favour to the promotion of truth, law and gospel,
reason, conscience and candour, all point out the path in w hich he
should walk, and unanimously decide, that fFe ought to obey God
rather than man.

It has already been evinced, that reason so depends on the dic-
tates of common sense, or in other words, upon self-evident truths,
that is impossible for it to exist without them: a few reflections
may now convince us, that revelation depends no less upon lirst
principles, than reasoning itself.

To exhibit this matter in the clearest point of view, it will be
necessary to lay down three or four such principles, and appeal to
the reader's understanding, whether revelation could aftord any
evidence of truth without them.

1st. It is impossible for God to be deceived, or to deceive others.

2d. The scriptures of the old and new Testament have a real and
true meaning.

3d. The revealed will of God consists in the doctrines which con-
stitute the true meaning of scriptures, and not merely in the exter-
nal letter, or any false construction of it.

4-th. It is possible for the human mind, as it respects the essen-
tial doctrines of Christianity, to distingiiish the true meaning of
■ike scriptures, from all false interpretations of them, ivhen its fa-
culties are rightly exercised under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

These principles are self-evident, and to deny them, or any one
of them, will be to assail the very pillars of revelation.

As to the hrst one it is the chief corner stone of reason as well as
revelation: for if God was a deceiver, he could stamp a lie upon
our original constitution, and give us deceitful faculties, as well
us a deceitful revelation. A God that made every thing, knows the
natureof every thing that he has made, and cannot possibly be
deceived. Men deceive one another, in order to gain something
from one another: but a God that is independently happy in himself
call gaia nothing from others by deceiving them. That lying

PLAN OF SALVATION. 69

and deceit tend to the injury of God's creatures is self-evident;
and to sAy goodness can designedly injure others is a contradic-
tion. No God but a kicked one can ever be deceitful. The na-
ture of God is exhibited in the creation, and we need nothing
more than to nndcrstand that nature, to perceive M'ith immediate
conviction, that the Being possessed of it can do no wrong, and it
is impossible fw God to lie.

Attentive reflection may enable us to perceive this truth with
more clearness and conviction; it may be illustrated or set more
fully before the mind by arguments or explanations; but it shines
with irresistible splendour from the nature of God, and every ar-
gument we use, and every truth we believe, takes it for granted,
because they take for granted the veracity of those faculties which
God has given us, and by which alone we reason or judge of any
subject in the world. The more clearly we understand the na-
ture of God, the more clearly we perceive this axiom; but though
it may be illustrated, or set more fully before the mind, by show-
ing its relation to other obvious truths, yet it is not supported by
any other argument, but is itself essential to the support of
all.

Nothing can be the cause of itself. Every thing that begins
to exist, must have a cause, adequate to produce the effect. All
signs of power, intelligence and goodness that appear in the eftect
result from those attributes which exist essentially in the cause.
The signs of those attributes are manifest in the structure of the
universe. The great and good Being who made this universe,
must know perfectly the nature, properties and relations of all
things he has made. Being infinitely happy in himself, he need-
eth nothing that he has made. He gave life to creatures, and
made them capable of happiness, not for his own sake, but for
theirs.

That conduct which tends to general happiness is right. Gt>d
knows the nature of moral evil, and knows that it leads to misery.
God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

These principles stand closely related, and perhaps one may
be inferred from another; but each one alone, when rightly con-
ceived, has evidence in itself that must carry conviction to every
sound and candid mind.

The second m?i\im, that the scriptures have a true meaning, is

alsa self evident. It is impossible for it to be proved, or made

jnore evident by any particular passage of scripture; for before

that passage can be any proof to my miud, I mast knovy it's mean-

K

70 AN ESSAY ON THE

ing, and therefore, I prove that the scriptures have a true mean-
ing, by taking it for granted, in the very passage which I produce
for my proof.

That the mind or will of God, made known in the scriptures, is
contained in their true meaning, and not iu the mere letter with-
out any meaning, or in tliat construction, which is false, I hope
every person will acknowledge. To deny it, is to say that all the
contradictory opinions in Christendom are true: lor a man may
prove every one of them by some passage in the bible; and the let-
ter or metaphor of the text, when torn from the context, may seem
to support the point in question.

Our fourth maxim must also stand firm, or revelation is good
for nothing: for to what purpose are the scriptures given to men,
ii'it be impossible for the'm to understand their true meaning, or
to distinguish them from falsehood.'

Here the old atheistic objec(iou again returns upon us; it is
possible for us to mistake the meaning of scripture, and by what
iititerion shall we determine when our views of it are correct,
and when they are not? The same has been said, and may be
said, of reason, sense, consciousness, and every kind of evidence
that has ever entered into the heart of man to conceive.

The proper and the only answer that can be given to this ob-
jection, Mhether urged against revelation or reason, is, that the
criterion or method by which we distinguish truth from false-
hood, is the sincere and regular exercise of those faculties and
powers of mind which God has graciously aftbrded us; by such an
exercise of our intellectual j^owers, we shall know the truth in all
essential 4iiatters, because God is no deceiver, but is a God of
truth, without iniquity, just and right is he; and as to trivial
mistakes, into which we may fall through the feebleness of our
faculties, they will never essentially harm us if we be followers
of that which is good.

I am aware that such an answer as this is far from being satis-
factory to the mind of his holiness at Rome, because it seems to
undermine the sanctified prerogatives of St. Peter's chair. This
blind heretic, would he say, imagines that the true meaning of
scripture is to be sought out by his carnal reason; but he ought
to know that unless he speedily and humbly yield up " the pro-
fane eye of human reason," to the infallible instructions of the
Mother church, it will be necessary to subdue his obstinacy by the
force of the h(dy inquisition. But tell me, gentle reader how
does the pope, iu conjunction wit h his conclave distinguish truth from

PLAN OF SALVATION. n

falsehood, and what is their criterion? Why, to be sure, the criterion
of infallibility. But is their infallibility pi'oved by the testimony
of revelation? If not, it must be founded upon that carnal reason,
which supports the delusions of infidels and heretics; and if so,
does it not equally prove them to be infidels and heretics? If
they learned from proof of scripture that they are iuAillible,
by what criterion do tliey ascertain that they rightly understand
that scripture? by their infallibility also? Then it seems they
prove themselves to be infallible by taking for granted that they
are so, independent of that proof; and besides, if we are sure to err
in ourjiidgments, are we not as likely to err in judging of the proof
of their infiiUibility, as in any tiling else? And suppose we take
for granted that they are infallible, because they are pleased,
very gravely to tell us so; how will this enable u^ to avoid mistakes
any better than we can without them? for supposing their instruc-
tions to be infallibly true, as we believe the scriptures to be, are
we not as likely to misunderstand their meaning, as the meaning
of our saviour and his apostles? Were not all the inspired writers
infallible teachers? they dare not deny it. Well, if Christ and
his apostles were infallible teachers, and yet poor heretics may
misunderstand them, they may equally misunderstand the deci-
sions of theHolyMother,notvvithstaudingher priestly infallibility.
I rejoice that 1 am not in the power of the holy inquisitors, for if
I were, their act of faith would consign my poor body to the tor-
ments of the inquisition, and my soul would be sentenced to de-
part, far beyond the regions of purgatory, to the dreadful " hell of
the reprobates."

I do not wish to dwell upon this melancholy theme; but who can
look back at the dark ages of persecuting bigotry without uttering
a sigh of silent indignation, and dropping a tear of sympathy
over the groans of bleeding humanity! Who can see the benign reli-"
gion of the Lord Jesus, thus dishonoured by its professed minis-
ters, without feeling for the insulted honour of our gracious mas-
ter, and for the degradation of human nature! If any person wish-
es to be instructed in the secret mysteries of priestcraft, and the
almost incredible extent of spiritual wickedness in high places,
let him read the history of the tenth, eleventh, and tMclfth, cen-
turies. Were I to produce extracts in proof of all the abomina-
tions of those times my book would svr'cll into volumes; but as I
shall have o»easion frequently to refer to their profound and cun-
ning policy, it may be necessary, once for all, to give a few speci-
mens of their religious Irypocrisy, wickedness and cruelty, as ex-
kibited ami hauded down to us by different historians.

yg AN ESSAY ON THE

And first let us produce the accounts of Du Pin, who himself
helouged to the Mother church, and therefore cannot be suspected
of a design to misrepresent her.

Speaking of Ratheriiifi, who gave an account of the tenth cen-
tury, he says, " In the second part of his treatise, Ratherius
more particularly falls upon the immodesty of the clergy, which
was at such a height in his time, that one could scarce find a man
jit to be ordained a bishop, or any bishop fit to ordain others.

'^ After this treatise there are five letters of his writing. The
first is directed to Martin, bishop ofTerrara,>> herein he acquaints
him that his clergy laid sevei-al crimes to his charge, particular-
ly that of ordaining several infants for money."

Speaking of one of the popes, he says, " He did not enjoy his
dignity long: fpr that Sergius, whom we formerly mentioned, being
pome to Rome, seized on Christophilus, put him in prison, and
stepped himself into St. Peter's chair. This man is 'esteemed a
mpnster, not only for his ambition and the violent proceedings he
was guilty of, but also upon the account of his loose morals. He
had a bastard by Marosia the daughter of Theodora, who being
along time before highly in the favour of Adalbert, bore a great
sway in Rome. This bastard sou of his was afterwards promo-
ted to the popedom by the intrigues of this Marosia, and took
upon him the name of John xi. as we shall show in the sequel."

Again, a little after, Ive adds, " About this time Peter, arch-
bishop of Ravenna, sent frequently to Rome a deacon of his
church, called John, to pay his due respects to the pope. Theo-
dora, that impudent whore, having seen him fell desperately in
love with him, and prevailed upon him to maintain a shameful
familiarity with her. While they lived thus lustfully together,
the bishop of Bolognia, dying, this John was chose in his place.
But before he was consecrated, the bishop of Ravenna dies also,
and Theodora prevails upon John to quit the bishoprick of Bo-
lognia, and to accept of this archbishoprick. He thereupon re-
turns back to Rome, and w as ordained archbishop of Ravenna*
Within a while after, the pope, (namely Landon) who had ordain-
ed him, dies; God calling him to give an account of his upjust pro-
ceedings in ordaining John. Theodora upon this, that she might
not be far from her lover, made him again to relinquish the arch-
bishoprick of Ravenna, and to seize upon St. Peter's chair." see
a " New Ecclesiastical history," vol. 8. London edition, page 7,
22. by Du Pin, doctor of the Sorbon,

PLAN OF SALVATION. 73

Thus, if we credit this learned doctor, who was a person of
high authority in the Romish communion, the bishops, archbi-
shops and popes, who boasted of their being vicars of Christ upon
earth and of their being holy and infallible, were really governed
themselves by such as this author justly calls " impudent
whores."

Let us now recur to another authority. In the Biographical
and Martyrologieal dictionary, we find the following account,
among many others of the same description:

" Another Auto de Fe is thus described by the reverend doc-
tor Gedde, ' At the place of execution (here are so many stakes
set as there are prisoners to be burned, a large quantity of dry
furze being set aboui them.

' The stakes of the protestants, or, as the inquisitors call them
the professed, are about four yards high, and have each a small
board, whereon the prisoners are seated within half a yard of the
top. The professed tlieu go up a ladder between two priests,
who attend them the whole day of execution. When they come
even with the forementioned board, they turn about to the peo-
ple, and the priests spend near a quarter of an hour in exhorting
them to be reconciled to the see of Rome. On their refusing, the
priests come down, and the executioner ascending, turns the pro-
fessed from ott' the ladder upon the seat, chains their bodies close
to the stakes, and leaves them.

' The priests then go Op a second time to renew their exhorta-
tions, and if they find them inert'ectual, usually tell them at par-
ting, ' That tliey leave them to the devil, who is standing at their
elbow ready to receive their souls, and carry them with him into
the flames of hell-Sre, as soon as they are out of their bodies.'

' A general shout is then raised, and when the priests get off the
ladder, the universal cry is, ' Let the dogs beards be made;'
(which implies, singe their beards) this is accordingly performed
by means of flaming furzes thrust against their faces with long
poles.

' This barbarity is repeated till their faces are burnt, and is
accompanied with loud acclamatiuns. Fire is then set to the fur-
zes, and the criminals are consumed.'

" Numerous are the martyrs who have borne these rigours with
the most exemplary fortitude: and we hope that every protestant,
whose fate may expose him to the merciless tyranny of papists,
will act consistent with the duty of a christian, whcu they cojisi-

y* AN ESSAY ON THE

der the great rewards that await them." Biog. and Mart. Dic-
tionary, page 292. Another description is as follows.
" First time of torturing."

« On refusing to comply with the iniquitous demands of the in-
quisitors, by confessing all the crimes they thought fit to charge
Jiini with, he was immediately conveyed to the torture room,
where no light appeared but what two candles gave. That the
cries of the sufferers might not be heard by the other prisoners,
tliis room is lined by a kind of quilting, which covers all the cre-
vices and deadens the sound.

" Great was the prisoner's horror on entering this infernal place,
vhen suddenly he was surrounded by six wretches, who, after
preparing the tortures, stripped him naked to his drawers. He
was then laid upon his back upon a kind of stand, elevated a few
feet from the floor.

" They began the operation by putting an iron collar round his
neck, and a ring to each foot, which fastened him to the stand.
His limbs being thus stretched out, they wound two ropes round
each arm, and two round each thigh; which ropes being passed
ander the scaffold, through holes made for that purpose, were all
drawn tight at the same instant of time, by four of the men, on
■a given signal.

" It is easy to conceive that the pains which immediately suc-
ceeded were intolerable; the ropes which were of a small size,
eut through the prisoner's flesh to the bone, making the blood gush
out at eight different places thus bound at a time. As the prison-
er persisted in not making any confession of what the inquisitor
required, the ropes were drawn in this manner four times succes-
sively.

« It is to be observed that a physician and surgeon attended,
and often felt his temples, in order to judge of the danger he might
he in; by which means his tortures were for a small space suspend-
ed, that he might have sufficient opportunity of recovering his
spirits, to sustain each ensuing torture.

" In all this extremity of anguish, while the tender frame is
fearing, as it were, in pieces, while at every pore it feels the
sharpest pangs of death, and tlie agonizing soul is just ready to
hurst forth, and quit its wretched mansion, the ministers of the
inquisition have the obduracy of heart to look on without emotion,
and calmly to advise the poor distracted creature, to confess his
imputed guilt, in doing which they tell bim he may obtain a free
pardon, and receive absolution.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 7e

« Females who fall into the hands of the inquisitors, have not
the least favour shown them on account of the softness of their
sex, but are tortured with as much severity as the male prisoners,
with the additional mortification of havin,!;
dacencies added to the most
Dictionary, page 293, 294.

Another account related by Du Pin, concerning pope John the
twelfth, is worthy of particular observation. " This man," says
he, "was so far from having any of those qualities requisite for so
great a dignity, that he was a monster in debauchery and irregu-
larity. That John was not one of those, who being covered with
sheep's clothing, are inwardly ravenous wolves; but that he com-
mitted publicly and in the eye of the world, diabolical actions,
without putting himself to the trouble of concealing them. — Tliat
he had abused the widow of Ranier, Stephania his father's con-
cubine, the widow Ann and her neice, and that he had made his
court the very sink of debauchery. The clergy and laity then pre-
sent [at Rome] cry'd out that they had seen him drink a health
to the devil, and swear by the heathen Gods in his play at hazards.^*
J\rew Ecclesiastical History, vol. 8, page 10, 11.

Such are the men to whom the laity are required to yield a tame
and a blind submission. They must not presume to use their owm
judgment, because it is possible for them to err; and when they
are informed that the popish priesthood possess infallibility, a
distinguishing prerogative of Almighty God, they must receive the
holy tidings, like dutiful children, m ithout having the assurance
to ask for any proof of this blasphemous claim. Human reason
is very weak and deceitful, says the pope; therefore, lay it aside,
and humbly receive the sure instructions of the church. The sen-
ses are very fallacious, says the sceptic, therefore, tamely receive
what "philosophy teaches," without presuming to call it in qnes-
tion. These gentlemen appear to agree remarkably m ell in their
views; but I hope the world will learn that there is less danger of
error in using the faculties of judging which God has given them,
than 4n believing things merely because priests and philosophei-s
are pleased to say they are true.

Let us next consider whether the evidence of reasoning be also
inseparable from that of revelation.

Reasoning is necessary to enable us to perceive the evidence
that our scriptures come from God, as has been shown in the ca.se
of miracles, and might be shown in other branches of the subject.
And will any one sa^ that there is no necessity for us to discover

ye AN ESSAY ON THE

this evidence, and that we oiiglit to take for granted without any
proof, that the bible is of God? If so, Mahometans ought to take
the Alcoran for granted: and we ought all to take for granted
that the churcli of Rome is infallible: for their infallibility is built
upon this very principle. They know it is impossible for them
to give us any ;?roo/* of it, and therefore they think our carnal reason
ought to take it for granted Avittsout proof. If we wish any man
in the world to believe the scriptures without proper evidence^
we of consequence sanction the grand principle of popery, and
virtually declare that it is a righteous thing for them thus to
impose upon their unsuspecting followers.

A point of doctri'iie proved by the scriptures, before the truth
and divinity of those scriptures are ascertained, is exactly like a
deduction of reasoning, built upon an hypothesis. As all rational
belief in the conclusion, is proportioned to the degree of evidence
we perceive in the premises; so our confidence in any point of
doctrine proved by the testimony of revelation, is and ought to be
in exact proportion to the evidence we perceive that the revelation
is true, by which the doctrine in question is established: and if we
encourage people to receive Christianity blindfold, without labour-
ing to discover the evidence of its truth, we encourage the very
principle which led philosophers to take certain hypotheses for
granted, in the same blindfold manner, and to build conclusions
upon them, till they proved that the heavens and the earth have
no real existence.

I write thus, not from a suspicion that revelation is supported by
slender evidence, but from a conviction that the evidence is abun*
dant: I wish all men in the world to examine it, the more attentive-
ly the better; and when I see christians manifest a disposition, by
indirect hints or otherwise, to discourage the diligent exercise of
reason, and seem to think it unsafe to search the grounds of
Christianity too closely, I cjvnnot help thinking they secretly sus-
pect our religion stands upon rather a sandy basis, and that it
cannot well bear a close and impartial examination.

Perhaps in this 1 am too censorious: perhaps they perceive the
evidence of revelation more clearly than myself; but knowing the
blindness of the human heart, they are afraid to encourage the
use of reason among the people in general, lest they should wildly
abuse their reason, and run into infidelity. Alas, my brother! this is
granting deists the very thing which they contend for: this is gran-*
ting that the deists of our country have been led into infidelity, by
rellcction,or because they would think and examine for themselves,

PLAN OF SALVATION. 77

and that the cause why others have not followed their example, is,
that priests and parents have prevailed with them to guard against
the danger of using their reason.

I am persuaded, on the contrary, that the hest method to keep
infidelity from becoming general in any country, is, to train the
inhabitants from their youth, to close thinking and reasoning. If
we endeavour to establish in them the habit of taking things for
granted without evidence, and without examination, we may in-
deed preserve them for a while in a loose profession of Christiani-
ty; but let it be remembered, that the wickedness and blindness
of man's heart are not to be cured by the neglect of his rational
faculties, but by the proper exercise of them, under the influences
of divine grace. May a man resist the spirit in a certain method
of using his reason.^ so he may in the neglect of it. Is he some-
times led astray through too much attention and thinking? and
how much oftener through the want of it.^ Are some persons led
into infidelity, who are of a reasonable turn of mind? and how ma-
ny more who never reasoned for an hour since they were born? how
many drunken infidels are cursing and blaspheming about tlie
streets every day, who are almost as ignorant of the nature and
grounds of Christianity as a savage? And were these witty and
jovial deists led to disbelieve and despise the religion of their
country, by being too much indulged in the use of their reason ?
No: God knows if there was no other degree of reason among men,
than the quantum of it possessed and exercised by such boasted
free-thinkers, we should have but a very scanty pittance of it
under the sun.

Let any man lift up his eyes, and take a survey of popish coun-
tries, where men for centuries have been trained up to im-
plicit faith, and where " ignorance was the mother of devotion,'**
and " reason the greatest enemy tofaithy What fruits have been
produced by those maxims? They produced a servile and barba-
rous superstition, under the name of Christianity, far worse than
paganism,* and afterwards they produced a swarm of infidels or
open atheists.

* Dr. Campbell, speaking of Spain, calls it « a country sunk
in the most obdurate superstition that ever disgraced human
nature." He adds, in a note, " This perhaps will appear to some
to be too severe a censure on a country called Christian, and
may be thought to recoil on Christianity. I do not think it fairly
capable of such a construction. That the corruption of the best

78 AN ESSAY ON THE

Is it not notorious, that reason has been subdued, and implicit
faith instilled into the people by the priests of Rome, more than
by any other set of men upon earth? And is it not equally noto-
rious that greater bodies of deists now exist in popish countries,
than in any other countries in Christendom? Why then do we vain-
ly imagine that we bhall obstruct the progress of infidelity by
going back to the popish standard, and by persuading God's ra-
tional creatures that it is dangerous for them to use their reason?
If we could persuade them to guard against pride, prejudice, hy-
potheses, and sophistry, and prevail with men in general to exer-
cise their reason with all possible attention and regularity, I think
it would appear, and the discovery would become more general
too, that popery and infidelity are really supported by the same
weapons, and that they are both as much under the necessity of
sneaking into dark corners to avoid the light of reason, as a biid
of night to cower down into some deep grove, or hidden corner of
the world, to avoid the illuminating beams of the sun as he shines
with brilliant grandeur through the heavens.

But man's reason, we are told, since the fall of Adam, has be-
come so corrupt that it is a very deceitful guide.

Does this mean that our reasoning faculties, when used in the
best manner in our power, naturally lead us into delusion? or that
they are as likely to lead us into falsehood as truth? If so, I must
dissent from the conclusion, and maintain that true reasoning will
no more support falsehood than it did before the fall of iVdam.

If man is greatly corrupted, and prone to run into error and
wickedness, does it hence follow that his eyes and ears and other

things produces the worst has grown into a proverb: and, on the
most imjKirtial inquiry, I do not imagine it will be found tliat
any species of idolatry ever tended so directly to extirpate hu-
manity, gratitude, natural aft'ection, equity, mutual confidence,
good foith, and every amiable and gener «us principle from the
human breast, as that gross perversion of the christian religion
which is established in Spain. It will not surely be ailirmed,
that our Saviour intended any censure on the Mosaic institution,
or genuine Judaism, when he said. Wo unto you. Scribes and Plia-
risees, hypocrites; for ye compass sea and land to make one prose-
lyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of
hell than yourselves. Yet the words plainly imply, that even pa-
gans, by being converted to {he Judaism, that was then professed,
were >»rt//e children of hell, and consequently corrupted, instead
of being reformed." See Campbell's dissertation on miracles,
third edition, page 237.

PLAN OF SALVATION. -TO

natural faculties have become so corrupt that they are no longer
to be trusted? It does not.

Was Adam's intellectual and moral faculties so destroyed, by
his apostacy, that he could no longer distinguish truth from false-
hood, or right from wrong? If so, wherein did he difl'er from a
horse, or any other beast of the field? If he could no longer distin-
guish between right and wrong, it was surely impossible for him
to have any conviction of the guilt or turpitude of his past actions,
or any sense of obligation to his maker for the future. For how
can a creature know he has done wrong, or that he ought to do
right, after he has lost all capacity to distinguish between tlicm?

Does God require of man to follow the dictates of his reason
and conscience, or to depart from them? If to depart from them,
it follows that it is contrary to the will of God for a man to be
conscientious; and to act according to his requirements, we must
all act as unreasonably as possible. If he requires us to follow
them, then to say they are deceitful, is to say God enjoins on his
creatures to follow a deceitful guide.

If it be objected that he has given the Bible as our guide, I an-
swer, 1st, thousands are not in possession of the Bible; and 2d,
those who are in possession of it cannot understand it without the
exercise of their reason, which, if it be deceitful, will delude them
as much in their judgments concerning the meaning of scripture,
as in any other matters.

If it be said, the spirit is our guide, I would ask, does the spirit
excite us to fellow the dictates of reason and conscience, or to act
in opposition to them ? if to act in opposition to them, then we say
the spirit will not allow men to be conscientious, and that it influ-
ences them to be unreasonable. But if it influences us to follow
them, then we cannot charge our reason and conscience with be-
ing deceitful, without charging the Holy Spirit with being equally
so, seeing it influences us to follow their dictates.

But if reason and conscience never deceive, how comes it to
pass,says one, that men fall into so many delusions? answer, by ne-
glecting or suppressing those faculties, and following some other
guide. Does not the apostle aftirm that the m oman, being deceiv-
ed, was in the transgression? To say Eve entered into this delusion
by following her reason and conscience, is to say those faculties
were originally made deceitful; but if it was by departing from
thein, to follow another guide, then rebellion against God was a
violation of reason: and if sin then consisted in acting against rea-
son and congciejico, Avhy suppose its nature has since altered?

$X) AN ESSAY ON TKK

But the apostles, words are often quoted to prove that a uian's
conscience may lead him into wickedness: I have lived in all good
conscience unto this day. Does this mean that Paul had never, to
that day, done any thing for which his conscience condemned him?
That he had laboured with the utmost candour and attention to
know his duty in all things, and had never in his life done any
thing which he knew he ought not to do, or left undone any thing
which he knew he ought to do? How could he then say that he
was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious? i. T'mu
i. 13. How could he say (ver. 15) that he \va.s the chief of sin-
ners? Did Paul really believe, with the writings of the prophets in
his hands, that it was his sacred duty to be a blasphemer, aperse-
ffiitor, and injurious? Can a man be conscious of leaving undone
that which he knows to be good, and of doing thatwhich he knows
to be evil, as Paul did, and all the while have a good conscience?
Can a man be the chief of sinners, and live in all good conscience
throTigh the whole of it ? If so, the chief of sinners may assure,
himself that he is in the way to heaven, for the apostle John saith,
if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
d. John iii. 21.

The apostle's words, taken in conjunction with the context, evi-
dently signify that he had regularly kept the Jewish laAv, by which
they Mere then about to try him: as to this law, says he, for the.
pretended violation of whicli, you have bound me with this chain,
I have lived in all good conscience unto this day: I have never trans-
gressed one of those laws, upon which you hope to found a legal
sentence against me.

Touching the righteousness of the {ceremonial) law he was blame-
?ess, because he had kept it withthe most scrupulous regidarity. And
when did Paul, to the end of his life, ever blame himself for any
violation of the Jewish or ceremonial law? Never. And why did
he not ? Because in that respect he had lived in all good conscience.
But did he never blame himself for persecuting the followers of
Jesus Christ? Yes, he reproached himself with it repeatedly, and it
was principally on this ground that he pronounced himself the
chief of sinners. And why ? Because in this respect he did not
live in all good conscience, as he did in respect to his keeping the
law which they charged him with having violated. Did he ever say
he killed the disciples of Jesus in all good conscience} So far from
it, that he represent it as a crime so enormous, that nothing but
the plea of ignorance could afford any ground fpr him to ev^l-
hope for mercy.

PLAN OP SALVATION. 84

'^liis true, he said, "I verily thought with myself, that I ought t«
do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth,"* but
he no where tells us that this thought arose from either his reason
or conscience; but on the contrary, that it arose from the most fu-
rious prejudice and malice; " I compelled them to blaspheme,"
says he; " and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted
them even unto strange cities."t If we are to conclude a man's
reason and conscience lead him astray, because he departs from
them to follow his furious passions, may we not as well conclude
that the devil is still following the dictates of reason, and lives in
all good conscience unto this day ?

But we are to take it for granted, I suppose, that whenever a
man thinks a thing is rights thatthought arises from his conscience^
and whenever he thinks a thing isirwe, that thought arises from his
reason. If this be so, it is plain that all mankind have regularly
followed their reason and conscience, and nothing else, from the
creation of the world to the present hour, in judging of what i«
right and of w hat is true.

Did Paul say, or will any man say for him, that he sincerely
and candidly used all the means in his power to know his duty,
and that after the most serious and dispassionate reflection, he
really felt in his conscience that it w as his sacred duty to be ex-
eeeding mad against the saints, and compel them to blaspheme?

When a man calmly and candidly labours to know his duty,
and after consulting his moral judgment, and striving to conceive
the matter clearly, has an immediate conviction that the right or
wrong of a certain thing is self-evident, this I understand to be a
true dictate of an original faculty; call it conscience, or what you
please. When he has recourse to such principles, to draw con-
clusion from them, and prove the right or wrong of some
other point of moral conduct, this I understand to be reason
brought into exercise, to enlarge the knowledge we derive froui
the first principles of morality. When a man uses his utmost en»
deavours to prove the right or wrong of a certain matter, and can-
not find any evidence for or. against it, with the help of revelation
or otherwise, this I understand to be a matter beyond the reach of
his faculties. And while this is the case, his doing it or leaving
it undone is to him indifferent, because there is no moral evidence
within his reach either for or against it. It is true, if there be
any probable evidence, or any ground to presume that a certain
action is wrong, a man ought to refrain from it; because where

* Acts. xxvi. 9. i Acts, xxvi. ti.

S3 AN ESSAY ON THE

there is ground to doubt the lawfulness of doing a certain action^
there can be no hesitation as to the lawfulness of leaving it un-
done: but where no evidence can be had on one side or the other,
not even the slightest degree of presumptive evidence, the thing
is perfectly indifferent, and ought so to be considered by every
man till some proof shall appear to command his belief.

Now if a man should espouse such an indifferent matter, as a
very great duty, or abhor it as a dreadful crime, who will say he
is led to this by the dictates of his reason or conscience?

The Pharisees thought they discharged a very great duly in
'' paying tithes of mint, anise, cummin, and all manner of herbs;"
they thought the disciples of Jesus were guilty of a heinous crime
in plucking ears of corn, and rubbing them in their hands, on the
Sabbath day. Were they led to these conclusions by their con-
science? or by their passions and superstitious bigotry?

History informs us that some of the heathens believed it their
duty to practise debauchery, as an act of worship or devotion to
their gods. Were they led to this belief by following the dictates
of their moral judgment? or by following the influence of sen-
sual appetites? It is an easy thing for a man to bring himself to
believe that which he strongly wishes to believe. In doing so, h«
often does violence to the first convictions of his understanding,
and thereby establishes himself in opinions directly opposite to
some of its clearest dictates. To say every man's opinions of
right and wrong are formed by following the evidence of his rea-
son and conscience, is to say no man ever resisted their dictates
in regulating his moral opinions, and of course every sinner in the
world has lived in all good conscience unto this day. One per-
suades himself it is right to spend his life in gambling, which he
calls an innocent amusement; a second believes it right to oppose all
religion, as superstition and priestcraft; a third can see no harm
in fornication and adultery, which he calls living according to
our nature. Now if those persons have formed their opinions by
following the dictates of conscience, and have acted in conformity
to their faith, they have surely lived in all good conscience unto
this day. And if they followed this evidence without deviation,
informing their judgment of right and m rong; and then regulated
their actions according to their best judgment, shall we blame
them for it, and say they did wrong? If so, we suppose it right
for men to resist their conscience and labour to subdue its influ-
ence; otherwise it cannot be wrong for them to do the contrary.

I see no way to avoid these consequences but to admit that meu

PLAN OP SALVATION. ^s

often form their opinions, concerning moral subjects as well as
others, by departing from rational and moral evidence, and follow-
kig the blind influence of prejudice and passion. This being ad-
mitted, the consequence is clear, tliat the absurdities and abomina-
tions of the heathens, afford no proof of the deceitfulness of their
reason; hui,becoming vain in their imaginations, their foolish heart
was darkened hy yielding to the pernicious influence of lust and
pride, vanity and superstition.

And are we disposed to excuse them entirely, and to lay the
whole blame on those judging faculties, which God Almightj'-
gave them, and the exercise of which he demanded of them, to
subdue their passions, and to regulate their judgments concern-
ing truth and falsehood, right and wrong?

Whence arises this sentiment which goes to apologise for hu-
man depravity.^* Whence this inclination to undervalue the rea-
son of mankind, and represent it as being very deceitful and fal-
lacious in its operations? Does it arise from the supposition that
as reason is shown to be fluctuating and uncertain, that the truth
and certainty of revelation will appear in an inverse proportion?
Alas, if reason be a false guide, it is as likely to bear false m it-
ness concerning the evidence of revelation, as any thing else; for
suppose you prove the truth and divinity of the scriptures to a man,
by the most clear and conclusive arguments, how easy is itfor him
to reply, "It i^s true, sir, that you have proved this matter by very
clear arguments; but you have often taught me to consider hu-
man reason as being so corrupt, that it is as likely to su2)port false-
hood as truth; and how do I know but this is one of its deceitful
sallies, intended to impose a false revelation upon me?" Thus the
person'furnishes a weapon against himself, and evinces that eve-
ry attempt to demolish the evidence of reasoa, equally militates
against that of revelation.

Or, will it he said that Mr. Paine was in the right, when he de-
clared that every man should have a new revelation, to confirm
the old, before he is " obliged to believe it?" If so, Paine him-
self and every other deist in the world, is entirely excusable, un-
less it can be made appear that any one of them has resisted the
light of a new revelation: they have had the deceitful evidence of
reason; but this does not render them blamable for their unbelief,
because reason is supposed to be as apt to bear witness to a
falsehood as to the truth; therefore an exact attention to its dic-
tates may have led them into infidelitv.

S4 AN ESSAY ON THE

And this is the way it seems, that we are to support the honour
of revelation! we must degrade and undervalue the reason of man-
kind, under the cant names of human reason, carnal reason, and
the likti, and then to be sure revelation will shine forth, and bear
down all before it! This poor, mean stratagem, first invented in a
popish conclave, is so far from supporting Christianity, that it
has strengtliened the hands of our enemies, and enabled them to
make proselytes, by proving out of our own mouths, that a man
cannot be a christian, without degrading and renouncing his ra-
tional faculties.

And suffer me to repeat the question, if our rational faciiltieg
are fallacious, why are they not as likely to lead us astray, when
we use them to find out the true meaning of scripture, as in any
thing else? If it be said the use of a man*s reason is not essential
to the right understanding of the scriptures, why do not our horses
understand them as well as ourselves? The apostle tells us we are
to compare spiritual things with spiritual, and it is a common
maxim among us, that scripture is to be explained by scripture.
Now what is this but proper and regular reasoning? we compare
one passage with another, as our premises, and from the compa-
rison, we draw our conclusion concerning the true meaning of scrip-
ture. But if reason be deceitful, the whole of that deceit is car-
ried into our conception of the scriptures, whenever we attempt
to find out their true meaning. In vain may you recur to the old
objection, that it is possible for us to be mistaken, and to take that
to be sound reason, which is altogether sophistical; for the same
thing may be urged against inspiration, common sense, and every
kind of evidence in the world. If we refuse to trust our faculties, till
some criterion be produced, to prove the abstract impossibility of
our ever being mistaken, our ease is perfectly incurable, and we
must wander into the regions of universal scepticism, or retire to
the bosom of popish infallibility, where the danger of our being
deceived is tenfold more manifest than it was before.

It will be equally unavailing to say " we must lay aside our un-
certain reason, and depend entirely upon the light of the holy spi-
rit;" for if the spirit is to give us an immediate direction in every
thing, reason and scripture together are entirely useless. Why
do I want a bible any more than my reason, if 1 have an internal
guide that shows me on all occasions what is right and true?

The holy spirit is given to assist the faculties of our nature,
hut not to supersede the necessity of using them. Docs God give

PLAN OF SALVATION. jgyg

his spirit to reasonable creatures, that they may lay aside their
reason? Does he give a Bible to mankind, and then give his spi-
rit to enable them to do \vithout it? Does he enlighten the eyes of
our understanding, in order for us to lay our understanding by?
Does he demand of us to exercise and improve our talents, and
then give his spirit to excuse our hiding them in a napkin? Has
he created us with active powers, that we should diligently use
them, and afterwards given his spirit to justify our laziness, and
to make those powers altogether unnecessary? God is not the au-
thor of such contradictions. Man is the author of them; and
while some whimsical enthusiasts have laid aside their reason,
and almost taken leave of their senses, under pretence of having
a spiritual light that rendered them no longer necessary, others
from the same frenzy have laid aside the Bible* on account of
the abundant revelations they were daily conscious of in their own
souls, and which raised them far above the want of reason, or the
carnal letter of the scriptures.

Leaving those geniuses to their own spiritual imaginations,
we come next to consider the dependance of reason upon revela-
tion.

As the progressive exercise of reason enables us to carry our
discoveries far beyond the first principles of common sense, and
thus greatly to enlarge our kno^vledge: so the inestimable gift of
revelation carries our views still higher, and enables us to make
discoveries which reason alone could never make. This does not
imply that our intellectual faculties are ever deceitful; they are
alvTays true as far as they go; but being naturally feeble, they
cannot soar to the highest regions of truth, attainable by man,
without the assistance of revelation. In like manner the dictates
of common sense are always true, as far as they go; but they can-
not bring us even to the middle regions without the help of rea-
son: and yet their humble sphere is so very important, that with-
out it we lose the benefit of reason and revelation together, and
drop into the shades of universal ignorance.

The great necessity and advantages of revelation have been ex-
hibited by many good men, whose shoes I am unworthy to loose.
All that is necessary on the present occasion, is briefly to men-
tion a few particulars, which may serve to illustrate the mutual
dependence of the three great sources of evidence, which is the
design of the present section.

See John Nelson's Jouriuil>
M

m AN ESSAY ON THE

First, men in general, have neither time nor talents to learn eve-
ry thing needful to be known, by the slow and cautious method of
reasoning, nor yet to comprehend them when exhibited by others.
They must of necessity devote their chief attention to the common
labours of life, and though they are capable of reasoning, yet they
have not time to enter into it extensively; and therefore the good-
ness of God has given them a plain revelation, composed of truths
the most essential that ever Jiave been presented to the human
mind. If they only exercise that degree of reason which is neces-
sary to discover ihe signs of divine wisdom, goodness and holiness,
that are very manifest in the scriptures, and strive impartially to
understand them, nothing more is needful; and they have a fund of
instruction before their eyes, adapted to every capacity. This
point has been exhibited in a satisfactory manner by Mr. Lockej
and many others.

Secondly, the doctrine of our immortality, or future existence,
lies so deep, that few men are able to pei'ceive its evidence by
reasoning alone; and the most penetrating minds have found
some remaining doubts, which nothing but revelation could re-
move.

Thirdly, the original cause of man's innate propensities to evil,
lay hid in obscurity, and puzzled all serious minds, till it was ex-
hibited by revelation: reason now confirms the truth of it, by de-
ductions from matter of fact and common sense; but that the first
man involved his posterity in this wretched state, by his rebellion
against God, would yet have remained a secret, had no revelation
from God been given to mankind.

Fourthly, the peculiar kindness of God towards the children of
men and his, deep interest for their eternal welfare, is a pure dis-
covery of revelation. AVithout it, we should be totally ignorant
whether God would ever pardon our transgressions or not, and
equally so, respecting the method his wisdom has adopted to
make that pardon accord with the pure and righteous principles
of his moral government. But, Jesus is the light and the life of
men; and this life and immortality have been brought to light by
the gospel.

Fifthly, our need of a divine influence to assist our faculties,
together with God's willingness to grant us the aid of his holy
spirit, we learn from the holy scriptures; and without a revelation
from God, of some kind, all our views of this matter must have
been merely hypothetical. \

Sixthly, the existence of other orders of iutelligeut creatures

PLAN OF SALVATION. sr

would have remained unknown to us, or at best but barely proba-
ble, Iiad not God condescended to inform iis in a supernatural way.
Now we know that we have brethren in some other region of the
universe, to whose society our heavenly Father intends to raise
us, if we act well our part in this state of probation. We learn al-
so, that there are other wicked creatures in the universe besides
ourselves; that they have power to suggest evil tlioughts to our
minds, in sonic w ay unknown to us; and that it is a matter of great
consequence for us to set a proper guard upon our thoughts and
most secret desires. These ate matters of infinite concernment,
on which our virtue, tranquillity and future blessedness, materially
depend.

Lastly, w ithout revelation we could never have known the in-
tention of God to raise our bodies from the grave, to renew the
face of nature, and to make new heavens and a new earth wherein
righteousness shall dwell. The gloomy thought might have ac-
companied us through life, and we could recur to nothing but con-
jecture to remove it, that tlie present wretched state of things
would continue forever: that pur descendants, irt'suecession, and
all the innocent animals through the earth, and air, and water,
would be a prey to misery, bloodshed and dissolution, to all eterni-
ty. But revelation brightens the prospect before us, and easts
death and misery " into the back ground of the scene." It invites
man to act up to the proper dignity of lug nature, gives him assu-
rances of every necessary aid, and stimulates him by prospects,
calculated to rouse into action all the intellectual and moral fa-
culties of his soul, and M'hichare every way worthy the wisdom
and goodness of God. In a word, every thing contained in this
heavenly system, is friendly to virtue and human happiness, and
no man, but a w icked one, will find any tling in it to terrify or
alarm him.

Those points, and many others, might he pursued to great ad-
vantage; but these hints may suffice to show the connexion of
reason and revelation, and their mutual dejiendance upon each'
other.

He that rejects revelation because he possiesses the light of
reason, is like an astronomer who casts all his ti lescopes into the
sea, because he has eyes, wherewith he may behold the stars or
celestial planets. He who neglects and despises reason, because
he has revelation, is like an astronomer who blindfolds his eyes
under pretence of honoring and exalting his telescopes. He who
uses them in harmony, is like an astronomer who makes a proper

9» AN ESSAY ON THE

use of his eyes and telescopes together, without ever dreaming
that either of them can be spared or neglected, except by an ig-
noramus that is unacquainted with their utility. For ive ally
with open face, beholding as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, are
changed into the same image, f rom glori/ to glory, even as by the
Spirit of the Lord. 11. Cor. Hi. 18.

The objections commonly urged against one of those means of
knowledge, are equally applicable to the other.

Is reason in the hands of depraved and fallen creatures.^ so is
revelation. Are we liable to mistake the voice of reason.*^ so we
are the voice of vevelation. Have men perverted the faculties
of reason, till they have bewiMered themselves and those who
heard them.^ so have men wrested the scriptures, even unto their
own destruction. Has a confnsed system of foolish opinions been
long prevalent in the world, under the name of reason and philo-
sophy? so have as foolish and as wicked system's long prevailed
in the world, under the name of Christianity. Are there many
contradictory opinions which claim the support of reason? so there
ftje many as contradictory which claim the support of revelation.
Have many deists pretended to be led to infidelity by /oi/oirtw^
their reason? so they have pretended to be led into it/;?/ rmrfi??^
the scriptures. Is reason unable of itself, to effect and change the
heart of maii? so i§ revelation. Who can forgive sins but God
only?

They also have the same recommendations. Is revelation the
gift of God? so also is reason. Does revelation appear to better
advantage the more its uature and principles are examined? so al-
so does reason. Was revelation intended for the instruction and
happiness of mankind? so also was reason. Is revelation opposed
to all foolishness and wickedness? so also is reason. Does the
apostle say his opposers were enemies of the gospel? so does he say
they were wicked and unreasonable men. Does the psalmist say the
law of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes? so does the apostle
8^y it is our reasonable service. Does the apostle caution us against
vain philosophy and science falsely so called? so he does against
false apostle$, deceitful workers, who would transform themselves
into the apostles of Christ. Jlre we commanded to search the scrip'
tures,Sind study them diligently? so we arc commanded to be always
ready to giveevery one an answer, that asketh us a reason of our hope.

It is true the apostle opposes the wisdom of this world, and
g{^ys it is fooli?hness with God; but he no where opposes reason,
sind I hope no ^me \y'\\\ charge him with saying any part of truth

PLAN OF SALVATION. ^9

is foolishness with God. It is a dangerous thing, you say, to blend
philosophy and Christianity together, and the very way our reli-
gion was at first corrupted, was partly by connecting it with the
heathen philosophy, and partly by bringing into the profession
fifit, the miserable superstitions of their idolatrous theology. I
believe this account is perfectly correct; but do you therefore in-
fer that reason is a very dangerous guide.^ It seems then, you are
entirely satisfied that Aristotle's philosophy, and the superstitious
theology of the Pagan priests, were altogether founded upon truth
and reason!

If the heathen philosophy or theology were true, and the gospel
true, what injury would result from their being brought together?
Does one truth contradict another, or must we really take for
granted that one truth added to another, will produce a falsehood?
Until I be prevailed on to admit the ridiculous hypothesis that one
part of truth is injured and destroyed by another, I must be per-
mitted still to believe that no philosophy that is false, was ever
supported by reason, and none that is true was ever unfriendly to
the gospel.

The vain philosophy and wisdom of this world which St. Paul
so justly reprobated, was science falsely so called, i. e. it did not
consist in real knowledge, which has the first principles of truth
for its foundation; but it consisted in a system of fantastical opin-
ions, built upon unsupported hypotheses, that were invented by
the vanity and roving imaginations of men. All this was foolish-
ness with God, because it was real foolishness in itself. The judg-
ment of God is according to truth, and he pronounces a thing to
be foolish because it is so: he never cautioned us againstany
branch of truth, because falsehood is dangerous; or against the ex-
ercise of reason, because it is dangerous for men to be unreason-
able. These inconsii^tencies belong not to God, or to his inspired
apostles: we have secretly and inadvertently borrowed them from
the dark stratagems of popery, and as sure as God is the author
of reason and revelation, and as truth is consistent with itself,
no branch of human knowledge will ever be supported by one and
contradicted by the other.

Upon the whole, I conclude, that common judgment, reason and
revelation, are three that bear record on earth, and these three
are so inseparably united that we cannot abandon any one of them
without taking leave of the other two.

90 AN ESSAY ON THE

SECTION VII.

Of analogy and presumption.

Having examined the three cliiei* sources of human know-
ledge; it may be worth vvliile to inquire whether there be any
other method of discovering truth, that is not comprehended in
any one of the foregoing means of instruction.

I am unable to conceive any thing else, that has even the ap-
pearance of evidence, excepting it be the subject of analogy; and
a close inspection, of this will convince us, I think, that analogy
is properly compreliended under the foregoing division. It affords
a self-evident probability, and thus comes under the province of
common or intuitive judgment: and when we reason upou this
ground, we may be led to many probable conclusions: but if our
first principle be only probable, there is nothing more than pro-
bability in any conclusion deduced from it by regular reasoning.
Let it suffice to illustrate this matter by three examples.

1. There is a self-evident probability, from analogy, that the
dther planets around our sun are the habitations of some kind of
living creatures. We see that our earth abounds with various or-
ders of animals, possessing life; and astronomers have proved by
very clear evidence, that the other planets are very large bodies,
like this which we inhabit; hence, we immediately perceive that
there is a very strong probability that those vast bodies do not roll
through the heavens for nothing, any more than the world in
in which we live, but that they minister to the happiness of living
creatures: this is called reasoning from analogy; but the first
principle of this reasoning is self-evident. How did we learn, or
how can we prove, that if one thing is known to resemble another,
in some particulars, it probably resembles it in some others that
are unknown? Will you say from experience? 1 answer, the infe-
rences we draw from experience, are built upon the same analog}-:
I know by experience that day and night have succeeded each
other, without intermission, for thirty years: hence, I conclude,
that for thirty years to come, the same uninterrupted regularity
will continue. But this conclusion is not certain, and for aught I
know to the contrary, the sun may be darkened, and the moon with-
draw her light, in less than thirty years from this day. Can any
philosopher demonstrate the contrary? He cannot. The conclu-
sion is only probable, because it is built on a first principle deri-
ved from analogy, which aiFords no other than probable evidence.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 91

2. It is Tery probable that the ropublie of America, will some
lime be cliangod into a monarchy. Yet it is not certain that it ever
will, because the conclusion is only built upon the analogy of hu-
man nature, a^ntl the practice of former ages in diflerent parts of
tlie workl.

3. There is a self-evident probability- that if God should give
another revelation to mankind, it will also be attended with cer-
tain difficulties, which could only be solved by candid and patient
reflection, and that it would contain some masteries beyond the
grasp of human understanding. This condition is also drawn
from analogy. The works of creation, the course of providence,
the law of Moses, the gospel of Christ, and every part of the Al-
mighty's w orks from the beginning of the world unto this day, are
of this description. They are full of difficulties, and even contra-
dictions, in the judgment of those who are too proud, too merry,
or too slothful to examine them; but to the candid and sincere,
those difficulties only aflord matter of diligence, and useful
improvements, while the incomprehensible parts aftbrd mattev of
humility and just veneration for that intinite being, who cannot
be completely comprehended by any tiuite understanding. But
that another revelation, w ould exactly resemble the foregoing in
those particulars, is only probable: God may hereafter change
the state of the w ovld, and the nature of man's probation; the
powers of evil may be so subdued, and virtue and piety so esta-
blished, that the same degree of laborious thinking may not be
required, that is noAV needful for mankind; and in such a state of
things, a revelation may be given, the evidence and principles of
which will be perceived in a more immediate and intuitive way,
without the slow method of comparison and consequential rea-
soning.

The probability arising from analogy, is sometimes called pre-
sumjJtive evidence. When men are cast ii»to prison, there is a pre-
sumption that they will try to make their escai>e, because the
supposition accords with the analogy of nature; and if they de-
clare they will not go away from the prison, we are not disposed
ta leave the doors open upon the strength of their promise, because
there is too strong a ])resumption against them.

AVhen events are related by any person that are very extraor-
dinary, and not according to (he common analogy or resemblance
of occurrences which the events of one age or country bears to
those of another, there ariseth a presumption against the truth of
his relation. But this presumption can never rise higher than pro-

%2 AN ESSAY ON THE

bability, and totally disappears when combatted by positive
evidence.

If an individual should fell me he saw my friend yesterday, who
died more than a year ago, and conversed with him for half an
hour, the presumption would be so strong against it, that I should
be apt to question the factj but if twelve men whom I could name,
should corroborate his testimony and declare solemnly that they
Avere present in open daylight, and conversed with my deceased
friend for half an hour, 1 could no more disbelieve them than I
could give up all contidence in my best tried friends and acquain-
tances on earth.

When the first astronomer informed his contemporaries, that
he could name the precise minute, for months beforehand, when
there would be an eclipse of the sun or the moon, there was a
strong presiimplion that it was mere conjecture; but the evidence
of sense has fully convinced the world, that truth may stand di-
rectly opposite to the highest probabilities that are only presump-
tive; and of course, the probabilities arising from analogy, should
only be credited when there is no clear evidence against them, and
not even then with a belief too decisive and dogmatical.

Infidels appear to be governed in their peculiar opinions, chief-
ly by analogy and presumption. They will not believe that man
was ever in a state of innocence and perfect happiness, or that the
elements of nature were ever different from their present arrange-
ments: they will not believe a revelation was ever given from
heaven: they will not believe miracles were ever performed: they
will not believe any prophecy concerning a different state of the
world in future: they will not believe the christian doctrine of a
future state, or that mankind will ever be raised from the dead.
And why all this unbelief? Is it for want of evidence.^ not at all:
the evidence is so clear that they have to do violence to their rea-
son to resist it; but they have contracted an almost unconquerable
fondness for analogy and presumption, which they straiif to the
uttermost, and prefer to the plainest and most conclusive deduc-
tions of reason.

If we follow the dictates of common sense and reason, and be-
lieve the truths supported by them with corresponding confidence,
they call us dog^matical. They are resolved, if we believe them, "to
hold themselves in that state of doubt, and suspense of judgment,
winch is 90 becoming in a philosopher.-' But that sceptical doubt
is only indulged, it would appear, when religious matters are in
question: in matters contrary to religion, they seem so very dog*

PLAN OF SALVATION. 93

matical, that they are bent upon a most obstinate adherence to
their opinions, in opposition to all reason, Avhen a bare presump-
tion would be their only ground of credence, if* there was no tes-
timony against them.

Mr. Hume says " A wise man will proportion his belief to the
evidence.''^ I presume this philosopher never spoke a more im-
portant truth; and if all men would follow it, there would be
a death blow given both to the sceptical and dogmatical spirit,
which equally offends against this axiom. The former, consists in
giving a less degree of credit than the evidence requires, and the
latter, in giving a greater: and it is as hard to determine which is
the more dangerous or irrational, as it is to determine which of
two travellers whom a third conducts through an unknown desert,
most effectually loses the benefit of his guide; the man who runs
on before him, or the one who loiters in the woods behind.

Scepticism and dogmatism both consist in believing without
evidence: the former, in believing a subject is doubtful when there
is no evidence of its being doubtful, the latter in believing a sub-
ject to be certain, when there is no evidence of its certainty. He
who believes any proposition with the confidence of certainty,
which has no foundation but analogy, is very dogmatical; he who
doubts of a truth that is self-evident, like tbat of his own existence,
is equally sceptical; and it is no uncommon thing for those ex-
tremes to meet in the same person.

Lifidel philosophers have doubted the present existence of the
world; they have doubted the evidence of sense and all human
testimony; they have doubted " the axioms of mathematics:" and
yet those very men have believed with great confidence, that the
course of nature has uniformly been the same from the beginning
of the world, that no miracle was ever wrought, and that no reve^
lation luas ever given from God to man. Now if we had no man-
ner of evidence that such things ever did occur, the sole evidence
we could have that they did not, would only be presumptive, and
therefore in its very nature doubtful: from the analogy of nature,
so far as it has come under our observation, we would presume it
has always been the same; and if mankind in former ages had seen
astonishing miracles, we would presume again, from the analogy
of human nature, that they would transmit accounts of ihem to pos-
terity; but hoAv can it be demonstrated, or proved by any other
argument, either that the course of nature has been the same from
the creation, or that mankind in former ages, were as much dispo-
ned to transmit accounts of miraculous facts to posterltv, as the
N

94* AN ESSAY ON THE

men of this generation? It is impossible for our objectors to pro-
duce any such proof.

- Will they affirm then, that the thing is self-evident? That there
is a self-evident probabilitij of it, is granted; but this implies a de-
gree of uncertainty; and if such uncertain analogies are among
their most confident opinions, let the world judge who are the men
that properly merit the charge of being dogmatical.

Thus it appears, if we had no positive evidence that a miracle
was ever Avrought, the contrary would be a proper subject of that
doubtful kind of belief, or suspense of judgment, in which our
philosophers afteet to glory, and upon which they congratulate
each other, on their freedom from vulgar prejudices; but what
shall we say of their dogmatical spirit, w hen we see them adhere
to their presumptions in opposition to proofs and arguments the
most convincing and indubitable? .

Will they say a presumptive probability can never be overcome
by any other evidence? And suppose an army of seven thousand
men should conquer an arniy of ten thousand, both to all appear-
ance equally prepared for the battle, the like of w hich has some-
times happened; will any one say there was no ground to presume
that the army of ten thousand would be victorious? or, that this
presumption ought to be adhered to, with obstinate perseverance,
in opposition to all the evidence of sense, or of human testimony,
that could be brought against it?

Whyi the strange influence of the loadstone was first discover-
ed, it had to combat as strong presumptions from analogy as any
miracle whatsoever: and will our opponents insist that no evidence
should influence us to relinquish our belief of such uncertain proba-
bilities? Then all navigators and philosophers are fools for believ-
ing in the mystery of magnetism, which, like miracles, suspends
the law of gravitation.

To this might be added the innumerable mysteries of mechanical
operations and chemistry, many of which are so opposite to the
whole course of my experience, at least, and have such strong pre-
sumption against them, that I might justly consider them as very
doubtful matters, were they not confirmed by the testimony of men
whose veracity cannot be doubted.

But perhaps I am mistaken all this while, in taking for granted
that our sceptical philosophers, who have doubted the very exis-
tence of earth and heaven, were at the same time very dogmatical
in opinions founded upon mere presumption. It cannot be possible,
says a seriou* enquirer, that they only doubted of «ome things

PLAN OF SALVATION. 95

and in others were as confident as other people: much less, that
their doubts arose in proportion to tlie strength of the evidence,
and that they chose always to be confident, where there was no ev-
idence, but some uncertain probability! Was it not their grand
maxim that "all things are equally doubtful?"

I answer, this was indeed their professed maxim, but their own
writings, as well as their actions, will prove that they considered
themselves at liberty to depart from it, whenever it might suit
their convenience. I desire no better testimony in the case than
that of Mr. Hume himself. Every one acquainted with his phi-
losophical writings, knows that he not only professed to doubt, or
disbelieve, the existence of God, angel and spirit; but that he doubt-
ed the existenice of earth and sea, and laboured to prove that there
is no certainty in mathematical demonstration. And is it possible
that this same gentleman had at the same time, some very dogma-
tical opinions? Hear his own words:

" The violations of truth" says he, " are more common in the
testimony concerning religious miracles, than in that concerning
any other matter of fact." And did not our philosopher believe
this proposition very confidently? So much so that he immediately
adds, "This must diminish very much the authority of the former
testimony, and make us form a general resolution, never to lend
any attention to it, with whatever specious pretext it may be co-
vered."*

From this we may perceive with how much confidence Mr. Hume
believed " that the course of nature had been uniform from the
beginning, and that no religious miracles was ever wrought." His
belief in this was so dogmatical, tliat it led him to " form a gene-
ral resolution" to reject all evidence against his opinion, and
" never lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretext it
may be covered."

Thus, you observe, his " sceptical doubts and suspense of judg-
ment," are only resorted to when those subjects are introduced,
concerning which he chuses to doubt or disbelieve; but when evi-
dence is to be brought against the beloved presumptions, founded
on analogy, the.boasted " suspense of judgment" is laid aside, and
" a general resolution" substituted in its place, " never to lend
any attention" to the evidence, but to adhere to his own dogmas
with the unshaken firmness of a popish inquisitor.

* See his Essay on Miracles, page 304^; and Dr. Campbell's an=
«wer, p. 102.

W AN ESSAY ON THE

In another part of the same essay, he says, « No tesfimony for
any kiud ( f miracle can ever possibly amount to a probability,
much less to a proof."

These instances, to which many of a like nature might be ad-
ded, seem indicative of very strong faith: and our wise men, it ap-
pears, who have so much complained of the blind credulity of the
vulgar, are found to be as resolute in their belief as their honest
neighbours. Their inconsistency would not be so intolerable, if
they could be prevailed on to believe their own senses, and the
common dictates of reason; but instead of this, they turn human
knowledge upside doMu; in matters that are self-evident, they glo-
ry in being doubtful, and only become confident in those cases that
are naturally dubious and uncertain; and which is worse than all,
they carry their immovable faith so high as to resist every kind
of positive evidence, and resolve not to give it a bearing. But it
is not a little surprising, that the same persons who in general man-
ifest such a violent fondness for analogy, abandon this ground
entirely, when it suits their purpose, and draw conclusions in di-
rect opposition to it. Almost the whole of that knowledge which
we denominate experience, depends upon the veracity of our sen-
ses: it is derived through the medium of smelling, tasting, feeling,
seeing, and hearing. There is a regular uniformity in the opera-
tions of these senses through the general course of our lives, and
■we daily find the objects around us to be what they are represent-
ed to be by this uniform experience. Our senses never cause us
to take fire for water, or water for fire. AVhen my eyes testify that
one man alone comes into my room, I always find there is but one,
and I am in no danger of mistaking him for a company of five,
^even, or ten. And so of other things.

Now if a man declare he saw a miracle performed; that he saw
for instance, a person standing by the sea side, who commanded a
tree to be plucked up by the roots, and be removed into the sea,
and it instantly obeyed him; there would be a strong presumption
against the reality of this fact. AVhy.^ Because of its being so con-
trary to experience: i. e. contrary to what we have generally seen
and heard. And suppose another man should testify of a certain
particular case, in which his senses actually deceived him, and
their regular dictates led him to believe a falsehood; there would
he precisely the same presumption against the reality of this fact.
Why? Because it would be equally opposite to the general course
of our experience. What ought we then to do w ith these extraor-
dinary cases.^ "NVc ought surely to withold our assent, till the facts

PLAN OF SALVATION. 9^

be supported by clear and convincing evidence, that Mould bear
the closest scrutiny and inspection. Then, as reasonable beings,
we should yield to the conclusion, without making any arbitrary
additions to it: we should believe that in cases thus authenticated
miracles had been wrought, and the senses of men had deceived
them.

But what is the conduct of our infidel philosophers in these
matters.^ The most inconsistent that can be imagined. In ease of
miracles, they refuse all evidence a fair hearing, and pretend that
no proof is able to evercome the presumption arising from common
experience; but as to those particular facts which are produced
as intances of '" fallacy in the senses," they not only give them a
ready hearing, but entirely abandon the presumption arising from
common experience, and draw a conclusion indirect contradiction
of iti They grasp the new circumstance with uncommon fondness
and not only believe it with a superficial examination, but leap
into the wide conclusion, that all other cases are of the same na-
ture.* If the senses deceive us in one thing, say they, why not in
all.'' It appears then, that if we could once prevail on those sages
to believe a miracle had ever been wrought, they would instantly
conclude that all men are working miracles every hour of their
Jives- If the laws of nature have been suspended in one case, why
not in all? If one part of matter (the loadstone) can counteract
the law of gravitation, why not all parts? If the sun was eclipsed
on one certain day, why not every day? If a certain medicine
should cure the yellow fever in one case, why not in all casesf
and, to put an end to the queries, we might add, if one man should
happen to be an idiot, why not all men.

If instances are produced, of certain particular cases in which
the testimony of sense is fallacious, the only fair conclusion of
reason would be, " that in some rare cases our senses may deceive
us:" and if our opponents will produce instances of the kind, which
will bear as close inspection, as the miracles ascribed to the Lord
Jesus Christ, I, for one, will yield to the conclusion; but I hope
they will excuse every man who understands the principles of rea-
soning, from drawing an universal conclusion from premises so
particular, that they have to explore the most hidden secrets of
nature to find any one instance, but such as may be detected in
half an hour, and shown to be no fallacy of the senses.

Dr. Reid has convinced me, that the great complaint concerning
the fallacy of our senses, is a mere fiction of philosophers; and I

* See Berkley and Hume.

96 AN ESSAY ON THE

cannot help being doubtful (which they say I ought always to be)
whether they be able to produce a single instance that will bear
examination.

"Complaints of the fallacy of the senses/' says Mr. Reid,"have
been very common in ancient and in modern times, especially
among the philosophers: and if we should take for granted all
that they have said on this subject, the natural conclusion from
it might seem to be, that the senses are given to us by some ma-
lignant djemon on purpose to delude us, rather than that they
are formed by the wise and beneficial author of nature, to give
us true information of things necessary to our preservation and
happiness.

Many things called the deceptions of the senses are only con-
clusions rashly drawn from the testimony of the senses. In these
eases the testimony of the senses is true, but we rashly draw a
conclusion from it, which does not necessarily follow. We are dis-
posed to impute our errors rather to false information than to in-
conclusive reasoning, and to blame our senses for the wrong con-
clusions we draw from their testimony.

" Thus, when a man has taken a counterfeit guinea for a true
one, he says his senses deceived him; but he lays the blame where
it ought not to be laid: for we may ask him, did your senses give
a false testimony of the colour, or of the figure, or of the impres-
sion? No. But this is all that they testified, and this they testified
truly: from these premises you concluded that it was a true gui-
nea; but this conclusion does not follow; you erred therefore, not
by relying upon the testimony of sense, but by judging rashly from
its testimony: not only are your senses innocent of this error, but
it is only by their information that it can be discovered. If you
consult thera properly, they will inform yon that what you took
for a guinea is base metal, or is deficient in weight, and this caa
only be known by the testimony of sense.

" I remember to have met with a man who thought the argu-
ment used by protestants, against the popish doctrine of transub-
stantiation from the testimony of our senses, inconclusive; because,
said he, instances may be given where several of our senses may
deceive us: How do we know then that there may not be cases
wherein they all deceive us, and no sense is left to detect the fal-
lacy? I begged of him to know an instance wherein several of our
senses deceive us. I take, said he, a piece of soft turf, 1 cut it
into the shape of an apple; with the essence of apple I give it the
i»niell of an apple; and with paint, I give it the skin and colour of

PLAN OF SALVATION. ga

an apple. Here then is a body, which, if you judge by your
eye, by your touch, or by your smell, is an apple.

" To this I answer, that no one of our senses deceives us in this
case. My sight and touch testify that it has the shape and colour
efan apple: this is true. The sense of smelling testifies that it
has the smell of an apple: this is likewise true, and is no decep-
tion. Where then lies the deception? It is evident it lies in this,
that because this body has some qualities belonging to an apple,
I conclude that it is an apple. This is a fallacy, not of the senses,
but of inconclusive reasoning."*

This candid and ingenious author examines various other
grounds of this charge against the veracity of the senses, and
shows that they are rash conclusions, founded on our ignorance of
the laws of nature; and makes it appear that though our senses,
like all our other faculties, are naturally weak, and subject to
accidental disorders, yet no case has been produced in which,
upon careful examination, our senses has given deceitful tes-
timony.

It is true, that in some cases the representation of one sense,
(that of sight for example) if we judge from the first appearances
»f things, will lead us to a false conclusion; but is it the part of a
philosopher to draw his conclusions from the first appearance, or
from that view that is acquired by a patient examination? If we
take no pains to examine, but draw our conclusions from the first
superficial glance, we may take a sophism for a sound argument,
and then declare that our reason had deceived us; or we might
draw a rash conclusion from the first view of scripture phrases,
and then say the oracles of God are fallacious, and the apostles
have deceived us: but these conclusions, though exactly similar
to those which are brought to discredit the senses, would excite
the just indignation of any person of common reflection; he would
instantly see that the delusion of which we complain, was brought
on, not by any deceit in our faculties, or in the scriptures, but by
our own voluntary ignorance and want of thought.

I will suppose an Indian from the western woods, comes into our
civilized region, and, among other curiosities, he is struck with
the appearance of a man standing behind a looking glass: he gazes
awhile with silent astonishment, thinking one of his red brethren
is really standing before him. This man's senses, you say, have
deceived him; he thinks there is a glass w indow in the wall, and

* Reid's Essays, vol. 1, page 388 — 291.

100 AN ESSAY ON THE

A philosoijher accosts him, and says, " you must know, unlearn-
ed stranger, that there is no real man behind that wall; your sen-
ses are altogether fallacious, and I counsel you to take warning
from this plain example; lay aside your vulgar and dogmatical
confidence in sensation, and learn to follow the noble guide of
reason!

Indian. " Pray Mr. Philosopher, how do you prove by reason,
that there is no real man standing before me?"

Philo. " I know there is not: I am certain of it."

Indian. " Is this what you call giving a reason, that you know,
and that you are certain?'^

Philo. " No: but it has been proved a thousand times, and every
body in our country knows it to be as I tell you."

Indian. " If it has been proved a thousand times, you can sure-
ly prove it once: I want to know what is the argument which
proves that this is not really one of my red brethren from some of
our towns."

Philo. " You may plainly see, by observing the motions of that
supposed man, that it is nothing but a figure of yourself: if you
raise your hand, or move any other part of your body, you will see
that figure imitate all your actions exactly."

Indian. " Do you call it offering a reason then, to tell me I can
•plainly see? did you not just now declare that my sight is deceit-
ful, and ought not to be trusted.^ And now you appeal to my fal-
lacious senses, and call this offering a feason!"

Philo. " But if you will be at the pains to take down this glass,
you may both see aud feel that there is nothing but a solid wall be-
hind itc therefore it is not possible that you could have seen any
other man but the figure of yourself."

Indian. " It is true, I both see and feel that there is nothing be-
hind this glass but a solid wall; but you say my senses are de-
eeitful: how do I know then but that there is really a window
through the wall, and a man standing on the other side, notwith-
standing what I see &ndfeel? you first tell me my senses deceive
me, and propose to prove it by reason; and then you turn about
and appeal to my senses for the proof! I suspect sir, that you are
deceitful, and that I shall gain more wisdom and happiness by
trusting my senses, then by following your shuffling and contra-
dictory counsels."

Thus it evidently appears that reason does not correct the sup-
posed fallacy of the senses; but we are indebted to the testimony
of the senses for a correction of those fallacious conclusions which

PLAN OF SALVATION. loi

Are hastily drawn from the first appearance of things. As to the
pretended imposition upon our judgment, by seeing ourselves in a
mirror, or seeing a strait stick appear crooked in the water, a sa-
rage or a child maybe deceived by these appearances for a little
while; but it is soon discovered even by a child, that he only sees
himself in the glass, and that astrait stick does not become crook-
ed by being held in the water. And this discovery is made, not by
the philosopher's boasted reason, but by a little attention to the
plain dictates of common sense.

SECTION vm.

JPotiT defective rules of judgment examined.

My thoughts have been wandering through the creation in quest
of some other rule of judgment, by which to distinguish truth
from falsehood, beside those I have attempted to explain; l*tit they
had to return, like Noah's dove, without being able to find any
permanent resting place. Farbe it from me to assert that there
is no other kind of evidence, merely because I am unable to find it
out; more capable minds may be able to discover what is beyond
the grasp of my scanty thought; but until some other rule of judg-
ment shall be made plain to my view, it will be readily granted
that the foregoing rules of judgment ought to be my only grounds
of credence.

By intuitive judgment, we are enabled to perceive immediate-
ly that some things are certainly true, that others are necessarily
so, and that others have a self-evident probability; that is, are
more likely to be true than false. We may build upon this foun-
dation, and thus enlarge our knowledge by regular reasoning, and
still more by the proper study of revelation; but if we depart from
these rules or methods of distinguishing truth from falsehood, we
are at once lost in a wide wilderness; nothing but hypothesis and
conjectures surround us, and all things are equally doubtful.

It is true, several other rules of judging might be adopted; but
upon a close inspection there appears to be no evidence in them,
and they are very apt to contradict each other. It may not be im-
proper to mention a few of them, and appeal to the reader's un-

£02 AN ESSAY ON THE

govern our belief, instead of common sense, and reason, and reve-
lation.

1st. Let it be proposed as a rule of judgment, « that the things
ive have been taught from our youth are certainly true, and those
which we have not thus learned from our parents and teachers, are
certainly false."

This is indeed a very short rule, and one that is very gratifying
to indolence: for if every thing be true that I have been taught, if I
must govern my belief by this rule, and reject every thing that
does not accord with it, I may at once lay by my pen, my reasoa
and my bible: if I can only make shift to remember wliat my fa-
ther and my instructors told me to believe, it is entirely sufficient,
and this is all the improvement of knowledge I ought to look for.
But if I may be permitted to look abroad into the world, I can-
not help seeing that my rule, thougli short, is able to produce a
long string of contradictions. It teaches me that every thing in
the world is true, or else that it is not at all necessary for a thing
to be true, in order for it to command our belief.

Pagans must believe in thirty thousand gods; Mahometans must
believe in the whimsies of the alcoran; Papists must believe in
purgatory and transubstantiation; Deists and Jews must believe
that Jesus Christ was a crucified impostor; and Atheists must be-
lieve there is no God of power, wisdom and goodness, but that
there is a blind god, or goddess, called Fate or Chance, which
made this great world ont of atoms. My new rule, I find, will support
all those persons in their difterent creeds, provided only, that they
have been tanght to believe these conti-adictory opinions, by their
parents and authorized teachers of religion and philosophy.

Suppose then that I lay this rule aside, and, Hying from one ex-
treme to anotlier, receive it as a maxim, " that every thing I
have been taught from my youth is certainly false;" will this mend
the matter? so fiir from it, that, if possible, it will make it
worse: for if mankind are to receive this for a rule of judgment,
it will follow not only that all we have received from others in
our education, is certainly false, butit will be equally evident that
if we make any new discoveries by reflection, they also will be-
come falsehood when we teach them to our children, and they
ought of consequence to reject them as such; otherv.ise they will
violate the rule, whi^h teaches, that every thing our fathers and
instructors have inculcated upon us, should be rejected as a pre-
judice of education. If we are to govern our belief by this, 1 hope
our children are to have the same privilege, and thus, what is true in

PLAN OF SALVATION. los

one age becomes false in another, and therefore uho can blame
philosophers for retiring into the shades of scepticism, to enjoy a
state of profound ignorance, and smile at the whimsical and incon-
sistent credulity of mankind? True, we could not blame them, if
the world was favoured with no other method of discovering truth
, than such fantastical rules as these; but if sceptics have followed
such rules till they were weary of the inconsistency of them, and
then, to mend the matter, have abandoned all human know ledge,
they are to be pitied, on account of the dismal case into which they
have fallen, and to be blamed for leaving the sure path of reason
and revelation, to pursue the bewildering dictates of passion an4
prejudice, or the airy flights of conjecture and imagination.

But how are these inconsistencies to be avoided? There is only
one way to avoid them, and tliat is a very plain way; it is, to re-
ject both those rules of judging; — to consider the mere circum-
stance of our having received a doctrine from our parents and
' teachei's, as being no sign of either truth or falsehood: — and to
bring such doctrines to the proper test of evidence, as well as all
others.

2d. Another rule, nearly related to the foregoing, is, "to receive
a doctrine for true, merely because it is believed by the majority,
or at least, has a great many votaries on its side."

When we have immediate conviction that a certain truth is
self-evident, we mayjustly appeal to the universal judgment of
mankind a5 a proof of its being an original dictate of our faculties;
the real existence of a material world for example: but if we per-
ceive no evidence of itfrom intuitive conviction, from reason or reve-
lation, the number of votes in its favour ought to go for nothing;
because this rule would lead us into the same contradictions men-
tioned above.

It is now a pretty general belief in the world, and was once
almost universal, that there are scores and hundreds of gods in
this universe; and if the truth is to be decided by vote, I suspect
our heathen neighbours will still have the majority. Papists
make great use of this argument, and we cannot blame them much,
when we consider that they have no better; but they would do
well to consider, that if a musselman, or a worshipper of the
great goddess Diana, should chance to get hold of their mighty
argument, he would be able to turn it against themselves, and to
shake the infallible church to her centre.

It is pleasant to observe with what address Demetrius, the Ephe-
«iaH silversmith, made use of this mode of reasoning. « He call-

104 AN ESSAY ON THE

ed together the workmen of like occupation, and said, "sirs, ye
know that by this craft Ave have our wealth: moreover, ye see and
hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia,
this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying
that they be no gods which are made with hands; so that not only
this our craft is in danger to be set at nought, but also, that the
temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her
magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world
worshippeth.^^ Acts, xix. 25.

Thus, we see the old gentleman founded his eloquent harrangue
upon three very popular topics; first, our craft is in danger; se-
condly, the magnijlcence of the great goddess: and thirdly, she
had numbers on her side; " whom all Asia and the world wor-
shippeth." These arguments did not die with Demetrius: they have
descended from one generation to another, and our fathers have
found them to be very convenient engines incases of necessity.
But blessed be God, a few have been found in all ages, bold enough
to look around, and ask, whether craft, magnificeyipe, and votes are
the method or rule of evidence, by which reasonable beings are to
distinguish between truth and falsehood?

The same opinion which has the majority in one age, falls into
the minority in another: and thus the present rule, like the for-
mer, causes truth to change with the opinions of men, and the
same thing that is true at this time, will be deemed a falsehood
whenever it has the misfortune to be neglected and fall into the
minority. And if we turn about and say, " that is certainly the
truth which is believed by a few," the matter remains the same;
that which is believed by few at one time, is believed by many at
another, and thus we would make truth change as often as a new
whim rises up to alter the fashion. For it is a lamentable fact,
that books are read and doctrines believed by thousands, for no
atherreason but because they are fashionable; and as the fashion of
a man's coat or a woman's head-dress is altered, perhaps seven
times in a few years, is it wonderful that opinions should often rise
ftnd fall, with those who are disposed to regulate their belief by the
same rule which produces so many revolutions in their apparel?

3d. Perhaps we shall have better success, if we take for our
rule of judgment, the infancy or old age of our doctrines: "That
doctrine is certainly true" will one say, "which is old and of long
standing in the world."

This principle has afforded another argument, which has also
t>een much wanted, tind often resorted to, by tlie advocates of St,

PLAN OP SALVATION. 109

Peter's chair. The holy Roman church, they say, has heen stand-
ing for more than a thousand years; whereas the protestants
sprang up, as it were but yesterday, and invented their heresies in
the days of Martin Luther.

If a doctrine be false because it is new in the world, then the
popish doctrine was once false, because it once was new: this they
cannot deny, unless they can make it appear that the secrets of
purgatory were discovered and believed by mankind from eternity.
And if popery be true because it is more than a thousand years
old, then the protestant doctrines, when another thousand years
shall be fulfilled, w ill also be true for the same reason. Thus it
appears that any falsehood may spring up, and will gradually
change into truth by the lapse of ages. At first it is a most bitter
falsehood: but a few centuries will expunge its bad qualities, and,
like tobacco or wine, it grows better every year.

I fear my freedom of speech will give offence, which I would
wish to avoid, and I shall probably be reminded that it ill becomes
me to allow myself in these intolerable levities, when speaking
upon subjects of such importance; but if I were hindered from
indulging a little pleasantry, when beset with such ridiculous ar-
guments, I am afraid I should lose my temper and get angry at
them, which would be a great deal worse.

The old Pharisees made great use of this kind of logic against
the Redeemer of mankind; and who can blame them, if this be in
deed the rule by svhich the Creator would have his reasonable crea-
tures to judge? " We are Moses' diciples," say they; -' we know
that God spake unto Moses, for his religion was of ancient date,
but as for this fellow, we know not whence he is. Is not this the
carpenter's son.^ Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?
Give God the praise, we know that this man is a sinner."

If we should go to Ephesus, or to some other heathen country,
and find another Demetrius making silver shrines for the goddess
Diana, he would be able to stand his ground against the whole of
us. And what shall we say of atheism itself, which appears to
have been professed in our Saviour's time, and probably for a
long time before he appeared upon earth? Have not atheists a
right to plead the venerable antiquity of their doctrine as well as
we? or does a good argument, used by a divine, become a sophism
when it falls into the hands of infidels?

. But the truth is, infidels are not very fond of the argument ia
this form, because priests can use it as well as they; let it be turn-
ed topsyturvy, and they uot only use it with great fondness, birt

lOti AN ESSAY ON THE

claim it as theirs exclusively. Their maxim is, that those dogmas
and arguments, which are as old as the world, are not to deceive a
philosopher: he knows the trutli lies in the new ideas, and new dis-
coveries of scientific geniuses, who have happily escaped from the
shackles of priest-craft, by the irradiations of science.

But if an argument or a truth be considered to diminish in its
value by age, the conclusion still follows, that truth may gradual-
ly degenerate into falsehood, and reason into sophistry. And if
the late discoveries of our philosophers be true, they only claim
this character, it seems, by the novelty of their appearance, or the
short duration they have had as ideas in the human brain; and
they too, in their turn, must degenerate into falsehood and sophis-
try by the lapse of ages. The transubstantiating principle is the
9ame in both cases, as to the real change produced; only the Pa-
pists appear to think time has a purifying quality, and transforms
falsehood inio truth; whereas the latter maxim supposes it to have
a degenerating quality, so that all the value of an old truth, or aa
old argument, is entirely gone, and grown out of date.

4th. Another rule of judgment is the following: "It is a sure
sign of the truth of any doctrine, when it is confidently be-
lieved and taught by persons of high rank and dignity, or in other
word?, w hen it is believed by a great general, statesman, philoso-
pher, or doctor of divinity.

This maxim deserves a more particular examination than th«
preceding, because, in a limited degree, it ought to have an influ-
ence upon our judgment; but this degree must be carefully distin-
guished from its false application.

When men of understanding and habitual meditation give their
judgment or opinion, in matters they have been long conversant
with, some degree of credit is unquestionably due to their autho-
rity, especially where a numberof them, of the same profession,
agree in theirjudgraent: and it is a matterof no small consequence
to form a correct view of the degree of credit that is due, that we
may not follow them with a blind and implicit confidence, on the
one hand, or foolishly deprive ourselves of their assistance on the
other.

Let me suppose an astronomer, who is known to be a person of
experience and regular thinking, advances a certain matter as Iiis
decided opinion, of wliich I know nothing, and have never had
any evidence for or against it: he offers no argument to prove it to
me, but merely tells me he believes it, and thinks he has good evir
dence.

PLAN OF SALVATIO.V. 107

Ought I to receive it for certain, merely because the ai5tronomer
believes it? No. But still his authority aftbrds a presumption, or a
degree of probable evidence to my mind, that his opinion is true.
If I find other astronomers are of the same judgment, the proba-
bility is increased, and reason enjoins on me to give that credit to
it, that is due to presumptive evidence. Suppose the astronomer
asks me whether I believe it or not, what ought to be my answer?
I thiuk it ought to be this: sir, you are better able to judge of this
matter than I am, and your opinion alone affords a strong pre-
sumption that it is true; but though I gladly pay this proper de-
ference to your judgment, yet 1 must judge for myself, and cannot
believe it firmly or absolutely, till you produce some evidence to
my understanding besides that of your opinion or authority.

Now it is evident, while he offers no argument, and I am unable
to conceive any, 1 ought not to receive it for a certain truth; but
while no evidence appears against it, I ought to consider myself
as being possessed of probable evidence for it, and proportion
my belief accordingly.

But being farther instructed in such matters, I begin to examine
the subject for myself, and in the progress of my investigation, I
find, or think I find, very clear evidence against the astronomer's
opinion. What now must I do? I think I ought to suspend my judg-
ment, and suspect it, so far at least, as not to suffer it to make a
final decision, till I have examined the ground a second time: if
the evidence still appear clear against him, let me lay it before
some of my most impartial and judicious friends, who are compe-
tent to judge in the case, to see if it will carry the same conviction
to their minds that it does to my own: if they perceive the force
of it, as well as myself, I am warranted in believing firmly that the
astronomer was in an error; stili however, retaining a cheerful rea-
diness to receive new light from any quarter. If my friends hesi-
tate concerning the evidence I offer, and seem doubtful of its cer-
tainty, I ought to go and review the ground a third time, with the
utmost care and attention; and if I discover that 1 have been mista-
ken, I ought immediately to yield to conviction; but if every suc-
ceeding view of the subject should still increase the evidence to my
mind,the Almighty God will approve me in using ray own judgment,
independently of all authority upon earth: and 1 cannot abandon it,
and regulate my belitf merely by the opinions ofother men, without
being a sinner, and a positive enemy to truth. For it were to es-
pouse the supposition, that a man oughtto regulate his belief by the
opinion of others regardless of any other evidencs. All ether men

108 AN ESSAY ON THE

have a right to aet upon the same rule, and thus tlie examination
of evidence may be neglected entirely, and men of high rank and
character may give tone to the opinions of the world, just as they
give tone to the fashions of dress and politeness, which are chang-
ing every year.

Thus it appears, that it is not only our right, but our sacred du-
ty to think and judge each one for himself, by those methods and
rules of judgment, which God has appointed to direct his intelli-
gent creatures to truth and happiness. And if I pay that deference
to the judgment of others, which is properly due, and no more, if
will lead me to examine the matter more closely than otherwise;
whereas some divines and philosophers, I fear, have thought a de-
ference should be paid them, of a directly opposite tendency: in-
stead of being influenced by their authority to examine the matter
with more attention and deliberation, before we form a final judg-
ment, they would have us give less attention on this account, and
not presume to press the enquiry any further, after we know their
mind and pleasure; but to take for granted at once that the thing is
true, solely because they believe it; and let their dignity as philo-
sophers and doctors of divinity supply the place of every other
argument.

The popish doctors, it appears, make this profession openly, and
in the face of heaven: they would have us understand that their
infallible authority is the only rule by which we should regulate
all our opinions: and it is truly surprising that they have been
able to carry their project to such a height, and that the world
has been so befooled by their ingenious craft. But it shows
the great weakness of human nature, and evinces our ridi-
culous propensities to gaze after any leader, that has cunning
enough to assume some kind of dignity and grandeur above his
fellows. It is a plain proof of our natural inclination to idola-
try; and it went so far among some of the heathens, that the rab-
ble not only yielded a blind submission to their sages and heroes,
while they lived, but adored them as deities after they were dead.

Deists, it is true, do not make such an open claim to these sin-
gular prerogatives, as those of the sacred and holy order; but
they seem very willing to avail themselves of the common preju-
dice, whenever it can be done in a way that will save appearances,
after all the comphiints they have uttered against priestly authori-
ty. They pretend tliat all men of genius and liberal thinking are
on their side; and they make almost as great a stir about the irra-
diations of science and philosophy, as the priests did about their

PLAN OF SALVATION. 109

sanctified divinity. Paine has informed the world that the pro-
gressive improvement of the sciences will regularly discredit the
christian faith; and has affirmed or insinuated, very gravely, that
if men in general could be brought to understand philosophy, they
would see clearly that the christian religion is contrary to the
true word of God, which "is the creation we behold." And as the
people in general could never see this mighty evidence, for want
of a proper knowledge of science, he doubtless hoped that they
would take it for granted upon the authority of a philosopher.

Are deists willing, let me ask, that every man should think
for himself, and pay no more blind reverence to philosophers than
to divines.'' Are they willing for us to examine and expose the hy-
potheses of a Gibbon, or a Hume, with the same freedom and inde-
pendence, which they would allow us to use when exposing those
of a popish Bellarmine.^ Are they willing we should examine ideas
in the brain, as the only subject of human knowledge, and use the
strong weapons of common sense against this venerable hypothe-
sis, which has more antiquity to plead in its favour than evea
popery itseU? If not, they show their near relationship to his ho-
liness in St. Peter's chair, and need no longer complain of the
craft of priests, in imposing their dignitied authority upon the su-
perstitious vulgar; for it seems they are very ready to use the
same craft, and avail themselves of the same superstitious weak-
ness of the people, whenever it may suit their convenience.

I have several times thought, that I shall have the mortification
to pass among philosophers as a dogmatical and vulgar enthusiast;
and among divines, as a pompous and self-sufficient heretic; but I
hope a few friends will stand by me, which will aftbrd some con-
solation under such a calamity. For you must know I am not so
indifferent to the opinions of mankind, as to be willing to stand
alone in such a world as this. And it affiards me unspeakable plea-
sure to find I can screen myself under the authority of a Reid, a
Beatty, and a Campbell, among philosophers; and under the au-
thority of a Baxter, a Wesley, a Fletcher, and others, among di-
vines; as I hope to make appear in the sequel.

Not that I intend to follow any one of these, m ith a blind sub-
mission, and say " Thou art my father and my master!" our hea-
venly Father and Master has taught us better things, and we
ought to obey God rather than man.

. But we often see partialities and contradictions in men, that
would be unaccountable, if we were less acquainted with human
nature. You will hear one person express his iudignation agaiust
P

no AN ESSAY ON THE

the superstitious papists, for their blind submission to popes and
cardinals; but at the same time, if you touch the hypothesis of
Des Cartes, Berkley, or David Hume, Esq. immediately he is of-
fended that you should question the opinions of such sublime ge-
niuses: another smiles at the blind disciples of Mr. Hume, but thinks
you a very bold heretic if you presume to question any thing ad-
vanced by Martin Luther or John Calvin. A third, is surprised at
the blindattachmentand will-worship ofthepoorCalviius(s,biit at
the same time considers you almost a blasphemer against revelation,
if you dispute the authority of George Fox, or Robert Barclay. A
fourth pities the tame credulity of the poor infatuated quakers, but
at the same time rises with no inconsiderable degree of zeal and in-
dignation, if you presume to dissent from any opinion believed and
taught by John JFesley und John Fletcher. These are the strange
inconsistencies of mankind.

But what is still more provoking, a gentleman sometimes ap-
pears to be indulged in the privilege of becoming dictator general,
and of governing the belief of hundreds by his ii>se dixit, merely
because he owns a very large farm, or lives in a very large house,
or has large sums of money in bank. He was favoured, it seems,
with a noble birth, and has very noble blood, and therefore w ho can
doubt his indefeisible right to controul the opinions of common
farmers and mechanics, and to direct them what they are to be-
lieve and what they are to disbelieve?

His honest neighbours, it appears, many of whom in all likeli-
hood, possess more genuine wisdom and moral worth, than has
been verified in his noble line from the days of his great grand-fa-
ther, must prostrate themselves before his honour;-They must learn
to consider themselves as a species of animals far inferior to that
of his wealthy order, and must settle it down in their hearts, that
the commonalty, or the peasantry are an order of beings that are
to demean themselves with cringing submission, look up with
reverence to their lordly superiors,and tamely yield up their under-
standings to their dictatorial sway. And this is to be done, not be-
cause their superiors have any more common sense or reason tban
themselves; (for they sometimes have not half so much) but mere-
ly because they have more gold and silver, or because they are
pleased to inform the world that they have blood of a superior
quality.

It is not easy for any one to imagine how it would please my
soul this day, if I could persuade all my vulgar brethren, as we are
denominated, over the whole face of the earth, to join me heart

PLAN OF SALVATION. Hi

and hand, and let us try if wc cannot throw of the shackles which
this piece of craft has east npon our understandings. Why should
we abandon the common dignity of our nature, and submit our judg-
ments to be led by a master, just like a dog or an ox? If we have -
to plough their fields, and reap down their harvests, and thus wear
outourftof/iesaslheirservants; forGod's sake, for truth's sake, and
for the hoivour of human nature let tlie immortal soul be free! let
us show them that we are men, and that we will think and judge
for ourselves. They have not power to halter our understandings
without our own consent: and when they cry out, "This people
which knoweth not the law are cursed - thou wast altogether
born in sins, and dost thou teach us — Did not we straitly command .
you that ye should not teach (or believe) in this name?" Let us smile
and imitate the noble independence of the apostle Peter, in his re-
ply to the old scribes and doctors of divinity: — "If we this day be
examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, he it known
unto you all, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom
ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth
this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone that was
set at nought of you builders, which has become the head of the
corner." Acts,iv. 9. And if they cast us into prison, and make our
feet fast in the stocks, let us prove, like Paul and Silas, that still
the soul is free. Let us never sacrifice truth to any man's authori-
ty, and the God of truth will defend us; he will support us under '^
every affliction, or shake the foundation of the prison by his power, i'
and show thiit his kingdom ruleth over all.

I must close this section by expressing my sincere respect for
those in the higher ranks of life. There have been, and now are,
many divines and philosophers, — many among the rich and influ-
ential part of society, who are persons of great respectability, and
1 hope I shall never be insensible to their worth. They are men of
true wisdom, veracity and benevolence; and are justly to be con-
sidered among the most amiable benefactors of mankind. But how
agrees this with the foregoing paragraphs? It agrees very well
with them. The persons I speak of are not strutting with pompo-
sity about the world, and labouring to be adored as deities, on ac-
count of their being divines, philosophers, statesmen or heroes;
much less on account of their money or their blood: they scorn to
impose upon the souls of men and cause their understandings tg be-
.come the dupes of craft and absurdity: they have no desire to put
out the eyes of mankind, by taking advantage of their prejudices?
in order to make them their tools and vassals; nor yet to cast a

il3 ' AN ESSAY ON THE

uiist before them, in order to secure their ii^norant gaze, and cause
them to adore a hero as a little god, for being a mortal enemy to
human happiness. But they delight to use their time and talents,
their office, influence and riches, to diffuse useful knowledge, truth,
virtue, piety and solid happiness among their fellow-creatures.
The practice of despising their brethren of the human family, be-
cause they happen to be poor, ignorant or unfortunate, is detestable
ill their estimation. They glory in that candour and benevolence?
iii that love of truth and righteousness, which tend to dispel the
dark mists of delusion, and to assuage the miseries of the human
race. They consider themselves as members of the great family
of mankind, who are to live and act, not for themselves alone, but
for the general welfare. They are willing that moral goodness
should be the standard of esteem ; aud while they delight to enjoy
the confidence and love of their fellow-creatures, they are equally
willing that every other man should be esteemed in proportion to
his moral worth, whether he be rich or poor, learned or unlearned.
In a word, they chuse to be governed by consistency and reason,
and are pleased to see their fellow-creatures render unto God the
veneration due to his eternal goodness, as well as to see that they
themselves are honoured, for exercising a degree of the same be-
neficence. They hate the selfish atheism, which wouldleadthemto
trample upon the rights of others to build up their own fame, and
to use various arts, and sometimes very barbarous ones, to prevail
with men to adore them as little deities, for thousands of years af-
ter they are dead, to the neglect of God tlieir Creator. These are
the dispositions and principles of the men, of whom I am speaking;
and for these reasons 1 hope to love aud esteem them highly till 1
go down to the grave.

SECTION IX.

The necessity and safety of a diligent pursuit of truth.

We have already noticed the false principle in divinity, that
*' ignorance is the niolher of devotion.'" If this principle be admit'
ted, it ^^ ill follow from it, either that " devotion is not founded in
truth," or that the most successful way of understanding or know-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 113

ing the truth, is " to coutinue in a state of ignorance." Tlie latter
conclusion appears to be adopted by some christians, thona;h thej
are not fairly willing to own it; why else are we indirectly cau-
tioned against the improvement of knowledge? and >vhy is a dili-
gent pursuit of truth sometimes represented as being dangerous?

AH truth, rightly understood, believed and practised, tends t«
the happiness of intelligent beings. "Ye shall know the truth, and
the truth shall make you free. For this end was I born, and
for this purpose came I into the world, that I might bear witness
unto the truth," says our benevolent Kedecmer.

That one truth may be of far more importance to us then ano-
ther, is evident; hat we cannot suppose any truth is naturally
unfriendly to happiness, without supposing at the same time
that one truth has a nature opposite to another, and in some
eases falsehood is to have the preference. We might as well sup-
pose that justice, in some cases, is injurious, and that injustice is
then to be considered of superior value.

if truth uniformly tends to the happiness of mankind, and er-
ror to their ur.happiness, what danger can there be in a diligent
pursuit, and extensive knowledge of the truth.? Are men in dan-
ger of becoming too happy.? or are we afraid that too many delur
sions will be detected.? Reasons of a very ditierent kind are alleg-
ed; some of which are the following:

First; It is urged that men in general, are incapable of entering
into the intricacies of metaphysical reasoning: and it is essentia!
to their happiness and safety, not to meddle w ith such bewilder-
ing speculations, but keep to the simplicity of the gospel of
Christ. I answer,

1. It is true, no man will ever gain any thing, but lose mueh^
by regularly labouring to know what he is incapable of knowing;
but does it hence follow that some men are incapable of knowing
any more than they know already.? or that it is a hurtful or use-
less thing for them to pursue the knowledge they can acquire, be-
cause it is so, for them to try to know what they cannot? There is
not a man in the world, but is incapable of knowing many things:
piust we all, thereforcylay by the pursuit of truth, and refuse to
improve the talents we have, because it is impossible for us to im-
prove those which we have not.? For a man to exercise metaphy.*
sical reasonings upon what he cannot know, is not to pursue truth,
but to build castles in the air upon an hypothesis. If these be
the "bewildering speculations" alluded to,in the objection, I would
to God that all mankind would avoid them; for they are so far

il4 AN ESSAY ON THE

from being a regular road to truth, that they have been the prin-
cipal instruaients made use of to till the world with delusion.

2. For a man to neglect that part of trutli which is v ithin his
reach, and conteut himself in a state of ignorance, under pretence
that he may possibly get bewildered and miss his way, is an ab-
surdity similar to that of a servant, who, after neglecting his mas-
ter's business, excuses himself by saying, "sir, I thought if 1 went
about the work you enjoined on me, 1 might possibly make some
mistakes, and not do it exactly right: I therefore concluded my
wisest and safest way was to sit still and do nothing." Some sin-
ners have reasoned in this way, and for fear they might miss their
way, or not persevere in the way of righteousness, they concluded
never to begin! A person who confirms himself in liis ])resent ig-
norance by such pitiful sophistry, need not congratulate himself
Hpon his having avoided "bewildering speculations."

3. As to our keeping to the simplicity of the gospel, if we fol-
low the plain dictates of reason, they will ever keep us there.
According to the simplicity of the gospel we are to give all dili-
gence to improve our talents, to know and obey the truth, and to
be always ready to give every one an answer that asketh us a rea-
son of the hope that is in us: therefore, he who pleads for the
neglect of our understanding, immediately departs from the very
rule he had recommended. And such persons only pretend to be
ignorant, or else they have yet to learn, that true reason as
well as the gospel, is very simple in its nature; and if they say
that all the intricate and dark philosophy of the schools, is built
upon reason, it is necessary again to remind them, that the pope
will, with equal confidence, declare that the dark superstitions of
the Romish religion are built upon the bible.

Secondly; It may be alleged that many men have done harm
with their knowledge, and had they been more ignorant, they
would have been less wicked: add to this, that as the desire of
knowledge proved fatal to our first parents, so it often does to
their fallen children: witness the thousands who have been led
to infidelity, if not to atheism itself, by their curious speculations
and insatiable thirst for new discoveries. Answer,

1. That some men have done harm with their knowledge, is
readily granted-, but have they not also used all the faculties of
their souls, and the members of their bodies, as instruments of
unrighteousness? But 1 hope every one knows that the man is
culpable for all this, and not his knowledge, any more than the
members of his body, or powers of his mind. Shall we conclud'e,

PLAN OF SALVATION. US

that because men have used their hands to do a great deal of mis-
chief, it would be better for them to have no hands? or because
they have more power to do harm with two hands than with one,
does it therefore, follow, that the Creator would have acted more
wisely, if he had given them one only? What immense evil has
been done in the world by means of iron and other metals? They
have been formed into instruments of death, to pour out human
blood like water. But shall we hence infer that God acted un-
wisely in storing the earth with those metals for the use of man?
or that the proper use of them should be discouraged, because
wicked men will apply them to bad purposes? And because
men have far more power to spread error abroad among their fel-
low-creatures, than they had when every copy of their works
was written with a iten, is it therefore, to be lamcuted that the
art of printing was ever discovered?

2. It is not merely the knowledge of truth, but the love of it al-
• so, that is to produce genuine happiness either in ourselves or
others. It is truth rightly understood, believed and used to the
regulation of our practice, tbat tends to the general welfare of the
world; and not barely knowing it when that knowledge is only
used to invent schemes of v.ickedness; otherwise the devil him-
self would be a very happy creature; for I presume he has more
knowledge than any of us.

When a man is striving to increase his knowledge, in order to
increase his power to do harm, he ouglit indeed to be discourag-
ed, because truth is not his olsject; he only aims to use it so fur as
it can be abused to promote his seltish purposes, and when false-
hood will serve his turn better, he gladly embraces it, and lias no
more regard for truth than he has for falsehood. He pursues
knowledge, as many deists read the bible, not to use it for his own
real advantage, and that of others; but to try if he cannot destroy
it, and thus deprive all other men of the benetit of that which he
himself abhors. Have not sceptics proved this in the face of
heaven? have they not laboured under the mask of love to science
and human improvement, to convince mankind that all things are
.equally doubtful, and that we ought not to believe any one thing
rather than another? Now if mankind were brought into this
state, it is evident ail knowledge of truth, and the benefit re-
sulting therefrom, would be totally destroyed, unless they are plea-
sed to say that the knowledge of truth consists in believing no-
thing. Therefore, it is as impossible for such a sceptic to be a
lover of truth, as it is for a man to be a friend to human happiness
who does lu« uttermost to banish it from the face of the earth.

116 AN ESSAY ON THE

And shall we therefore advise this person not to pursae the
knowledge of (ruth? Advise him rather, not to pursue the destruc-
Uo7iofiL Shall we say he had better be more ignorant? How can
he be more ignorant, if he is now uniible to distinguish truth from
fiilsehood in any one tiling in the UJiiverse? To persuade men there
isdangerin pursuing tJie knowledge of truth too diligently, because
some persons have run into great danger, by pursuing the destruction
of it, under p-eff'nce of improving knowledge, is justas ridiculous as
to declare there is great danger in being too attentive to the Chris-
tian religion, because our venerable divines of the dark ages had
almost banished the knowledge of it from the earth, under pre-
tence of supporting, its authority.

The danger consists — not in our diligence, — not in the abun-
dance of our knowledge, — not in striving to understand truth too
perfectly and extensively; but in those selfish principles and per-
nicious prejudices which influence us to conceal, stifle, and
suppress all evidence that seems to have a bearing against our
favourite idols, a^id to pursue doctrines and defend them, not be-
cause they are true, but because they are necessary to the support
of our party, our pleasure, or our pride. Candour is so essential
to the discovery of truth, that a man without candour will not on-
ly miss it, but actually is not pursuing it, however diligent he
may be in the pursuit of his studies. His opinions are already
formed, by the rule of passion and prejudice, and he is labouring
to find something to defend them. When he finds any thing that
accords with his opinion, he receives it gladly and sets it ofi" to
the best advantage; but if evidence appear against him, however
clear, he labours to conceal it, both from hinjseif and others, and
is unwilling it should be brought to light, for fear a full view of
it would show where the trutli was, so plainly, that it would be al-
most irresistible. Such a person is not pursuing doctj'ines because
tliey are trne^ but because they are subservient to liis purposes;
and when error will serve his turn to the best advantage, he will
love it so much better than truth, that the clearest evidence will be
resisted and hated for its sake.

3. As to our First Parents, 1 grant the desire of knowledge was
one cause of their apostacy; but was not the desire of happiness
another cause? And is it then a just inference to conclude that a
diligent pursuit of happiness is dangerous, and ought to be dis-
couraged? This conclusion must stand or i'nM with the one 1 am
opposing; and I presume it is impossible to banish knowledge from
the world without destroying happiness in the same proportion.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 40

In what did the danger or the fault of our first parents consist?
It consisted in vainly attempting to increase their knowledge and
their happiness, by recurring to imaginary means of obtaining
thera, which God had never appointed. The devil formed an hy-
pothesis for our Mother five, which she took for granted, and made
the foundation of a very grand and interesting system, as she sup*
posed. The hypothesis was, " that she would sustain no manner of
injury by partaking of the fruit, which her Maker had forbidden;
but that on the contrary, she would gain much wisdom by it, and
become like God himself.''

Now what evidence had our mother for this theoretical maxim?
She had no more evidence for it, than she had that lier great and
benevolent Creator was a deceiver and a liar. But she rashly ad-
mitted it without evidence, and probably her imagination was cal*-
i*ied away with many fantastical conclusions, concerning her fu-
ture dignity, happiness, wisdom and divine prerogatives, when she
should become a goddess, knowing good and evil. Was she expos-
ed to danger by the diligent pursuit of truth? Just the contrary:
she admitted the deviPs theory, not from a diligent examination,
but from the want of it: had she carefully reflected upon the abun-
dant evidence she had of the veracity of Almighty God; — that she
had no proof against it but the bare word of this tempter; — that in
receiving his declaration, she must necessarily renounce all the
evidence she ever had of the tender care, wisdom, kindness and
truth of her heavenly Father: — had she thus reflected, 1 say, and
acted according to the convictions of her understanding, the snare
would have been effectually broken. But, neglecting to pursue truth
with diligence, and being content with her present ignorance of the
danger that threatened her, she admitted the devil's hypothesis
with very little hesitation, and thus brought wretchedness and
death upon herself and family. And I am a little inclined to think
that hypotheses have been among the most successful engines of
Satan from that day to the present.

4. It is alleged in the objection, "that thousands have been led
lo deism, if not to atheism, by tlieir curious speculations and in-
satiable thirst for new discoveries."

I feel no hesitation in admitting this to be very probable, if not
oertainly true: and I am so far from fearing it will militate against
the conclusion here defended, that I hope to make it appear that it
destroys the opposite conclusion.

The curious speculations, and thirst of new discoveries, which
fed men to unbelief and scepticism, did not arise from tha l©Yt of

iia AN ESSAY ON THE

truth, nor eonsequently from a sincere desire to find itj otherwise
llie} would have regulated their enquiries by evidence and by no-
thing else; unless some one will be pleased to assert, that truth is
discovered and supported by something else besides evidence.

1 readily grant (hat it is possible for me to think very diligently,
and at the same time, through a vain curiosity, or foolish eager-
Iiess, I may expose myself to great danger, by running beyond the
light of evidence, either to make a discovery in less time, and by a
shorter process, than that of regular and patient induction, or to ex-
plore and pretend to account for things, of which 1 know nothing
at all, and cannot know, because they are beyond the reach of my
understanding. So far as I have evidence, jo far 1 have knowledge
in exact proportion to it: and if 1 be content to follow the evidence,
and aim at no knowledge but tJiat to which it conducts me, by
chaste and clear comparisons and consequences, (which, by the
way, is all the knowledge 1 can have) there is no manner of dan-
ger ill the pursuit; but if 1 leave the evidence, in order to make
greater discoveries than those to which it will lead me, or to find
out a greater number of them, or to discover them sooner, or w ith
less labour, then indeed I am in great danger, because I am no lon-
ger in the pursuit of truth, otherwise 1 would not desert the evi-
dence of it, by which alone it can ever be ascertained.

The love of truth will never produce in me a desire to make
any other discoveries than such as are true, and I shall regard
the discovery no farther than I perceive evidence that it is true;
otherwise it is not for the sake of truth 1 am labouring, but for the
sake of something else.

Perhaps I am very desirous to obtain /trnf; to immortalize my-
self, or at least my name; — to secure literanj glory to ray memO'
ry; — to have a monument built of wood or stone; — to live in the
people's memories; — to enjoy immortality from their breath; —
and, to weoi' a crown of laurels, for many ages after 1 am tfead.

Now to accomplish this end, several things are essentially ne-
cessary.

First: Something extraordinary must be done. I must make
new and great and ingenious discoveries: there must also be a suf-
ficient number of them to form w hat may be called my theory, —
my system, that I may pass for a great ^-(jw ins and a philosojiher.

Secondly: 1 must be very careful to frame my discoveries in a
way that shall strike in w ith the passions and prejudices of the
people; — at least with those who will probably have the greatest
kaml in conl'crriug literary glory upon me. iieuce, if 1 find evi-

PLAN OF SALVATION. iie

-dence leading me to conclusions opposite to tlie most darling sys-
tems and theories injtJie world, especially those of divines and phi»
losophers, I mnst immediately reject that evidence, and give over
the doctrines to whicli it leads, otherwise I shall become vnpopU'
/aj*, and the whole body of divines and philosopliers will do their
utmost to deprive me of the crown of laurels.

Thirdly: My discoveries must be sublime, like those of a true
genius: they mnst be far above common or vulgar opinions, and
must be supported in a manner far more sublime, than to be
subject to the test of old worn-out arguments, or to the vulgaf
dictates of common sense; they are to be so refined and phi-
losophical, that the commonalty and peascmtri/, shall be totally in^
capable of understanding any thing concerning them.

Fourthly: They must have the appearance, at least, of great
plausibility, and ingenious reasoning; otherwise they will be apt
to expose me instead of securing my immortality. Suppose then
I perceive that one of my discoveries would be very unpopular,
and another is incapable of being supported by solid arguments:
what must I do.'' The unpopular discovery must be abandoned
without farther ceremony; and as to the other, though it cannot
be supported by any solid proof, yet there is one expedient by
which I can save appearances, and secure my future fame.

Let an hypothesis be invented, and cautiously guarded against
too close an inspection, till the system be built upon it, that the
eyes of men may be so dazzled w ith the regular deductions and
philosophical appearance of the superstructure, that their atten-
tion may be diverted from the defective and theoretical founda-
tion. Care must be taken too, that the hypothesis have some ap-
pearance of plausibility: it must seem to account for some pheno-
mena of nature. It must also be above vulgar apprehension; so
that if any one attempt to attack it with the w capons of common
sense, the whole may be resolved into his unphilosophical igno-
rance. Perhaps the brains would be a good seat for the hypothe-
sis, \\ here the vulgar are not very conversant: no man has ever
seen his brains, and it is not to be presumed that any person is so
well calculated to describe the images of them as a philosopher
1 can decorate the ground-work with many learned names which
may serve the better to conceal it from public notice: I can treat
in systematical order, of the organs of sensation — 6f the animal spi-
rits,— of the optic and olfactory nerves, — of the pineal gland,— *
of the souVs presence chamber, — of liie ideas, or images of sound —
and how they travel through the air, enter my ear and progress

120 AN ESSAY ON THE

througb the organs till they reach the brain, M'liere they take their
seat, or are laid by in their proper apartments, and reserved for
future use.

If a man should have the assurance to rise up, and declare he
never saw his brains, or an idea in all the m orld, and that he ac-
tually sees his wife and children without ever using ideal
spectacles in his brains, — it is surely an easy thing for me to si-
lence him, " by telling him he is a poor, unphilosophical, vulgar
and dogmatical enthusiast, that knows nothing about the laws of
nature."

Now 1 must appeal to my friendly reader, and ask two plain ques-
tions. 1, Is it not possible that 1 should pursue such a method as is
hei-e described.^ If so,letit be remembered, that whateveris possible
may be supposed for the sake of argument. 2. If I should pursue
such a method, w ould it not be very clear that truth would not be
my object.^" If so, let it be remembered, that the danger of such a
method affords no argument to prove there is any danger in the
practiceof diligently pursuing the knowledge of truth: consequent-
ly, for aught that has yet appeared to the contrary, it is impossible
for knowledge to be improved too much, or for truth to be pursu-
ed with too much attention, scrutiny and perseverance, while the
love of truth, or candour, regulates our course, w ithout which the
true enlargement of human knowledge is not the object we aiie
al'ter.

SECTION X.

yhe necessity and safety of a diligent communication of truth.

If it be necessary, safe and right, for a man to pursue truth witli
diligence, because it naturally tends to promote human felicity, then
it is equally necessary, safe and right, for him to communicate the
know lodge of it to his fellowrcreatures.

Are there any objections to this conclusion? There are several^
the chief of which we will briefly examine.

First: It may be said, we ought to accommodate ourselves to
the people's ignorance; and if we attempt to lead them into pro-
found subjects, which they are not able to bear, we shall onj^y

PLAN 6P SALVATIQJJ'. 131

dause them to stumble into greater errors, and they will be materi-
ally injured, instead of being benefitted by our oiftciousness. An-
swer:

That caution should be used in the manner of our communica-
tions, is freely acknowledged. A father, if he would benefit his
children, must not attempt to communicate the highest branches of
knowledge to them, until the knowledge of plainer truths shall
have given them a capacity to receive those of a higher order.
Hence our Saviour says, "I have many things to say unto you, but
ye are not able to bear them now. What I do thou knowestnot
BOW, but thou shalt know hereafter." And hence God nursed up the
ancient Israelites, as children in a state of minority: " The law
was their school-master," and they " were kept under tutors, aii4
governors until the times appointed of the Father;" and many great
truths of the gospel were hid for ages, because the world was not
then capable of receiving them.

God, as thegreatfatherofmankind,knowsperfectly theircapaci-
ty and state of mind, and knows what portion of truth is most suita,
kle to their present condition: he accordingly gave a revelation, by
Moses, adapted to the infant state of the world, and made known
his truth more fully, by the Lord Jesus Christ, after his former dis-
pensations had opened the way for it, by maturing the minds of his
feeble children.

In like manner, a minister, or any other man who is about to ad-
dress a particular assembly, whom he knows to be very ignorant
and uninformed, should accommodate himself to their capacity.
Thus Paul says to the Corinthians, " I have fed you with milk,
and not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, nei-
ther yet now are ye able." 1 Cor. iii. 2. And he reproves the He-
brews, because he had to use the same method with them; who, had
they improved upon the means of knowledge in their power^
might have been able to teach others: '• For when for the time
ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again
which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become
such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." Heb. v. 13.

Here he blames them for neglecting to improve their knowledge,
and says expressly, that they « ought to teach others also:" he
therefore enjoins the two duties for which I plead: 1. " That we
ought to improve our knowledge as mtieh as possible;" and 2,
"That what we gain we should communicate to others, that they
may enjoy the benefit as well as ourselves."

i23 AN ESSAY OX THE

When a man addresses himself to the Morld, he ought not sure-
ly to keep back any part of the truth, that he is able to understand}
and to prove by evidence which to him appears satisfactory, for
fear those to whom he addresses himself should not be capable of
receiving it: for what could this arise from but the pride and piti-
ful self-sufiicieney, that would lead him to think no person in the
world could understand the truth so well as hiniscU? Must he
eonsider mankind as his chiMreu, and thus put himself in the place
of God? And suppose some should be unable to enter into the sub-
ject, must it be kept back on this account? If so, it would appear,
that a considerable part of the scriptures should have been kept
hack; for " our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom gi-
ven unto him, hath written some things hard to be understood,
■which the ignorant and unlearned wrest, as Ihey do also the other
scriptures, even to their own destruction."

Had those ignorant people improved their understanding, by
proper attention to truths within their reach, they might have be-
come sufficiently learned, to have understood the deep things
which the apostle wrote, or at least to have avoided stumbling at
them; but I suspect they were too indolent to come to an under-
standing of those things, by the slow method of regular improve-
ment in knowledge: they probably formed some hypothesis to help
them to the understanding of Paul's writings in a shorter way,
and without much labour; and hence they ivrested them to their own
destruction.

Secondly: It may be alleged, that we ought to accommodate our-
selves to the prejudices of mankind, and not advance doctrines,
however true, against which there are strong and general prepos-
sessions, lest we drive people still farther from the truth. Paul
« became all things to all men, that he might gain the wore." T©
this I answer:

1. Paul accommodated himself to the different customs and
manners of the people, that were in themselves indirterent, and
walked cautiously and prudently among them, that he might not
exasperate them, or augment those passions and prejudices which
his aim was to destroy; but he kept back no part of the counsel of
God, either in his preaching or his writings, under pretence of
submitting to their prejudices.

2. When our brethren, through weakness of understanding, are
very scrupulous concerning certain indifferent matters, as eating
different kinds of meat, and the like, we ought to be cautious not
tn wound their weak consciences; but to accommodate ourselves to

PLAN OF SALVATION. 12S

iheir feeble miiuls, till they be better informeil, or more capable of
receiving iustructioii.

3. We ought never to attack people's prejudices with the wea-
pons of auger, bitterness, or ammosity; this would be the direct
way to increase them, because it would be to fight delusion on its
own ground; but farther accommodations than these are inadmis-
sible; because ii" the calm dispassionate voice of reason and reve-
lation is to be suppressed or laid aside, on the ground stated in the
objection, we at once espouse the principle, that when truth and
prejudice come into contact or competition, the former ought to
yield to the latter.

4. if a:<y of our fellow-creatures are in an error, and are wed-
ded to it by prepossession, is it right for us to try to convince them
of their mistake, or is it really better for them to believe a false-
hvioJ than the truth? Or, is it impossible for their prejudices to be
overcome? If so, we suppose them to be held in delusion by neces-
sity. And if it be possible for their mistake to be rectified, how
is this to be done? by suppressing the truth and leaving them to
hold fiist their error with unsuspecting confidence? or, by calmly ex-
hibiting the truth before them? Shall we keep back the evidence,
because many will obstinately refuse to give it a fair hearing? And
why not keep back the gospel from the w oild then, because many
will obstinately shut their eyes against the light, and reject the
counsel of God against themselves?

It will perhaps be said, if they should be shaken out of one error,
they will only run over into another, perhaps a worse one; for
« Nothing is more common than for men to run into one extreme un-
der the plausible pretence of avoiding anotherl" To prevent such
revolutions we had better leave the world and the church as it is
at present.

And would not this argument apply with equal force, in any age
since the world began? According to this logic, the gospel ought
to have been kept back, for men were prone to extremes in that age
as well as this; and thousands did in fact, after renouncing Pagan-
ism and embracingthe Christian profession, run into greater scenes
of darkness than ever, as" has been shown inauote fromDr. Camp-
bell. .Was the gospel to blame for this? or shall wise men be de-
prived of the evidence of truth, because the foolish are disposed to
cast it from them with contempt?

The objection supposes trutii is not the tiling that is to guard
men from error; but that they are to be guarded against one delu-
sion, by being kept ii» another. This is like saying to % man who

*2* AN ESSAY ON THE

has fallen into a dileli on one side of a narrow path, which he tval
travelling in the dark, " sir, 1 will not help you out or bring a can-
dle to assist you in finding your way, for fear you will be so trans-
ported upon your deliverance from that ditch, that, in your eager-
ness to avoid it in future, you will stagger into another on the
other side of the road." Would he take that man to be his friend^
or believe rather tliat he intended to insult him with such an abo-
minable argument? As Paul rejected with indignation the imputa-
tion of haviiig said, " let us do evil that good may come;" so let
Us renounce the pitiful prejudice, that we ought to suppress evi-
dence, and keep men in error, that truth may prevail. We might
as well say, let us walk in darkness that light may come, or let us
delight in ignorance' that knowledge may come.

5. The principle here opposed, is another favourite engine of the
infallible church, and one which was a chief cause of its rising.
Many of the heathens were converted to Christianity, who had long
heen in habits of using many ceremonies, and worshipping many
gods: The ministers of the gospel began to find it necessary, as
they thought, to accommodate themselves a little to the people's
prejudices, lest they should go back to the heathen idolatry: the
pure voice of reason and revelation was not considered sufficient
to guard them against error; but they must be indulged in a fe\r
small delusions, because no other guard was sufficient to keep
them from falling into greater ones: thus they were led on from
one degree to another, by this accommodating plan, till the most
enormous string of absurd ceremonies were invented that the world
has ever beheld; saints by hundreds were canonized and worship-
ped; pictures and images by thousands were exalted to the sam«
dignity, and a cloud of darkness and barbarity overspread the
world, until truth was fallen in the streets; justice and mercy
abandoned the dismal plains of Europe, and humanity shuddered
to behold the scene.

Thirdly: It may be objected; that we ought to be very cautious
lest we stir up a spirit of controversy, and enlarge the divisions of
mankind, instead of healing them. Answer:

1. If by contruversij, Ave are to understand a calm and dispas-
sionate exercise of reason and scriptural argument to lead one
another into truth, I confess, 1 can see no danger in its being stir-
red up. Our Saviour was employed in regular argument, almost
through the whole course of his ministry; " and Paul, as his man-
ner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned witk
them out of the scriptures." Acts, xvii. 2. « Aud agaiu as he

PLAN OF SALVATION. 125

reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come,
Felix trembled." Acts, xxiv. 25.

If such controversy as this is to be considered as an evil that
ought to be avoided, it is a little surpnsing that the Redeemer
should set us the example, — that Paul should be in the regular ha-
bit of doing it on the sabbath day, and that his arguments should
be so successful as to be instrumental in the conversion of thou-
sands, and even bring Felix himself to tremble.

2. But if angry and revengeful arguments be the only kind ob-
jected to, 1 readily acknowledge that truth needs not such weapons,
and nothing but error can receive advantage by such a malevolent
controversy. That we ought to guard against it, both in ourselves
and others, is also admitted, without hesitation; and 1 suppose
everyone will allow, that the most direct way to stir it up in others,
is to make use of it ourselves. How then is it to be avoided.^ There
are only two ways that I can conceive; and it will be worth while
to inquire which will be the more likely to accomplish the end.
One is, " to keep ourselves in profound silence, and not attempt to
prove any thing; the other, is to subdue those passions and preju-
dices in ourselves, which give rise to angry controversies, and do
our utmost to persuade other men to subdue them, and follow the
dictates of reason and revelation."

As to the first rule, it appears at first view as though it would
be successful; for if a profound silence be maintained, if no person
be opposed in any sentiment which he holds, what ground can there
be for controversy? Even the thousands of heretics that were
burnt at the stake, might have been spared, had they quietly held
their peace; but they would indulge themselves in their carnal
reasonings sometimes; and lest they should stir up a spirit of con-
troversy, the holy mother in her prudence burnt them to death,
and thus put them out of the way.

But though upon a superficial view we may think contentions
and divisions would be prevented by silencing the voice of reason,
yet matter of fact proves the contrary: bitter controversies and di-
visions arise not from the exercise of reason, but from the want of
it: they rise, from those passions and prejudices, which if let alone,
will break out among themselves, and "set on tire the course of
nature, and it is set on fire of hell." If a party be united together
under the influence of error and prejudice, they will indeed fight
vigorously against truth and evidence, and while the attack con-
tinues they will adhere to one another in the opposition; but sup-
posing truth should withdraw her artillery, to accomaiodate her-
R

436 AN ESSAY ON THE

self to their prejudices, would contention be thereby prevented?
not at all: the combatants would look about them for a while, and
finding no other enemy, would fall out among themselves, aud in-
dulge those furious passions which can never be kept long quiet,
until they are subdued.

There is ho manner of danger in a regular argument between
two men, or two thousand of them, while the love of truth is the
governing principle on both sides: because, while this is the case,
each party rejoices to perceive good evidence from any quarter,
seeing it tends to the support of that which he loves. If his oppo-
nents should, by solid arguments, convince him that he has been in
an error, he will no, more be oflended at his friend, for this piece of
kindness, than he would be oflended at a physician, for improving
his sight, by removing an obstruction from one of his eyes.

And suppose prejudice should rise in arms against the truth,
however calmly the evidence be exhibited; what thcn.^ Must truth
and reason give way at once, out of mere complaisance to delusion
and malevolence? Must all reasonable men be prevented from
speaking the truth, or hearing it, for fear madam Prejudice should -
be offended.^ Though a dreadful dust would be raised on one side,
in such a controversy; yet, while the others keep to the proper wea-
pons of truth, and use no others, thousands of reasonable men
would yield themselves willing captives, and would follow the
transporting rays of evidence, notwithstanding all the dust that
might be raised to conceal it from their view: and for us to si-
lence the voice of reason, and omit a diligent investigation of
truth, for fear prejudiced minds should stumble at it, or be roused
to violent opposition, is just as ridiculous as to relinquish all
right to stem the torrent of iniquity, for fear many sinners would
be influenced to make a stand against us, and perhaps become
more furiously bent upon their abominations than they were be-
fore we disturbed their quiet indulgences.

This counterfeit prudence has ever been hostile to the interests
of truth, and has promoted the most dangerous errors among man-
kind; and I think it may be said, of all the false rules of judg-
ment here examined, as Mr. Fletcher said on a similar occasion,
« They were brought forth in Moses' decayed chair at Jerusa-
lem, nursed by Austin, at Hyppo, and educated by Bellarmine, at
Rome,"

If protestauts are resolved still to hold them fast, I know not
how they could de it more consistently, or enjoy them in more
complete perfection, than to go back to the bosom of the mother

PLAN OF SALVATIOJV". 127

church, where an infallible priesthood can cherish indolence, sup-
port ignorance, silence the voice of reason, deprive the laitj' of
revelation, and thus settle all controversies, and defend her tame
children, against infidels and heretics, by the powerful arguments
of the holy inquisition.

SECTION XI.

Whether certain errors ought to be believed for tlie sake of discou^
raging sin.

It may be necessary, before Me leave this part of the subject, to
notice another prejudice, i;i which some good men appear to have
been entangled: It is, that certain doctrines ought to be rejected
without examination, lest the belief of them should tend to encou-
rage sin.

This supposes truth and virtue are not uniformly connected to-
gether, but that sometimes, or in some cases, " delusion will be
more friendly to righteousness than a proper knowledge of truthj"
for if truth always supports virtue, and vice versa, the most ef-
fectual way to discourage sin is, to labour to banish all delusion
from the face of the earth.

It must be granted, indeed, not that the knowledge of truth tends
to encourage sin, but that certain truths presented to those who
are incapable of receiving them, may become the occasion of
their stumbling into greater errors, and those errors may lead them
into greater sins; and in this case, as before observed, it is genuine
benevolence to withhold such truths from them, until they be gra-.
dually prepared to receive them.

Had the pure spirituality of the divine nature — of the Mes-
siah's government — and of divine worship, been revealed to the
Israelites in the days of Moses, their infant minds would have been
incapable of such instructions. They would probably have conclud-
ed that the God who spake by Moses, was attempting to lead them
into some strange chimeras which he did not understand himself.
That the Egyptian gods wore far more intelligible in their instruc-
tions; which they would consider far more agreeable than those
given by Moses, and which, in their view, eontaiued far better

138 AN ESSAY ON THE

sense and consistency. Such errors would lead them back rapiilly
to the heathen idolatry; and therefore, the wisdom and goodness of
God " hid those things for ages," and did not make them known
to the world, " till the fulness of the time Mas come."

But, if we conclude that those truths liave any thing in their na-
ture eaUciilated to encourage sin, they ought to be hid for as many
ages yet to come, or even forever; otherwise, Ave say God ought tft
give a revelation to encourage sin.

If it be granted then, that no trutJi, rightly understood and be-
lieved, will encourage sin; but that men take such encouragement,
by stumbling into error; and therefore, thfit caution should be used
to guard them against those errors, by leading them on in the
knowledge of truth as ihey are able to receive it< this has been
Stated and considered before.

And who can tell when the world is in a fit state to receive certain
truths but God himself, who perfectly knows the state and condi-
tion of our minds? Shall a man hold back any truth from the world,
which-^is supported by evidence clear to his understanding, under
pretence that all men are children but himself? A person of this
cast may spare his prudence, I conjecture, for the grounds of it in
this case, are a sufficient proof of such a superiicial degree of
knowledge, that the world will not be apt to sustain any injury by
his profound discoveries; npr is there any necessity for them to be
liid for ages, except perhaps to save the credit of their author.

That this notion never prevented sin in the world, but that it is
replete with dangerous consequences, I think may be made very
evident! let it suftice to illustrate the subject by ivvo examples.

1. It has perhaps been thought, that we ought not to teach the
people, «'that God is not influenced by the feelings of grief, sym-
pathy and pity, as we are, however clearly it may be proved, for
fear it would lead them to distrust (iod, to indulge unbelief, and
of eon^equenie to run into other sins." To guard them against
these evils, we must leave them in their error, because in this case
the knowledge of truth would tend to their injury.

That it might be injuiious for people to believe this to be true,
or any thing else, merely upon our telling them so, I grant; be-
cause this would be to believe without evidence; but let the truth
be explained, and set before them with sufficient evidence to carry
conviction to their understandings, and tlie belief of it will do
them no harm. Letthem understand, that God gave us such aftec-
tions tosupply the deficiency of our moral goodness, and tbat the
reason we believe God has them not, is, that his goodness is so

PLAN OF SALVATION. i^fl

perfect that be needs no sueh stimulants to make his creatures
happy; and this proper view of the subject will never lead them
to distrust their Creator.

The opposite error, that of attributing human passions to our
>Iaker, is so far from being preferable to the truth, that it has
produced the most dismal consequences. Some have been led by it
to conclude, that after spending a life of wickedness, they could
move the passions of the Almighty, and melt him into pity by their
tears and groans. Others have feared he was in such a rage of
passion against them, that it was very difficult to appease his fury.
The heathens imagined that scenes of barbarity would gratify his
vengeance, and hence they were led to burn their own children in
(he fire.

2. Some have appeared to be suspicious of any doctrines that
would give too full a view of i\ie kindness or mercy of God, lest men
should leap into presumptuous conclusions, and harden themselves
in their transgressions.

And is there any danger, think you, in believing God to be ful-
ly as meicifiiland kind as he actually is, and can be proved to be?
Avould it discourage sin more eft'eetually for the world to be kept
a little in the dark, and be prevailed on to believe that there is
some barbarity in God, in order for them to be restrained by the
force of terror? I think not.

Men are very apt indeed, to run into presumptuous conclusions,
and hence to harden themselves in iniquity; but this never arises
from that view of the Divine nature which is according to truth,
but from some delusive notion of it.

One error is never to be cured by another, and I presume ag
much sin has been produced by believing God to be less merciful
than he is, as has been brought on by believing him to be more
merciful than he is.

Was any sin prevented in popish countries, by believing that all
infants who died withoutbaptism, were to be everlastingly damned
in hell? or that God was delighted to see heretics burnt at the
stake, and that his soul will be gratified to hear them and their in-
fant children cry and groan in hell-flames forever? Was any sin
ever prevented by believing that all heathens are to be forever
damned, for not believing in Jesus Christ, of m hom they never
heard? Was any sin ever prevented by believing that most men
. were ordained to damnation, by the sovereign pleasure and un-
changeable decree of God ? No: such a barbarous divinity is just
as unfriendly to holiness, as the loose tenets of those who represent

J 30 AN ESSAY ON THE

God as being a lover of sin, or who believe that there is nothing
in his nature but mercy. And indeed they meet together in the
same point; for how easy is it for those who believe God is
possessed of the evil principles of injustice and barbarity, to be-
lieve he is possessed of the evil principles of partiality alsoP
They can suppose he has a humorous fondness for them, and thus
indulge themselves in presumptuous sins as much as the others.
All the difterence is, that the others suppose God has this humour-
ous fondness for all the world, and they suppose he has it for a
part, among whom they stand in the first rank, or at least that they
certainly have a share in this partiality, w hich was secured by an
absolute and eternal decree.

And suppose men were brought to believe that God had no mer-
cy in his nature, but took such pleasure in seeing his creatures in
torment, that he intended to send all men and angels into hell;
would sin be prevented by this? so far from it, that it would only
produce terror and dismay for a little while, which would pioba-
bly degenerate into anger and resentment, and from that into
atheism.

I pray God to save good men from the pitiful hypothesis, that
there is danger in following the light of evidence too closely, for
fear it should lead us to some truth that will encourage sin!

If any falsehood is necessary to promote virtue, w hy not tell
lies to encourage holiness.^ AVhy not deceive the people for their
good? AVhy not use pious frauds to support religion; or in plain
English, why not do evil that good may come?

Shall we keep men in falsehood, that truth may prevail, or do
evil; that good may come? God forbid. Let the glorious nature
and attributes of our Maker be understood according to truth, let
us avoid attributing to God a want of justice and holiness, on
the one hand, and believing in a gloomy and barbarous divinity,
©n the other; both of which are alike unfriendly to virtue and hu-
man happiness: and let us never dream that God is so destitute of
wisdomandgoodness, as to put certain means of knowledge within
•ur power, the diligent use of which is dangerous, and may lead to
conclusions that would be naturally calculated to encourage wick-
edness. Such inconsistencies do not belong to God, but are invent-
ed by the imaginations of men.

1 grant a doctrine believed without evidence, even though it
should happen to be true, will be apt to prove unfriendly to virtue
and happiness; for if there be no proof of it, that we are able to
discover, we have every ground to ceusider it either a falsehood,

PI-AN OF SALVATION. 131

or a trutt that the wisdom of God has concealed from mankind,
because they are not in a fit state to receive it, and therefore, in
all likelihood, the belief of it, though true, would, from their par-
tial conceptions, cause them to stumble into some error which
w ould lead them into sin.

For example, let us consider the dying thief, whom our Saviour
pardoned on the cross: it may be that he had long before that
time believed that he should obtain mercy in his last hours, and,
from that persuasion, had hardened himself in his ungodliness, as
many have done in ail ages of the world. If so, the thing which
he believed was true, and came to pass accordingly. But he had
no evidence of its truth, and therefore must have believed it upoa
ihe grouud of ht/puthesis: other sinners are equally destitute of
evidence in this matter, and liave an equal right to the hypothesis;
but for one that finds lie believed the truth, perhaps nine hundred
prove, too late, that they believed a falsehood.

iS'ow, in such cases, I acknowledge there is great danger, and
the belief is of bad tendency, even though the object of their pre-
sumption may afterwards be found to be true; but it will not
hence follow, that there ever is danger in pursuing truth to the
utmost of our abilities, provided we believe nothing as true, but
30 far as it is supported by evidence.

The case under consideration, is not believing the thing, on ac-
count of its having any sign of truth: but merely believing it upon
the ground of fanciful conjecture. This is always dangerous, as
I have attempted to make appear. Though the conjecture may
chance to be true, in many eases, yet it is irrational to believe
it till we have evidence of its truth, and is as much a violation of
the method which God has appointed to govern the belief of rea-
sonable creatures, as if it should prove to be a falsehood. Though
hypotheses may be formed, as Dr. Reid observes, to excite inqui-
ry, yet nothing but evidence should govern the belief of any man,
if he would continue safe and happy, or even lay claim to the
prerogatives of an intelligent being. We should never assent,
even with a doubtful or hesitating faith, until some grounds of
probability appear; and after they do appear, he should be still
on his guard, and refuse to believe with firm assurance, while the
evidence is only presumptive or probable.

Many arbitrary conjectures have been invented concerning the
purifying influence of the fires of purgatory, or of hell: con-
cerning another state of probation for sinners, after death: con-
ceruiug their admittance into heaven, at the day of judgment, or

iBJ AN ESSAY ON THE

at some other time: concerning the nature of their torment, and
of their accompanying the prince ofthepoiver of the air: concern-
ing their future annihilation, and the like.

Tliese rovings of the imagination commonly have a pernicious
influence upon their votaries, and if the scripture even said no-
thing against them, the most that could be said in their favour is,
that they are unsupported hypotheses; and therefore ought not to
govern the belief of any thinking man, till some evidence be pro-
duced of their reality. I am apt to think it is impossible for anj
such evidence to be produced; and we ought to be very cautious
how we receive such opinions; for even supposing some of them
to be according to truth, (that of departed sinners accompanying
Satan upon errands df mischief, for example,) the belief of them
being purely hypothetical, would be the same thing as believing
falsehood upon a similar ground; (seeing both would be a depar-
ture from all evidence) and if any man should hope to improve
human knowledge, by leaving the proper methods which God has
vouchsafed for our instruction, to launch into the bold and fic-
titious regions of conjecture, let him look at the history of the
world, from the days of Aristotle to those of Mr. Hume, and let
him take warning by the wrecks he will behold, of religion, of
happiness, of reason, and of common sense.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 13a

CHAPTER n.

UPON THE NATURE AND GROUNDS OF REDEMPTION-

SECTION L

Ji view of the Divine Attributes,.

It is evident from the scriptures, tliat the coming of the Lord o'f
glory to redeem fallen man, is the most important event that has
occurred since the beginning of the world. Christ is the "foundation,
the chief corner stone of the prophets and apostles. He is the
light of the world, and the life of men. He is the mediator between
God and man — the friend of sinners, and the beloved of the Father,
full of grace and truth. He is the image of the invisible God — the
Alpha and Omega, the first and the last — and in him dwelleth all
the fulness of the God-head bodily" In a word, he is the Saviour,
the Governor ^diwA Judge, of the whole human family, and will reign
till all enemies are sul)dued under his feet. We all want to know
for what purpose he lived, died, and rose again from the dead;
nor are we alone in being thus inquisitive, for these are "things
which the angels desire to look into." 1 Pet. i. 12.

If the extent of this subject be such as affords matter for the en-
largement of angelic knowledge, as the apostle's words seem to in-
dicate, how can we hope to comprehend it completely, in our pre-
sent state of being! The more we look into, and understand it,
the more evidently shall we behold "the glory of God, shining in
the face of Jesus Christ;" but never in this world, if in the world
to come, shall we be able to comprehend the whole extent of its
influence, or the immediate connexion between the cause and the
effect. The connexion between cause and effect is a mystery in
every part of the creation. Even in vegetation, in the growth of a
spire of grass, our under-standings have limits, beyond which they
cannot penetrate. The operations of animal nature are equally
difficult; much more those of the intellectual world. Is it wonder-
ful then that the nature of God, and the great scheme of redemp-
tion, should contain some mysteries which we cannot fathom?
^'Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was
manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preach-
S

iSi AN ESSAY ON THE

ed unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into
glory." 1 Tim. iii. 16.

But though we cannot comprehend the whole of our great Crea-
tor's works, either natural or supernatural; jet he has given us
faculties whereby we may regularly enlarge our knowledge, and
he calls us to the exercise of them: we ought tlierefore "to give at-
tendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. "NVe ought to me-
ditate upon these things, and give ourselves wholly to them; that
our profiting may appear to all." 1 Tim. iv. 1.3. 15. It is our wis-
dom, duty and happiness, to endeavour to understand the great plan
of salvation as well as possible: " of which salvation the prophets
have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of thegrace
that shouUl come unto you: searching what the spirit of Christ,
which was in them did signify, when it testified before-hand the
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 1 Pet. i.
10. 11.

If then tlie prophets, who were under the immediate inspiration
of the Holy Ghost, found it necessary, and considered it laudihle,
to use their understanding in diligent inquiries and meditations
Hpon the glorious doctrine of redemption; surely we are justified
in following their example, and I presume neither prophets nor
apostles will ever reprove us for the inquiry, or persuade us not
to search too diligently.

The principle on which the necessity of redemption is founded,
is, that man is a sinner, faiien and corrupted, and that God is not
willing he should perish; hut that he should come to repentance
and salvation. Man, by nature, is prone to evil, and by practice, has
becom^i a positive rebel. Misery and death have become univer-
sal; but an universal remedy has been provided: for, "as by the of-
fence of one, judgment come upon all men to condemnation; even
so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men un-
to justification of life." Rom. 5. 18. " For the creature was made
siibjcct to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath
subjected the same in hope: because the creature itself also shall
be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liber-
ty of the children of God." iiom. viii. 21. This glorious deliverance
will be accomplished through our Lord Jesus Christ, " whom the
heaven must receive until the time of restitution of all things,
which Gad hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets
since the world began." Acts iii. 21.

As to ihc particvJar ends for which our Saviour came into the
world, they need «ot all bo enumerated: sufiice it to say, he cam*

PLAN OF SALVATION. 133

to counteract the aecidentai consequences of A(lam*si sin upon the
unsinning part of the creation, according to the above quoted scrip-
tures:— he came to destroy death by a general resurrection: — "he
came to fulfil all righteousness, and set us an example that we
should follow his steps: — he canie to bear witness unto the truth,
and to conlirm the proniises made unto the fathers: — he came to
teach us the good and the right way, to preach the gospel to the
poor, and the opening of the prison doors to them that were bound-
he came to destroy the works of the devil, and to reign till he shall
put all enemies under liis feet: — he came to die, the just for tlie un-
just, to condemn sin in (he flesh, to offer his soul a sacrifice for sin,
that the world through him might not perish, but have everlasting
life:" he came "to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins:"
in a word, he came "to
ther they be things in earth or things in Heaven!'

But what was the
comprehends all the particulars? I would answer, that he came to
make such an atonement for sin, as should glorify God, in the
grant of pardon to the guilty, in relieving the miserable, and in pro-
curing final salvation for the chedient. iVm I right in this view of the
subject, or am I wrong? Wliat saith the scripture? That Jesus is
exalted to be a prince and a Saviour, and that the whole of our
salvation is obtained through the redemption that is in him, is a
point so abundantly established throughout all the scriptures, that
there is no necessity of confirming it at present by particular proofs:
no man who believes the bible w ill pretend to call it in question.
And that he came to glorify God in this salvation of sinners, is al-
so undeniable, from his own express declaration. "Now is my soul
troulded; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour:
hut for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name.
Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I hava both glorified
it, and will glorify it again;' "Jesus said, now is the son of man
glorified, and God is glorified in him." John. xiii. 27. 28. — xii. 31,
"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that w ill I do, that
the Father may be glorified in the Son" John xiv. 13. "I have mani-
fested thy name unto the men which thou gavcst me out of the
world: 1 have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work
whichthougavestmetodo." John, xvii.4. 6. "Father,the hour is come:
glorify thy son, that thy son also may glorify thee." ver. 1. And
suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly
host praising God, and saying glory to God in the highest, and on
':ood-willtoivardmen."jA\ke.n. 13. 14.

136 AN ESSAY ON THE

Thus, it is evident Jesus came to make the salvation of sinners
accord with the full glory of God; and not as some wouli^ Iiave it,
that he came merely to satisfy the divine Justice, as if the glory
of God consisted in this alone. It is true he came to satisfy
justice, because justice is a moral attribute of the Deity, and
must be gloriKed as well as his other perfections; but goodness
and holiness were no more satisfied for sinners to be pardoned
without a Redeemer, than justice itself: therefore, as redemption
reconciles the salvation of sinners with the glorious nature and
attributes of God, every moral perfection is alike satisfied and
exalted by our Lord Jesus Christ.

fFliat is meant by the glory of God? or, in what does his essential
glory consist? " And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as
a man speaketh unto his friend. And he said, I beseech thee, show
me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass be-
fore thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee,
8^.6. And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there
and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by
before him, and proclaimed, the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and
gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keep-
ing mercy for ihous-Ands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and
sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." Exod. xxxiii. 11,
18. 19 — xxxiv. S, 6. &c,

Jlere the xllmighty God condescends to inform u* in what his es-
sential glory consists; first, in goodness under its various forms of
grace, mercy and long-sufferivg: secpnd, in truth, and the third in
justice: that will by no meaijs clear the guilty.

There is one thing in this passage deserving very particular at-
tention: after proclaiming his goodness in various forms of expres-
sion, and decla,ring heforgiveth iniquity, and transgression, and
sin, God immediately adds, "that he will by no means clear the
guilty." Is not here the appeara?iee of a contradiction.? that he
Tf'i// forgive sin, and that he Mill not forgive it at the same time.?
Answer: it is said in the most unequivocal manner that he tvill
forgive; but it is not said he will not forgive; but that he will by
no means clear the guilty; that is, he will not excuse the guilty, or
grant them any legal discharge from the penalty, by constituting
them innocent. If they would obtain deliverance from punishment,
it must be by his goodness granting a free pardon, because no
other kind of a discharge will ever accord with his nature and
government. There are ceitain means through which he will par-
don the guilty, but he will by no means clear them any other way,

PLAN OF SALVATION. 137

not even by the means of redemption; for I think we shall find it
was no part of our Saviour's design to exonerate sinners from
guilt, by constituting them innocent, hut to introduce them to a
throne of mercy, as guilty rebels, that divine goodncs may forgive
them. Some suppose God will clear the guilty, or constitute them
innocent, by means of a certain imputation; but God himself de-
clares, he will by no means do it; because he has determined tliey
shall be delivered from the penalty no other way but by his
"goodness, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin." This
shall afterAvards be considered more particularly.

Again, we learn that the Lord is glorious in holiness. "Give un-
to the Lord the glory due unto his name: worship the Lord in
the beauty of holiness." And that ye put on the new man, which
after God is created in rightemisness and true holiness.'^ Psalm
xxix. 2. Eph. iv. 24.

We learn farther that ^'justice and judgment are the habita-
' tion of thy throne: merci/ and truth shall go before thy face." "I
will speak of the glorious honor of thy majesty, and thy won-
drous works. The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion, slow
to anger, and of great mercy. The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and holy in all his works," Psalm 89. 14 — 145. 5. 8. 17. And after
these things 1 heard -a great voice of much people in Heaven, say-
ing. Alleluia, salvation, and glory, and honor, and power unto the
Lord our God: for true and righteous are his judgments; for he
hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her
fornitication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her
hand." Rev. xix. 1. 2.

It appears from all these passages, to which many more might
be added, that the glory of God, which our Saviour came to dis-
play and vindicate, consists in his goodness, justice ^ truth and holi'
ness.

We must now inquire into the meaning of those words, and
endeavour to obtain clear conceptions of the moral attributes to
which they call our attention. For it is in vain we are told that
goodness belongeth unto .God, unless we know Mhat the term good-
ness means, and so of justice, and all the rest^

The scriptures being written in human language, common words
are used according to their common meaning; the inspired M'riters
rarely, if ever, give a definition or explanation of the words
they use, which would swell the bible into volumes, but
they leave us to learn the nature of intellectual and moral quali-
ties, by eon<?ulting the dictates of our cons-ciousness and moral

im AN ESSAY ON THK

faculty, and hy using our reason in comparing one part of tlieir
writings with another, that we may draw just conclusions in re-
gard to their proper signification.

When God proclaimed his nature unto Moses, he simply in-
formed him, that he was "abundant in goodness, forgiving iniquity,
&,c." without explaining the nature of either goodness,forgiveness,
or iniquity. And why was this, but because he knew his creatures
were able to acquire a right conception of these things by the dic-
tates of their original faculties, without a particular definition of
them by revelation? Had we no conception of them from the imme-
diate dictates of our moral judgments, the bible would be as unin-
telligible to us as to our horses: for if it were possible to give
these animals a conception of goodness or Justice, however faint,
they would be capable of moral instruction as well as we; and were
we or our children destitute of any original power to conceive the
first principles of morality, it would be as useless for the bible to
be presented to us, as to any other animal in the creation.

The nature of those attributes, or qualities of an intelligent be-
ing, which God proclaimed unto Moses, as belonging to himself,
in all their perfection, is discovered by the human mind, not
llirough the medium of either reasoning or of revelation, but by-
immediate and intuitive conviction; but as to their application^
in the various cases of life, we need ail the assistance we can ob-
tain both from reason and from the oracles of God. We might
here show the impossibility of tlieir being proved by arguments,
without first taking them for granted; but as a siifticient number
of examples have been already given, it may now suffice lo appeal
to the impartial judgment of mankind for the truth of the fol-
lowing slatements;

1. The words good, or goodness, signifies those qualities of
matter or of mind, that tend to the promotion of happiness. Those
parts of matter which supply our wants, by nourishing our na-
ture, or protecting it from the extremes of heat or cold, we de-
Jiominate good thiiigs; and those qualities of a moral agent, which
dispose him to exert his power in diminishing the misery and
enlarging the happiness of his fellow-creatures, we denuminate
good qualities, because of their tendency to promote the welfare
of the creation.

J\i''uiur(d good, taken in its most general sense, signifies happi-
ness, together with the natural mens of it, such as food and rai-
ment, and the like.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 139

»^atural evil consists in misery, together with the natural means
of it, such as the poison of vegetables, or of serpents, or any
thing else which naturally tends to destroy our life, health, or
happiness.

Moral evil, in general, consists in those qualities of a moral
agent which dispose him to use his power in making his fellow-
creatures miserable.

When goodness is applied to the mind and taken in the most
general sense, it includes all attributes or properties of that mind,
which dispose it to delight in the performance of every action
(hat tends to diminish the wretchedness and promote the well-be-
ing of all creatures possessing conscious existence, and capable
of torment or felicity.

Perfect goodness, therefore, in any being, consists in "a perpetual
will or disposition to support and perpetuate the happiness of
every creature in existence, so far as it can be done consistently
with justice." It has nothing to do witli misery, excepting those
degrees of it that may be necessary to promote its own benevo-
lent designs. These exceptions are the three following: 1. A good
being, who is perfectly innocent, may voluntarily enter into a
state of misery, for the sake of promoting the happiness of others,
where it can be done without infringing upon the rights of any
other individual. In this case he gives up his own right in favour
of others, in which consists the very essence of benevolence. By
submitting to an affliction of short duration, he promotes the last-
ing good of others, without abandoning a just regard for his own
felicity, which he resumes and establishes himself in the enjoy-
ment of, after having accomplished the work of kindness in be-
half of those whom he delights to bless. 2. A ruler may, through
perfect goodness, inflict misery on guilty and obnoxious indivi-
duals, either to reform the offenders, or for the sake of vindicating
the rights, and defending the native liberty and happiness of the
innocent. 3. When innocent creatures have received a disorder
in their nature, the removal of which necessarily produces a mo-
mentary pain, it is perfectly kind and gracious, for that pain to
be thus inflicted, for the sake of removing a greater evil, and esta-
blishing the welfare of the subject in future. In this way Physi-
cians have often inflicted severe pain, from the dictate of pure
kindness and good will to the very objects who were suffering un-
der their operations.

Now in all these eases the pain is inflicted for the sake of di
miuishing misery, or promoting happiness, which is the ultimate

140 AN ESSAY ON THE

end of the agent. But' such a regard to the diminution of wretch-
edness, and the enlargement of felicity, constitutes the essence of
moral gooduess, and therefore the action which inflicts pain, only
so far as it is necessary to such a gracious end, proceeds from
a benevolent intention, and consequently originates in perfect
goodness as its source.

Goodness exercises itself in different ways, according to the
nature and condition of its object: that branch of it which secure*
and defends tlie happiness of others in exact proportion to their
ri-'ht of demand, is called justice: that which confers happiness on
others above what they have a right to claim, is called favour,
grace or benevolence: that act of kindness which bears with the
manners of offenders, and grants them time for repentance, is
called long-suffering, and that which grants them forgiveness is
denominated mercy.

That sympathy for another's woe, which produces a desire for
its removal, and which God has planted in the human breast, we
call jjify^ comjjassion or humanity. This tender feeling was given
to supply the place of goodness in fallen creatures, and it often sti-
mulates those to relieve the miserable who are destitute of any
regard to moral principles in their general deportment. It may be
subdued by long and confirmed habits of evil; but it retains a con-
siderable influence upon the generality of men, even upon those
who refuse to be governed by a regard to justice; and the few who
appear to have subdued the last feelings of humanity, are consider-
ed as a kind of monsters in human shape.

This sympathetic feeling appears to be an animal principle of
action; it leads many to acts of kindness, in an instiuctive way,
and the inferior animals appear to act under its influence as well
as man. 1 know of no evidence to convince us that it is essential
to the nature of God, whose love of his creatures, and whose re-
;^ard to the principle of justice and benevolence is infinitely per-
fect, and therefore needs no such an auxiliary. That the mere
feeling of sympathy is an animal impulse, appears from hence,
that those animals show evident signs of it, who have no concep-
tion of morality. But we have no reason to think any thing is es-
sential to the Deity which is merely animal; and therefore we
have no reason to coiisider such feelings as being any part of the
divine nature.

It is true that our Saviour, having assumed our nature, assumed
all the syuipathies of it, and hence the aposile says, " We have
not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of oiir

PLAN OF SALVATION. 14i

infirmities; hut was in all points tempted like as we are, yet with-
out sin." Heb. iv. 15. How far, or in what manner, his being
touched with the feeling of our infirmities may be essential to his
office as our Redeemer, will remain a mystery or a secret, perhaps,
until this mortal shall have put on immortality. The word good-
ness it is to be observed, is often applied in a limited sense, as be-
ing another word for benevolence.

2. Justice, abstractly considered, is that rule of moral conduct
which accords with, and is limited by the rights of all beings in
existence. Where there is a right of demand in any beiug, there
Is a corresponding obligation in others to act with a sacred regard
to that right; and the violation of justice consists in any voluntary
action which deprives another of his right, and which was perpe-
trated by an agent who had a knowledge of the other's right, and
a conviction of his own obligation not to infringe upon it. When
a lion takes away the life of a man, he is not guilty of injustice,
not because the action is involuntary, (which 1 think it is not) but
because the creature has no conception of a moral right, or of a
corresponding obligation.

When a man's right is violated, he sufters an injury; that is, th»
unjust action tends to diminish his happiness or enlarge his misery.
But though the action may have this tendency, yet the agent is
not unjust, unless he both knew the other's right, and had the in-
tention to act in opposition to it; a thing done accidentally or
through invincible ignorance is certainly not unjust, otherwise we
say a crime arises out of necessity, and a person is culpable for
that which is not in his power.

The principle of justice in a moral agent, according to the de^
finition given in the Roman law, is a perpetual will to render unto
all men their right. A regard to universal right, or a perpetual
desire and intention to promote it without any exception, is that
love of justice which constitutes the character of an honest man,
A man who pays his debts merely from a fear of being cast into
prison, or from any other motive but that of a regard to justice,
cannot be considered as an honest manj for if he was influenced by
other motives, without any regard to this, it was not for the sake
of justice he acted as he did, and had it not been for other stimn-
lants he would have violated it in practice.

He who intends to injure another, but is never able to execute
his purpose, is an unjust man in principle, and would be «> in
practice if notpreventedv
T

i^3 AN ESSAY ON THE

He who Mishes another to be injured, and who would injure
him, were it not for the fear of being detected, punished or expos-
ed, is also an unjust man in principle.

It follows that no man can be truly just without "loving his
neighbour as himself, and doing to others as he would they should
do to him."

God has a right to the supreme veneration, love, and obedience
of all intelligent creatures.

All innocent creatures, in a state of perfect order, ha> e a right
to the character of innocence, and to the consequeuces of it; and
no person can charge them with being guilty when are they not so,
or punish them as such, without being unjust.

WJien one creature knowingly and intentionally acts in opposi-
tion to the right of other creatures, or of his Creator, he thereby
forfeits his own right to the character and consequences of inno-
cence, and deserves to be punished in proportion to his demerit.
He has a right still to demand that tlie blame and punishment,
shall not exceed tlie oSence; and no being can charge him with
more guilt than he has actually contracted, or punish him for
Sfimes he never committed, without being unjust.

If his children, or other creatures, are involved in misery in
consequence of his crime, which they would otherwise have avoid-
ed, he has injured them in defiance of justice, and this is a princi-
pal ground of his demerit or ill desert.

His guilt, however, is not in proportion to the extent of the inju-
ry considered distinct from, but in conjunction with, his knowledge
and intention to do wrong. I will suppose one man discharges a
pistol at a tree, in order to scare a person who stands near it, and
that the bullet glances from the side of the tree and passes
throught his liead; another fires at liis neighbour with an intention
to break his arm, but inadvertently shoots him through the heart:
a. third deliberately runs a sword through his neighbour's body,
with the full intention to take his life.

Here are three cases, in which the hurt or loss sustained by the
sufferers is the same. But does any reasonable man want arguments
to convince him that the degree of guilt is not the same in all
those eases? Had nothing followed in the first case but what was
intended, the injury would have been comparatively small; but
still the thing was criminal, because the intention wJis to scare a
person by such means as he knew, or might have known, would
(Expose his fellow -creature to considerable danger. But in the last
■^ft»e there was a full intention to deprive another of his life with

PLAN OF SALVATION. 148

a lull knowledge of tlie immediale tendency of the means made
use of, to produce that efiect.

When one or more creatures are brought into a state of misery
or natural disorder, by the bad conduct of others, or by any other
means, the person that shall deliver Uliem from this state, through
a regard to their happiness, without being under any obligation of
justice to do it, and without violating any right of others, is truly
benevolent.

If in doing this, he should find it necessary to expose himself to
any kind or degree of suffering, which justice did not require of
him, which should not be inconsistent with his I'esuming again his
native happiness, and which was endured from a pure intention to
glorify God and enlarge the Jiappiness of his creatures, this suf-
fering, far from being unjust, would increase the merit of his be-
nevolence. To deny this, is to say it is unjust to be kind, and an
innocent person must never be benevolent but where it costs him
nothing,

If he should find it necessary to inflict a degree of pain on any
of those creatures with his own hand, which justice did not require
that they should endure, in order to prevent a greater evil or es-
tablish them in a state of perfect happiness afterwards, this suf-
fering inflicted on them, far from being unjust, would result from
pure benignity, whicli carries justice in its bosom, and bestows
more happiness on others than they have a right injustice to de»^
mand.

Injustice consists, not merely in inflicting pain on the innocent,
but in doing it when it is unnecessary, and from such a regard to
some selfish gratification, as makes the agent regardless of the
rights or happiness of the innocent sufterer. But when the pain is
necessary to counteract a disorder v* hich would produce a greater
degree or duration of it in future, or which would prevent a last-
ing benefitj the person who inflicts it from a pure regard to the
increase of happiness and diminution of misery, is perfectly just
and good. Deny this, and we say at once, that all physicians are
nnjust, or else that they always inflict pain on their patients in ex-
act proportion to what they deserve, and what justice inflexibly
requires.

These statements I must now take for granted: for their truth
I appeal to the reader's judgment, and shall forbear tracing tli^
absurdities which would follow from a denial of them, till I come
to apply them to the several doctrines defended in the present es*
ady.

IM AN ESSAY ON THE

3. The moral attribute of truth, consists in a perpetual will or
disposition to think, speak and act, with a sacred regard to truth,
and never intentionally to do any thing that is calculated to deceive
ourselves or others.

It implies such a love of truth, arising from a conviction of its
tendency to promote the happiness of intelligent beings, as shall
influence us to use all the means in our power to know the truth,
to assist others to know it, — to guard against falsehood, to assist
others to guard against it, — and to abhor all lying, deceit or dis-
simulation.

So far as any man indulges prejudice^ or refuses to give evi-
dence a fair hearing, through party attachments, voluntary neg-
ligence, or any thing else that depends upon his will^ so far he is
deficient in the love of truth.

So far as any man knowingly and intentionally uses sophisti-
cal reasonings, or any kind of false evidence, calculated to de-'
ccive others and impose upon their understandings, so far he acts
in opposition to the moral attribute under consideration, and is so
fiir culpable before that Almighty Being, who requireth truth in
the inward parts.

Through the w eakness of our understanding, we are all liable
to fall into errors, and to lead otliers into them; but in such cases
as do not arise from indolence, or any want of attention or can-
dour on our part, wo are altogether inculpable, because no person
is blamable for not doing that which is not in his power.

4. Iloliness, I think, is a general term, not so properly applied
to any distinct and particular attribute, as to the perfection of alJf
moral attributes in harmony.

A being that is perfectly benevolent, just and true, we call a
holy being; and surely his holiness consists in the perfection of
his justice, truth and goodness, and in nothing else: at least, if
there be any other moral quality distinct from these, I have ne-
ver been able to form any con&eption of it.

Shall we say holiness consists in moral purity and a perfect
hatred of sin? But vyhat is moral purity but the perfect iufluenco
of the attributes above mentioned? And what does hatred of sin
arise from, but from a love of goodness, truth and justice?

Mr. Wesley som-ewherc speaks, and 1 think very properly, con-
cerning " holiness in all its branches." The several »branches of
it are mentioned above, and as unniercil'nlness, injustice and
falsehood are the branches of wickedness or unholiness, so their
wpposites are tli^e branches of holiness, which is a general term.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 145

including every principle aud action that is necessary to perfect
rectitude.

Although justice, truth and benevolence, may be conceived dis-
tinctly from each other, yet I think there is a kind of unity in them,
and a mutual dependence, whicli makes them appear to be insepa-
rable. He >vho is so destitute of a regular regard to human hap-
piness as to refuse to be benevolent, when in his power, will not
perform acts of justice from a pure love of the principle, but from
some selfish motive: he who is unjust, cannot be benevolent, and he
who injures his neighbour by deceit and lying, is certainly unjust
and unmerciful.

The unity of those attributes, and that which is common to
them all, I take to be " a constant intention to enlarge happiness
and diminish misery as much as possible." This implies a delight
in the promotion of happiness, and a love for all good beings, so
far as they are good, that is, so far as they are disposed and fixed
in the intention to enlarge happiness and diminish misery as
much as possible.

Those glorious attributes belong to our Maker in all their ful-
ness: abundant in goodness and truth — and that will by no means

CLEAR i/te GUILTY.

So far as we act from a love to those perfections of the Deity,
and from a regard to universal happiness, so far we partake of the
image of God, in which man was at first created. " To love the
Lord our God with all our heart," is to love goodness, truth and
justice; and while this love is uniform, and is not interrupted by
other motives, it will lead us to " do unto all men as we would
have them do unto us." But alas! our love is too often wavering;
other motives mingle with our regards to righteousness; and in
this consists the deficiency of human virtue. There is no mixture
of other motives in the divine mind, and hence there is perfect
consistency and uniformity in all his actions: He never deviatei
from a pure regard to general happiness, and never will do it in
any period of eternal duration. But we sometimes yield to selfish
influences, and hence there is an irregularity and inconsistency in
our deportment. We often make blunders also through ignorance
and unavoidable mistakes, to which the Almighty is not liable.
For these our heavenly Father will not condemn us; but so far as
our wrong conduct arises from an abuse of our power, or a neglect
tq use it, so far we are guilty, and every being of truth and jus-
tice must disapprobate us accordingly.

146 AN ESSAY ON THE

All God's perfections are in harmony with each other. If there
were any inconsistency or contradiction in the divine attributes,
they would lead to an inconsistency of conduct. If justice ever
contradicts benevolence, then every being must lay one or the
other of them aside, orcoutradict himself in practice.

There has, perhaps, never been a more ridiculous or dangerous
mistake in the world than the supposition that one moral attribute
may contradict another: it has, if I mistake not, given rise to the
most inconsistent and barbarous systems of divinity, that ever
darkened the human mind, and M'hich ultimately resolve them-
selves into the Manicheau principle, that the full disposition of
essential wickedness belongs to God, as well as holiness! Surely
if any attribute be a perfection, that which contradicts it must be
an imperfection: if one be moral, its opposite must be immoral: if
one be righteous, its contrary must be unrighteous. If we deny this,
we say plainly " that virtue and vice are not opposite to each
other, but that virtue or moral goodness is opposite to itself.

Benevolence produced all happiness in the creation, truth di-
rected creatures how to enjoy and retain it, and justice guarded it,
and demanded that it should not be interrupted. What contradic-
tion is there in this.^^None at all: the divine attributes agreed to
promote happiness, and to forbid the introduction of misery; and
the first act of an intelligent being, which injured others, or obstruct-
ed the flow of happiness, opposed the influence of goodness, truth
and justice, and this was the ground of its criminality.

But did sin make any, alteration in the divine attributes.-^
did it throw them into confusion, or change the nature
of any of them.= God forbid. Benevolence is as much disposed to
communicate happiness, truth to conduct us to it, and justice to de^
fend it, as they ever were. Hence we find a wise plan has been
devised and executed from the dictate of goodness, and communi-
cated to us accordJJtg to that of truth, to save all sinners that will
be saved without taking their principles of rebellion to heaven;
and this they cannot do, because justice is as much as ever disposed
to defend the general welfare.

Justice never inflicts misery, even on the guilty, without some
essential good in view; either to reform the ottender, or to guard
others from the influence of his crimes: and when it is thus neces-
sary, it is surely as consistent with goodness as it is with justice.

A principle which inflicts misery for no end, or for a bad one,
is as contrary to justice as it is to mercy, and such a principle can
not be imputed to the Almighty, without charging him with esse'i^

PLAN OF SALVATION. 147;

*Ial wickedness. When punishments are inflicted on sisners with
a view to their reformation, it is kind as well as just; and whea
they are punished without a regard to their individual advantage,
it is beeavse they utterly refused the overtures of mercy, and is
done with a view to the welfare of others. Thus are all just pun-
ishments inflietedfor a good end: that is, forthe purpose of promot-
ing happiness and preventing misery.

God is love, " and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and
God in him.". 1 John. iv. 16. The office of justice is not to con-
tradict love, but to defend the medium through which love dis-
plays itself, and diffuses tranquillity to all creatures that con-
sent to come under its benign influences.

SECTION II.

Sin dishonours God, and destroys the happiness of his creatures^
therefore his displeasure against it must be manifested.

God has given his creatures a law or moral government, that
is, his truth has communicated certain rules of action to their un-
derstandings, founded upon justice and goodness, with a conviction
of their obligation to conform to those rules without any excep-
tion or violation. That the law is founded upon those attributes,
is evident from the following scriptures:

"Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy
law is the tnith.^^ Psalms cxix. cxlii.

"The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found
in his lips: he Avalked with me in peace and equity, and did turn
many away from iniquity." Mai. ii. 6.

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment AoZ^, andjusf,
and goody Rom. vii. 12.

The Almighty's government is jMSf, because it seoures the rights of
all beings in existence: it is good, because its native tendency is to
promote the happiness of all intelligent creatures, and misery was
never introduced but by a departure from its precepts: it is frwe,
because it has no tendency to deceive, but gives a correct view of
the nature of God, and of the way in which happiness is to bd
enjoyed. Therefore it is holy, because it supports every mora!
principle.

14i AN ESSAY ON THE

As the glory of God consists in his moral attributes; and as
those attributes are exhibited through the medium of his law or
government; it follows, that the way creatures are to glorify God,
is for them to support his government by cordial obedience to every
precept of the law. "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in
you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it sliall be done unto you.
Herein is my father glorijied^ that ye bear much fruit: so shall ye
he my disciples." John, xv. 7, 8. " Let your light so shine before
men, that they may see your good works, und glorify your father
that is in heaven." Mat. v. 16.

But how does the law of God promote the happiness of his crea-
tures? I think it is done in two ways: lirst, by means of the under-
standing; and second, by means of the attections.*

1. By presenting the glorious nature of God and of his govern-
ment to the understanding, the soul is charmed and possesses a
conscious felicity from the intrinsic excellence of those objects
thus presented to its intellectual discernment. In proof of this, we
may appeal to two authorities: first, to the oracles of God, which
declare in many places, directly or indirectly, that the influence
of truth upon the understanding produces happiness.

"Take not the word of truth out of my mouth; ye shall know
the truth, and the truth shall make you free: his delight is in the

* Mr, Superville says, in a sermon, "The soul is capable of
three general affections; to know, to love, and lo feel; which are
three sources of actions and pleasures that are almost without
juimber. — It is very certain tliat the soul, disengaged from the bo-
dy, elevated above visible things, and admitled into the presence
of Christ, shall know God in a manner very difterent from that in
which we knew him in this life. What then can hinder the ac-
tivity of the soul.'' Is it not certain that an understanding, refined,
extended, always in motion, continually employed in the discove-
ry of new objects; always forming just ideas; always at the source
of truth; always enlightened by him who enlightens every man
that Cometh into the world; always capable of considering truths
in connexion Mifh their causes and eftects, and in their relation to
God and Jesus Christ; is it not certain, I say, that an understand-
ing thus refined, and thus occupied, will be a source of unspeaka-
ble knowledge, and perpetual joy?" See the Methodist magazine
lor the year 1811, vol. Si-, pages 95, 96.

There can be no objection to this just and animating view of the
subject; but I presume the author would be understood to mean,
that the "three sources of actions and pleasures," which he men-
tions, though distinct in conception, are nevertheless united in na-
ture; and that there is no feeling essential to an intelligent nature,
but what arises from knowledge and love, or js inseparably con*
aectcd with them.

PLAN OF SALVATION ,1^

}fi\v of the Lord, and in his law doth he meditate day and night."
Psalm cxix. 43. John, viii. 33. Psalm i. 3. Now if the pious man
delight in his meditations on the law, that happiness results from
the beauties of it presented to the understanding.

Secondly; we may appeal to the consciousness of every man of
reflection, and ask if he finds no happiness in the exercise of his
understanding, while he beholds the glory of God, displayed in
the goodness and justice of his moral government?

3. The law prod'uces harmony in our aftections, harmony with,
our fellow-creatures, and union with our Creator; from this results
all the sweets of moral, social, and divine felicity. We have
peace in ourselves, peace and love with our brethren, communion
with God, and joy in the Holy Ghost. It is true, all our happiness
is from God; but it is communicated through the free exercise of
our intellectual and active powers, by means of the divine govern-
ment, which influences us by moral motives,' and not by com-
pulsion. How can we be happy in the love of God, or of our fel-
low-creatures, unless we choose to love them.^ A forced love, pro-
duced by mechanical impulse, is a most glaring absurdity.

The law of God is calculated to delight the understanding, to
influence the will, to harmonize the aftections, and to regulate the
conduct: it unites the creatures of God together as a band of bro-
thers, assimilates them into the divine nature, and thus conducts
them to the eternal fountain of love and tranquillity. They par-
take of the felicity of their heavenly Father, because they are
governed by the same moral principles, which are essential to his
own perfect nature, and which (with reverence permit me to think)
constitute the everlasting happiness of Almighty God. I must
therefore conclude that the full joys of the upper world flow to
creatures through the channel or medium of the moral law, which
was established by our benevolent Creator to promote this gracious
ejid.

But what saith the scripture.^ It saith love is the fufilling of the
law: and every one who ever loved knows that love and happiness
are inseparable. Rom. xiii. 10. Again, the Lord Jesus says, " As
the father hath loved me; so have I loved you; continue ye in my
love. If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love; even
as I have kept my father's commandments, and abide in his love.
These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in
yau, and thtxt yorir joy might befull.'^ John xv. 9, 10, &c. The psalm-
ist says, <'The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The
testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The sta-
ll

iJO AN ESSAY ON THE

tutes of tlic Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandrnett
of tlie Lord is pure, enlightening the CT/es: the judgments of the
liord are tnie and righteous altogether. More to be desired arc
they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter &\so than honey
and the honey-comb. Moreover, by them is thy servuni warned;
and in heeping of them there is great reward. Lord, 1 have hoped
for thy salvation, and done thy commandments. My soul hath
kept tliy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly. Great peace.
have they which love thy laW; and nothing shall ofibnd them."
Psalm xix. 7, &c. — cxix. 145, &c. "But whoso lookcth into the
perfect law of libertij^ and continueth therein, he lieing not a for-
getful hearerJmt a doer of the work, this man shall heblessed in his
deed. For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and
reproofs of instruction are the way of life." Jam. i. 25. Prov. vi. 2:i.
St. Paul tells us "The command mcnt wa.^ ordained to life ;^- and
our Saviour, who certainly understood the nature and end of the
divine law', says expressly, " 1 know that his commandment is life
everlasting.'^ liora. vii. 10. Jolm, xii. 50. We are therefore war-
ranted in the conclusion that the glonj of the Creator and the hap^
piness of all rational creatures, are supported by means of his
maral government.

Front this it follows, that a violation of the law is an insult to
all the attributes of God; an infringement upon the general plan
of happiness; aviolation of all right; and consequently sin is a v^-y
great evil. Its native tendency is to dissolve the harmony of uni-
Tersal society, to obstruct the inliuence of every righteous princi-
ple, and to produce everlasting misery and disorder. Is justice
roused to execute vengeance upon the sinner.^ it is; and all the other
attributes are equally insulted. Goodness is opposed to the rebel,
because he obstructs the generay flow of happiness; truth, be-
j*ause his conduct tends to obscure the goverjiment; and justice,
because he has violated tlie rights of others.

But would not the repentance of the criminal be a sufficient
atonement, to influence the divine being to exercise forgiveness?
AnsAVcr:

1. Repentance alone would not manifest God's abhorrence of the
erime at all; every one might consider sin a very small thing; a
little mistake of the judgment a mere trivial aftair, that, at any
time woukl admit of forgiveness upon a bare acknowledgment;
therefore (it might be said) let us all try if there be not some un-
known advantage in it: at all events we shall lose nothing, for
whatever be the iioTisequences, it is plain wc can be delivered

PLAN OF SALVATION. 151

from them when we please by a little confessiou and repentance.
Will the great Lord of angels and men thus suft'er liis government
to sink into contempt.^ Will such a small acknowledgment satisfy
his goodness, justice and spotless holiness? Will the great prin-
ciples of his moral law be secured, and the general happiness
maintained, by such a feeble and diminutive administration.^

2. It is a well known fact that sin has a pernicious influence up-
on the aifections and moral faculties of the sinner: he contracts
habits of aversion to the law and the law-giver, as well as amoral
incapacity to recover himself. If then he were treated as an obe-
dient subject, upon his repentance, while he had a secret prone-
ncss of disaffection to the government, the foundation would be
laid for universal depravity. The sinner must therefore be reform-
ed and renewed, that a properprovision may be made for his future
allegiance: and this must be done by an arm more mighty than his
own. And if God were to grant this extra assistance by virtue of
his repentance alone, this supposes his confession would more than
counterbalance his fault, inasmuch as it would not only enable
him to obtain what he had before, but would merit an additional
display of divine power; that of renewing a fallen creature. This
would surely exhibit rebellion in a very favourable point of view!
and would represent it as a small and trivial matter, which God
is willing to excuse or pardon, and even to reward upon a bare
confession or repentance.

3. As the purity of God's nature Mould not thus be displayed,
by a full proof of his hatred against sin, it would neither accord
with goodness nor justice for rebels to be received to favour upon
such terms; because it would weaken the motives to moral obedi-
ence in the upright, and diminish tlieir confidence in the divine at-
tributes ef their Creator.

4. This notion, concerning the all-sufficiency of repentance,
originates in the most unjustifiable arrogance and presumption.
God assures us his nature demands another kind of satisfaction,
and who is the man that, upon second thoughts, will venture to
direct the Almighty what kind of atonement would be requisite to
repair the injury done to his glory?

5. If we suppose the government of God needs no other satis-
faction than the repentance of the offender, we consider it infe-
rior to the laws of men: because it often happens that repentance
or acknowledgment affords a criminal no security, and many have
been executed without being asked Avhether they repented or not.
Does the insulted authority of the Almighty require less satisfac-

153 AN ESSAY ON THE

tion than the momentary laws of men? Such an opinion is a re.-
proach to our maker, a support to human pride, a violation of
common sense and reason, and stands amongst the Avhimsieul ab-
surdities of infidelity.

SECTION III.

The attributes of God were glorified in the redemption of the
world, by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Consider we next liow God was glorified in the highest, in the
redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ. To understand^
this in the clearest light, it is necessary to inquire how God would
have vindicated his government, and displayed his glory if sin-
ners had not been redeemed.

It will be readily admitted that God was not bound in justice to
send a Saviour for fallen man: revelation assures us that lov&
is the sx)urce of redemptron, and God could have manifested the
purity of his nature by executing the sentence of the law upon ev-
ery oftcnder. And if it be asked, why was it necessary for Christ
to die for the salvation of sinners? we must ask a previous ques-
tion: why must men or angels be punished on account of their re-
bellion against God? A proper answer to this question will effec-
tually answer the other, and will give us a just view of the de-
sign of our Saviour's sufferings and death upon the cross.

Supposing no Saviour liad interposed for sinners, and God had
executed the sentence upon every criminal; on what principle could
this act of the Creator be accounted for? We must believe either,
(1.) that he punishes sinners for no other reason but his own sove^
reign pleasure; or (2.) that he does it from a regard to the safety
and 7vell-being of his creatures in general.

If it be done for no other reason but his own sovereign pleasure,
it Mill follow, (1.) that he has no regard to the promotion oi' hap-
piness in this severity against offenders, and therefore, there is no
goodyiess in the matter: (2) that he has no regard to the security
of the native rights of his creatures, and therefore it cannot
arise from moraX justice: (3.) that there is some principle in the
Deity that delights to inflict torment, when it is not necessary to

PLAN OF SALVATION. 1^3

secure the Mell-being of any creature in existence. These conse-
quences are too evident to be denied, and too shocking to be ad-
mitted by any reflecting mind: and we have no other alternative,
hut to admit that a benevolent and righteous governor inflicts pe-
nalties on obnoxious individuals from a regard to the general
good of society.

If punishments be inflicted by an earthly ruler, uheu they are
not necessary for the support of good government, and the securi-
ty of general happiness, all men of common understanding will
agree that such an act in the governor's administration arises
either from his caprice and ignorance, from bis j^ride and selfish-
ness, or from the tyranny and malevolence of his disposition. As
nothing of this kind can be imputed to the Creator, — as he views
such selfish and wicked principles with unchangeable abhorrence,
— the conclusion is incontestable, that his sentence against offen-
ders arises from perfect justice and goodness, or in other words,
from a pure regard to those principles of government, the vindi-
cation of which is cssenti*il to the security and welfare of his obe-
dient children.

If, on the contrary, thieves and murderers are permitted to pass
with impunity under any government, and are never punished for
their crimes, we justly inferthat there is adefkiency of principle in
the government itself, or in the executive. If the magistrate never
execute the sentence of the law upon the violators of it, we conclude
the principle of justice has little or no influence «pon him, that he
is indiflereut to the public interest, and that his pernicious lenity
arises from a partial fondness for criminals, and a secret disaf-
fection to the principles of his own government. Now if the divine
administration should leave any just ground for such suspicions,
what darkness would overspread the universe, and how would all
moral creatures be injured, whose happiness consists in their confi-
dence in, and attachment to, the pure nature of their Almighty
Father.^ To prevent such a general calamity, the justice and good-
ness of God are engaged to support the dignity of his law, and to
demonstrate the purity and impartial rectitude of his unchangea-
ble nature.

For these reasons the penalty of the law must of necessity be
inflicted upon all criminals, unless the ends of government can be
secured, and the divine attributes be fully and clearly manifested
by some other expedient. Such an expedient has been devised by
the wisdom of God, and executed by his goodness: "For God so
loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but havo everlasting life.

154 AN ESSAY ON THE

He could have vindicated his government without redeeming ns,
by executing the sentence upon every criminal. If God had not
" so loved the world as to give his only begotten son, and deliver
him np for us all," the conse(|Uciices would have been, that every
individiial sinner must die the death, or suffer the dreadful penal-
ty. And why must this be done.^ Not to minister to (he Almighty's
pleasure, for he lias declared, and confirmed by an oath, that he
has " no pleasiire in the death of the wicked;" but to seaire the
ivjluevce of the government, for the sake of the general ivelfare.
And how would this have been secured by the execution of every
offender.^ Answer: It would have manifested God's regard for
righteousness and good government: It would have manifested the
great evil of sin, and its hatefuiness to the pure eyes of the Al-
mighty: it would have impressed upon the obedient part of the
creation, a clear conviction of the strength and purity of God's
unalterable laws: it would have displayed the necessity and unut-
terable felicity of a cordial obedience, on the one hand; and the
tUreful effects of rebellion on the other: hence the influence of their
rebellion upon others would have been prevented, the divine .at-
tributes vindicated, and the general flow of happiness secured.
For these ends, and such as these, is punishment inflicted under
anv just and good government upon earth: and I hope none will
impute to the Creator a tyranny that is execrated among mortals,
and which is shocking to conscience and contrary to revelation.

Here, then, every rebel -must stand, without help, and without
hope: in vain may he repent, pray, or make confession; because the
general good must not be neglected to exercise partiality to an in-
dividual. All sinners must die, unless some plan can be devised to
magnify the law in their deliverance .

But can the rebels devise any such plan.- AlasI if it be left to
them, the dye is cast forever: they can do nothing but sink still
deeper into misery, unless some kind friend, more mighty than
they, should interest himself in their favour. Can such a friend be
found among all the armies of the sky .^^ They all have to do their
own individual part in promoting the divine glory, and cannot
leave their own work to ransom another: because after they have
done all that they can do, they have done nothing more than their
duty: consequently each one for himself will have to support the
government by obeying, \>hile the rebels will have to do it by suf-
fering. Is it so, then, that mercy is clean gone forever? Has the
loving Father of the spirits of all ilesh shut up his tender mer-
cies in eternal displeasure! Can he sec his poor miserable creatures

PLAN OF SALVATION. 155

mgulplied in the horrors of insufferable despair! and can he de-
vise no means wliereby his banished may be brought back, that
they may not be irrecoverably undone! " Will he be pleased with
thousands of rams, or with ten thousand rivers of oil?" Alas! all
this is unavailing, and lighter than dust upon the scale.

But the Almighty Father waits not to be intreated; " he has
found a ransom, and has laid help upon one that is mighty." The
Lord exeeuteth righteousness and judgment for all that are op-
pressed. The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow^ to anger, and
plenteous in mercy. He hath not dealt with us after our sins, nor
rewarded us accoi'ding to our iniquities. For God so love-d the
world, that he gave his only begotten Sou, that whosoever belicv-
eth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God
sent not his Sou into the world, to condemn the world, but tliat the
world tlirough him might he saved." Psalms, eiii. 6, &c. John iii. 16,
17. " Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down
his life for us; In this was manifested the love of God toward us,
because God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we
might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but
that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
And we have seen, and do testify, that the Father sent the Sou to
be the Saviour of the world." 1. John. iii. 16. — iv. 9, &c.

It is evident that our Saviour did not die to supercede the neces-
sity ofpardoai, by giving us a legal discharge from all penalties^
but to open the way for mercy, to deliver all those from suffering
the penalty, who come boldly (that is, believingly) to a throne of
grace; not to a throne oi justice to sue out their liberty in the name
of their surety: — but that they might obtain mercy, and find grace
to help in time of need.

The death of Christ manifested God's abhorrence of sin, as well
as his love to the sinner, and justilied the heavenly government in
the pardon of all penitents, as well as it would have been done if
all sinners in the universe had been forever damned. This was all
mercy was waiting for: namely, for such an exposure of the dread-
ful evil of sin, and such a demonstration of God's hatred against it,
as should glorify his atti'ibutes, and restore the government to its
native dignity and influence over his intelligent creatures. This
was accomplished by our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore every
moral attribute was satisfied, that a free pardon should be granted
to every sinner of Adam's race (hat would receive the Saviour for
his Lord and king, or, which is the same thing, to every sinner
that would

136 AN ESSAV ON THE

Yield to his love's redeeming power
And fight against his God no more.

As the Father never was disposed to punish any sinner, merely
to minister to his pleasure, but to secure the ends of good govern-
ment; so he never demanded of his only begotten Son, to suffer the
whole penalty for the pleasure of his vengeance; but he was so lov-
ing to every man, that rather than the government should be vin-
dicated by the condemnation of the guilty, he even gave his own
Son, yea, " God himself was manifested in the flesh; that this hu-
man nature connected with the rfei/^, should expire under the ex-
cruciating agonies of the cross, that poor sinners might be pardonx
ed in such a way as should support the honour of his holy law-
God could have chosen the other alternative, and have displayed
his holiness and hatred against sin, by the damnation of the crimi-
nal; butlove would have it otherwise. Rather than his apostate
creature should die the dreadful death, the loving God himself
comes down from heaven! He hangs between the heavens and the
earth, a spectacle to angels and to men! What heart of stone —
what frozen, savage heart — can remain unmoved, and unconcern-
ed at such melting love as this?

Shame on the man that shall itpresent redempt ion as having its seat
in the satisfaction and gratification of unrelenting vengeance, while
all heaven is astonished at the bleeding mercy it displays! Pro-
phets, apostles, and angels together are shouting and proclaiming
the great love wherewith our heavenly Father hath loved us; and
must we consider him as a tyrannical and malicious being, whose fu-
ry must be appeased, by an infliction of the whole penalty upon
his dear Son, before he will agree for one sinner to escape.'' far be
the thought from every soul that has been redeemed by the blood
of Jesus! Christ died to open our way to mercy, and not to raise us
above the want of it.

And hence the great name proclaimed unto Moses is verified
to us: ''gracious and merciful, abundant in goodness and truth, for-
giving iniquity and transgression and sin."

"Who is this that conieth from Edom, with dyed garments from
Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the great-
ness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.
Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like
him that trcadeth in the wine-fat? I have trodden the wine-press
alone; and of the people there was none with me: therefore mine
own arm brought salvation unto me. Fear not; for thou shalt not
be ashamed: for thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is

PLAN OF SALVATION. ±57

his name: and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; the God of
the whole earth shall he be called. The Lord is well-pleased for
his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law and make it hon-
ourable.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: being
justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith
in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins
that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at
this time, his righteousness; that he might he just and the justifier
of him which belicveth in Jesus." Isaiah, Ixiii. l.-Iiv. 4, 5. — 42. 21.
Rom. iii. 23. Benee it follows that the love of God gave a Redeem-
er to open the way for his ioxt to flow to poor guilty sinners; and
not that eternal justice demanded him as a criminal, in order that
grace might be literally purchased, and thus bestow its favours
for the sake of value received.

Was God waiting for his goodness to be bought by a price that
should be exactly equal to its value.*^ Then surely he was waiting
to sell his grace, and have a literal price of justice paid down, that
should be equivalent to every degree of favour or benevolence he
should exercise; resolving not to let any go out of his treasury
without an entire and complete compensation: that is, in other
words, he resolved not to exercise any grace or favour at all, but
merely to buy and sell, according to a literal bargain, and the
complete standard of inflexible justice. It may indeed be objected,
that although God demanded the whole penalty before he could
be satisfied, yet his grace appears to full advantage, inasmuch as
it was God himself who botlj devised the plan of redemption and
executed it, without being under any obligation to do so: in this his
goodness appears without a cloud, and there is no necessity for
any new act of mercy to be exercised after justice is satisfied, be-
cause it was sufficiently displayed before. To this plausible objec-
tion I would answer:

1. That it was God who both devised the plan of redemption,
and executed it, is readily admitted; and therefore, redemption re-
sulted from his goodness; but if there was any thing done in the
execution of this plan, wliich God in justice demanded, and then
he had a demand upon himself, seeing he himself performed the
thing demanded, as the objection urges,(and very properly) as the
only proof of his benevolence.

2. To suppose the right of demand, and the bond of obligation
«an exist in the same being, so that he who claims and receives is

X

188 AN ESSAY ON THE

absolutely the same that owes and «liscliarges the obligation,
is to suppose the exercise of justice is a solitary operation
that depends not upon the relation of one being with another: it
supposes a right of demand in one, does not necessarily imply a
corresponding obligation in another, but that the claim and the
obligation maybe in himself alone! This, to me, is as unintelligible
as to say a man's right hand has a demand upon his left hand,
which is bound by moral obligation to discharge the debt, and can-
not refuse it without being unjust. Suppose there should be a re-
fusal to discharge the obligation; we must then say one person is
deprived of his right, and another having acted unjustly has for-
feited his right, and exposed himself to a penalty in proportion to
his demerit; andyetthe injured person, and the aggressor, the just
person and the unjust; the aggrieved person, and the oftender, are
absolutely the same individual: in other words, that a person may
be just and unjust, the injured and the violator, an innocent suffer-
er and an unrighteous sinner, at the same time. If the obligation
be not discharged, justice is violated, and the unrighteous person is
deserving blame in proportion to his criminality: but who must be
blamed or punished for the offence.? Why, truly, the injured per-
son himself, for there is no other; and the innocent must be invol-
ved with the guilty by absolute necessity, because there is but one
individual, and he is guilty and innocent at the same time.

3. I think there is but one conceivable way, in which any being,
on whom there is no previous demand, can bind himself from the
dictate of benevolence; and that is by jiromise. It is supposed in
the objection that it w as a matter perfectly voluntary for God to
assume an obligation to himself in our favour; that he had a right
to withhold this favour; and therefore, though he demanded the
whole debt, yet he obligated himself to discharge it to himself,
when he might have done otherwise, which was surely a great dis-
play of mercy.

Now if he assumed an obligation in our favour, and discharged
it according to his just demand, he graciously condescended to
bind himself, which could only be done by promise, covenant or
engagement.

But w'hat conception can we have, in a consistency with com-
mon sense, of a person binding himself by promise, covenant or
engagement w ith himself alone, excepting that he simply resolves
or determines to do that for the sake of others, which he is under
no obligation of justice to do.? And is it indeed true, that when a
person kindly determines to do a favour, he thereby becomes bound

PLAN OF SALVATION. IW

in a debt of justice to himself, Avhich is discharged by bestowing
the favour, and which cannot be omitted after the resolution is
formed, without a plain violation of justice? If so, a favour was
never bestowed in the universe; for it is impossible it should be
bestowed until there be a volition or determination to bestow it,
and that volition or determination is supposed to bind' the agent iu
a debt of justice, and of course the act of bestowing it, which is a
consequence of the previous determination, is only a discharge of
that debt, and therefore no benevolence, because it could not then
be withheld without a violation of justice.

But if a resolution to bestow a favour does not bind the agent
by moral obligation, then it was impossible for God to l)ind himself
in this way by promise, engagement or covenant, unless he enter-
ed inti
alone.

And if it was impossible for God to become bound in a debt to
himself, then Christ never came under an obligation of justice to
God, unless it can be proved that Christ is not God, or that there
are tuw Gods, so totally separate that one maybe bound in a debt
of justice to the other.

4-. Suppose there were two such Gods, we say it is the Father
whose law has been violated by sinners: the Father is our God, un-
der whose government we stand responsible. If then the Father
inflexibly demanded the penalty to the very last mite, and the Son
obligated himself to discharge it, the Son only has shown favour
to us, and our proper sovereign, who demanded a penalty of us as
the subjects of his government, has exercised no mercy towards
us; and consequently our obligations of gratitude for redemption
are confined and due to the Son alone. Here it will perhaps be
said, the Father and the Son are one: I grant they are; and this
is the foundation of my argument; but the sophistry I am oppos-
ing, first, supposes them to be two Gods, so separate and indepen-
dent of each other, as to stand in the relation of debtor and credi-
tor; but after the contract is made and executed, my ingenious op-
ponent abandons his old ground, and, in order to secure a part of
the benevolence, and the corresponding gratitude to the Father,
he tells us very gravely that Christ and God are one.

5. Perhaps it will be said, the Father's benevolence appears in
this, that he both provided Christ as a substitute for sinners, and
accepted him in our place, when he ^• as not bound to do so. I an-
swer, first, if he provided himself for our Redeemer it was indeed
benevolent; but in that case he did not become bound, or demand

16U AN ESSAY ON THE

a penalty from himself, as has just been evinced. Second: if he
provided Christ, as another being, and an innocent one, to be con-
demned and executed in the place of the guilty, vvhat right had he
to do so? If it is right to release a sinner by condemning and pun-
ishing an innocent person in his place, then surely it would be
right for Satan to be released from hell, provided an innocent an-
gel were condemned and sent there in his place. Does benevo-
lence consist in showing favour to one by violating the rights of
another? But Christ, you say, consented willingly to be offered up.
That he never consented to become a sinner, or to become guilty
by imputation, I hope to prove in another place. But granting,
for the sake of argun^ent, that he consented to it; still the whole of
the benevolence was in him alone, because the right of option to
grant the favour or withhold it, was in him and in no other. The
Father, it is supposed, was determined to show no mercy, but in-
flexibly to demand the whole penalty: Christ was not bound to en-
dure it in our place, and the Father had no right to inflict it on
Jiim against his will: therefore, our receiving any benefit, or not
receiving any, depended on the voluntary goodness of Christ alone,
and consequently to him only we are under obligations of gratitude
for any favour shown us in redemption.

The only remaining subterfuge is, that the Father was gracious
in accepting the substitute, when he was not bound to do it. But
a few plain questions will remove this superficial vail: first, had
Christ a riglit to discharge our obligation? Second, had the Fa-
ther a right to any more than our obligation? was not our obliga-
tion the very thing which he had a right to demand? If so, when
Christ discharged our obligation, which he had a right to do, the
Father had no more demand against us, and we were immediately
as free from all just penalties and from any need of pardon as
the unoffending angels of heaven. Say Christ had no right to dis-
charge the obligation or suffer llie penalty for us, and you declare
it to be unjust: say he had a right, and you affirm the Father was
bound to demand no more, and to accept that or nothing; otherwise
you make justice contradict itself, by supposing one being has a
right to forbid what another has a previous right to do. To say
the Father may demand more, after my surety has paid all that
is due, is to suppose he has a right to more than his due, which is
a contradiction.

Thus 1 think the objection is fairly and honestly answered, and
that the Antinomian scheme of atonement supposes God to be to-
tally destitute of mercy,

PLAN OF SALVATION. lei

As to the alarm that may have been excited, lest I should deny
the doctrine of the Trinity, I hope it will be removed in the follow-
ing section.

SECTION IV.

^in examination of two opposite prejudices, founded upon mystery.

Infidels will be apt to object that the preceding view of the
subject is still too unintelligible and mysterious, that it is hard to
see why the divine attributes must be displayed by a redeemer,
and how this was done by the death of Christ upon the cross. I sus-
pect some christians will, on the contrary, think it too plain, and
that it savours too much of an attempt to explain away the divine
mysteries. 1 wish to convince these opponents that two opposite
prejudices, and not reason or revelation, are the foundation of
their objections.

The deist will say he is not yet satisfied with the doctrine of
atonement or satisfaction for sins; because, though this scheme ap-
pears less mysterious than some others, yet the mystery is not en-
tirely removed, and he is resolved to believe nothing that he can-
not comprehend. I answer:

It is true we cannot have a complete comprehension of the man-
ner in which all the various effects revealed in the scriptures are
produced by the death of Jesus; but in this respect it is like every
thing else in the creation, from the growth of a vegetable to the
operations of our intellectual faculties.

If nothing can be proved to us till we are able completely to
comprehend it, then surely it is impossible to prove to a child, that
there are such things in being as watches and ships, till he is able
to understand every part of them exactly: and he ought not to be-
lieve us, but consider us as liars, whenever we affirm and attempt
to prove their existence, because it would be to believe a thing
which he cannot comprehend.

An astronomer declares he can tell the very minute when the
sun will be eclipsed: accordingly, he publishes to the world, months
or years before-hand, the precise minute when the eclipse will
take place: we open our eyes and see it come to pass at the very

^62 AN ESSAY ON THE

time foretold. Now there is no man of common understanding but
will allow the astronomer in this case gives sufficient evidence
that he can foresee the motions of the heavenly bodies; yet not one
man in ten thousand is able to comprehend how these things can
be known by men. The common people then ought to give philoso-
phers the lie, according to the deistical method of reasoning, and
disregard all evidence they can produce in support of any fact,
until they can clearly and fully comprehend the manner of it.

Mystery is no criterion either of truth or falsehood: our belief
should be governed by evidence. And when any principle is pre-
sented to us as a truth, its being incomprehensible is no argument
for or against it. Suppose a man tells me he saw a company of
men and women not more than five inches high: I can comprehend
this as well as if they were five feet high; but it would be foolish
for me to believe it merely because the thing is conceivable: I
must have evidence of the fact. 1 turn my attention to this propo-
sition: " God npholdeth all things by the word of his power." Now
I find it impossible for me to comprehend hoAV this is done; but it
is just as foolish to disbelieve it, because I cannot comprehend it,
as to believe the other because I can comprehend it. In this case
as in the former, I call for evidence: and upon reflection I find it
supported by all the evidence of reason and revelation. I find if I
disbelieve it, I not only embrace a greater mystery, but am invol-
ved in absurdities shocking to every rational principle of my na-
ture. It is pli«n, therefore, that a man whose belief is governed by
the pretended criterion of mystery, is governed by prejudice and
not by reason. As to the difficulty of conceiving why Christ must
suffer, and how divine justice is satisfied thereby for man to be for-
given, it shall be considered in another place.

Some christians will probably think we ought to be very care-
ful how we explain away the divine mysteries, or before we are
aware we shall find ourselves landed on the shores of infidelity. I
saw a small pamphlet once, the express design of which was to
show that an attempt to avoid mysteries led a person ( l.)from Cal-
vinism to Arminianism; (2.) from Arminianism to Arianism;(3.) from
Arianism to Soeinianism; (4.) from Socinianism to Deism: so that
the only true system was that of absolute election and reprobation.
The Arminians, it seems, who could not swallow all the mysteries
of free-wrath, were the men who took the first step towards infi-
delity. The pope will tell us Luther was the man who first depart-
ed from the holy mysteries; and will be able to carry on the chain
with as good a grace as tlve Rev. Divine who published the pam-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 163

phlet above alluded to; he will also class John Calvin and his fol-
lowers among the heretics who paved the way to infidelity and
atheism.

It may be worth while to inquire how far such cautions are rea-
sonable, and when they may be considered the result of partiality
and prejudice.

1. As to the principle, that men ought to believe nothing but
what they can comprehend, we grant, if constantly pursued, this
would make a fool of any man: he would not stop at infidelity; he
would not stop at atheism; for surely no man of common sense will
say that atheism is a principle that has no mystery in it: it is ful-
ly as mysterious as popery. In vain may a man run to universal scep-
ticism for a cure: this is as full of mystery as atheism itself. There
is no stoppipg place for such a person but perfect lunacy; he may
wander from one mystery to another till he is distracted, and that
will terminate his fantastical career.

2. It is granted also that there is great danger and absurdity in
a man's labouring to comprehend that which is incomprehensible.
It is a shameful abuse of our understanding to spend that time ia
fruitless attempts to comprehend a subject of this kind, that ought
to be spent in searching into the evidence of its truth. For exam-
ple: I sit down to consider this proposition: " God is an eternal be-
ing, who had no beginning." Now if, instead of examining the
evidence of this truth, I spend ray time in fruitless labour to un-
derstand the nature of infinite duration, I shall gain nothing by
the pursuit, but bewilder myself, and stupify my intellectual fa-
culties. But if I leave the manner of God's existence out of view,
as a matter beyond the grasp of my understanding, and merely stu-
dy the evidence of an eternal being, nothing can be more clear and
satisfactory than this truth, that the first cause must be eternal
and independent. Infinite duration is as incomprehensible as any
subject whatever; yet the evidence of it is equal to demonstration:
for, to say there was a pei'iod of duration, in which duration had
no existence, or that there was a time when there was no time, is
an absolute contradietion;andif contradictions maybe received, de-
monstration and every other kind of evidence must fall to the
ground.

3. As it is unreasonable on the one hand to follow the deist in
rejecting a doctrine because of its mystery; it is equally so on the
other to follow the pope in believing it merely because it is mys-
terious. As all truth is supported by evidence, we have as good a
right to examine the evidence that may appear for or against an

i64 x\N ESSAY ON THE

incomprehensible doctrine, as any other principle in the world.
But when we reject a doctrine because it charges God with being
a barbarous tyrant, some will cunningly observe, that we reject it
on account of its mystery. We reject it because it is condemned by
the force of evidence; all the evidence of reason and revelation
conducts us to the conclusion, that God is a being possessed of all
moral excellence, and that there is no immoral principle in his
nature. Any opinion which absolutely contradicts this, ought to be
rejected, however some may artfully pass it upon the world as a
holy mystery. Shortly after the synod of Dort it was openly pub-
lished to the world, " that there is a kind of holy simulation in
God," and that God absolutely created most men for the sole pur-
pose of "illustrating his glory by their damnation." Popish priests
had before been burning men to death by hundreds, and this mer-
ciless barbarity they called an act of faith, a holy mystery that
must never be examined or called in question, upon pain of damna-
tion. If any good meaning people should think it dangerous for
us to get rid of such mysteries as these, I should be glad to know
upon what evidence they adhere to such a conclusion.

4. Another set of doctrines which are called mysterious, are
those which involve plain and absolute contradictions. If we re-
ject them because we cannot force ourselves to receive contradic-
tions, it is said we refuse to believe mysteries. It is said we go
upon the deistical method of reasoning, that we will receive no-
thing which we cannot comprehend, and that a few s^eps more will
conduct us to open infidelity. This is surely a great compliment
to the deists, that they are the only people in the world who are
consistent with themselves! I, for one, cannot help thinking they
do not merit such high praise; but that in truth their system is
Very inconsistent. If my oI)jector think otherwise, it seems to me
to follow, that his sentiment paves the way to infidelity far more
than mine.

If absolute contradictions may be received, we need not take
the slow method of going from Calvinism to Arminianism, from
that to Arianism, &c. butwe may at one step incorporate deism and
Christianity together, for we may receive this contradiction: the
scriptures are true; but the scriptures are false: Jesus Christ is the
son of God; but Jesus Christ is nothing but an impostor. These
propositions are nothing more than contradictions, and if they
may be received, it is an easy thing for us to be believers and un-
believers, pious and impious, righteous and unrighteous, christians
and infidels at the same time.

P^AN OF SALVATION 165

But a mystery, it will be said, may have the appearance of a
contradiction, when in truth it is entirely consistent; only we are
unable to comprehend it, so as to prove or explain its consistency.
This I grant; and if it cannot be shown to be really inconsistent;
but on the contrary, can be supported by clear and good evidence,
it would indeed be very absurd to reject it, merely because it may
have the appearance of contradiction.

But still there is no more danger in examining such a subject,
than tkere is in scrutinizing any other, provided we be governed
by evidence in our researches, and not by prejudice. An appa-
rent contradiction can never be converted into a real one; but on
the contrary, if it be really consistent in itself, the better it is
understood, the more obvious will its consistency appear; because
the reason why it seems contradictory, is, that we have such a par-
tial understanding of it.

. As to the doctrine of the Trinity, which some are fond to consi-
der as an absolute contradiction, it is as clear of the charge as any
other truth, provided we regulate our views of it by the scriptures,
without recurring to the laboured explications of it that are to be
found in human creeds and confessions of faith.

The following plain scripture argument, from Dr. Watts, sup-
ports the proper notion of it, if I mistake not, as we find it stated
in the oracles of God:

" Since there is but one Crvd, even the Father, according to St.
Paul, and since the Father is the only true God, according to
Christ's own expression, then the Son and Spirit cannot have
another or a difterent God-head from that of the Father: but since
the Son and Spirit also are true God, it must be by some commu-
nion in the same true God-head which belongs to the Father: for
if it were another God-head, that would make another God; and
thus Uie Christian religion would have two or three Gods, which
is contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel." — Watts' Sermons,
vol. ii. page 447.

But lest Dr. Watts should be suspected of leaning towards the
Socinians, let us recur to another authority: 1 mean to that of Mr.
Fletcher, who was never suspected of heterodoxy concerning this
article:

« It is agreed on all hands," says he, "that the Supreme Being
(compared with all other beings) is one: one Creator over number-
less creatures: one Infinite Being over myriads of finite beings: one
Eternal Intelligence over millions of temporary intelligence§. In
this sense, true christians are all unitarians.

y

les AN ESSAY ON THE

" But if the Supreme Being is one, when he is compared to all
created beings, shall we quarrel with him, if he informs us, that,
although he hath no second in the universe of creatures, yet, in
himself, he exists after a wonderful manner, insomuch that his one
eternal, and perfect essence subsists, ivithout division or separa-
tion, \im\erthyee adorable distinctions, which arc called sometimes
the Father, the Son, andthe Holy Ghost; and sometimes, the Father^
the JFord, andthe Spirit? Shall thethingformed say tohim that formed
it, why hast thou made inef/msi^orwhy dost thou exist after such a
manner?

" Three sorts of people, in our days, capitally err in this matter:

" 1. Tritheists, of the worshippers of three Gods, who so un-
scripturally distinguish the Divine Persons, as to divide and sepa-
rate them into three Deities; and who, by this means, run into Fo-
lijtJieism, or the belief of many Gods.

" 2. Detlieists, or the worshippers of two Gods. They are gene-
rally called Avians, from Jirius, iheW chief leader, who maintain-
ed tliat there is one eternal God, namely, the Father, and one who
is not eternal, namely, the Son, who was made sometime or other
before the foundation of the world. Thus they m orship two Gods,
a great God and a little God.

" Never did we say or think, either that three persons are one
person, or that three Gods are one God: these contradictions ne-
ver disgraced our creeds. We only maintain that the one Divine
Essence manifests itself to us in thi'ee Divine Subsistencies, most
intimately joined, and absolutely inseparable: with the scripture
we assert, that,as these subsistencies bore each a particular part in
our creation, so they areparticularly engaged in the securing of our
eternal hapj»iness; the Father ch'mRy planning, the Son chiefly eX'
ecuting, and the Holy Ghost chiefly perfecting, the great work of
«nr new creation." See Fletcher'' s ^^Rational Vindication,^^ Sfc,
in answer to Priestly, revised and finished by Mr. Joseph Benson.
London edition, l7U0. vol. i. p. 33, 31, 35.

Mr. Fletcher has here exhibited the full mystery of the Divine
Nature, according to the scriptures: and in this there is no con-
tradiction.

But in certain creeds and confessions of faith, there appears ta
be another turn given to the subject. We may there find many
learned words of divinity, concerning an eternal generation —a
covenant between the Father and the Son — a purchase made by
tjhc son, of a certain number of souls — the Father's obligation to
see that the Son be not defrauded of his purchased property, and

PLAN OF SALVATION. 167

the like. We may there read coneerning very God of very God~-^
co-eqjial — co-e.vistent — co-eternal — consubstantiaJ, &e. &ce.

The plain word of God gives better iustrnetion concerning this
matter than those learned names, and all the others that have been
used in the sublime and orthodox theology. It teaches us that
God is an eternal Being, and that there are three that bear record
in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three
<ire one: but ''never did we say or think, either that three persons
are one person, or that three Gods are one God: these contradic-
tions never disgraced our creeds."

Beists appear to manifest a fondness, in representing the chris-
tian doctrine of the Trinity as a contradiction; but we defy them
to show any contradiction in the account here given by Mr. Fletcher,
or to evince that it contains any more mystery than many things
in nature which they are forced to acknowledge as true. 1 sus-
pect they are unwilling we should explain our views in this way,
because it deprives them of the argument ad hominem, by which
they have long laboured to involve us in contradictions.

And are some christians unwilling the matter should be believ-
ed in this way? Do they wish something to be added, that may
give it more the appearance of a contradiction.^ For what.'* Do
they really believe it is a contradiction.^ or do they wish it to be
clothed with such an appearance, as much as possible, in order
that others may believe so.^ Is it then true, that any professed
christians wish deists to have full opportunity to prove out of our
own mouths, that Christianity is founded upon contradiction? I
hope they have not entered into a secret combination against the
religion of Jesus, to contribute secretly to the designs of infidels,
and to expose Christianity under pretence of supporting it; and
how else some human creeds are to be accounted for, seems hard
to ascertain.

Is it supposed that an attempt to explain the mysteries of th^
gospel naturally leads to infidelity.^' I hope an attempt to explain
them, so far as to prove they are not contradictions, has no such
tendency. To affirm it, is to acknowledge at once that they ari
contradictions; for, what danger can there be i'l attempting to
prove a doctrine is not inconsistent with itself, except it be that
the charge is just, and that there is no way to keep it from being
proved a falsehood, but to keep it from ever being teen in a clear
light?

16^ AN ESSAY ON THE

I cannot help thinking those mistaken christians, vho so rt-
peatedly caution us against paving the way to deism, uould do
M'ell to consider whether they themselves be not more guilty of it
than these of whom they complain.

Let us suppose, first, that a person a little inclined to infidelity,
is sincerely desirous to know the truth: he comes to an old Catho-
lic christian, Avhom he finds with his creed in his hand, to obtain
some instruction. He asks, what are the fundamentals of Chris-
tianity? The christian presents him the creed for an answer. He
looks it over, and asks his friend how those doctrines are to be
made consistent with themselves: they appear to be palpable con-
tradictions. Suppose, his instructor to reply: Sir, it is against my
principle to attempt any explanation of these mysteries: that would
be paving the way to infidelity. They may be proved by several
passages of scripture, as explained by our divines, and you must
receive them just as you find them. It is dangerous for yoH to med-
dle with these sacred things, by yonr uncertain reason; and yon
must be cautious how yon indulge your metaphysical investigations
upon the evidence of Christianity in general, or its mysterious doc-
trines in particular. Let the gospel be its own witness, and take
the doctrines of it, as you find them in this creed, without attempt-
ing to make them any plainer,

J^ow what must the inquirer infer from all this? Must he not
conclude that his instructor wishes to prevail Avith him, as openly
as he dare venture to go, to believe that he ought to take the whole
for granted >vithnut examination? ^'Does my teacher really believe,
says he, that vve ought to receive Christianity without evidence?
qr does he hjmself secretly suspect that it is not founded in truth,
fl.nd therefore thinks it dangerous to examine, lest its falsehood
shpuld become too manifest? Does he really think a doctrine of
divinity ought to contradict itself? or does he think the christian
dpctrjnes are in fact a system of contradictions, and therefore
fishes me to lay by my reason, and cautiously avoid looking into
^hem, for fear their absurdity and inconsistency should so shock
my understanding, that I could nqt believe them without doing vio-
lence to commoQ sense?"

These would be his reflections; and let the reader judge whether
the instructions he received do not afford a plain presumption that
their author had a secret suspicion, either that the religion of Jfsu«
e^nnot bear examination, or that the doctrines of his creed may
pradventure be proved not to belong to that religion.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 160

Secondly, let us consider the proud and passionate deist, who.,
from the dictate of his malice against Christianity, is resolved at
all events that he will not believe it: What paves the way to this
kind of infidelity? I think it is done by the conduct of those very
persons, who affect to be such friends to religion, and who are so
apt to charge others with secret disafl'ection to the gospel.

First, they directly or indirectly discourage the full attention of
the mind in reasoning and diligent examination; but it is the want
of such attention, or a refusal to examine, that confirms this per-
son in his unbelief; therefore they encourage him in the course he
pursues.

Secondly, they discourage a candid and impartial examination,
otherwise they would be willing for their mysteries to be examin-
ed, as well as other matters; but a want of candour and impar-
tiality is the cause of this person's unbelief; therefore they encou-
rage him in that which is the cause of his infidelity, by setting the
example themselves.

Thirdly, they furnish this enemy of the gospel with very plau-
sible arguments, with which he slays his thousands, and diffuses
scepticism among his associates.

" You cannot be christians, says he, without renouncing your
reason, and this the professors of that religion very well know, as
you may see by their writings: they are perpetually cautioning
their votaries against the diligent exercise of their intellectual
faculties, which they call carnal reason and "the almost magical
power of metaphysical distinctions. Some of their dearest and
most beloved doctrines are plain contradictions, which they them-
selves cannot deny; for when we ask them to explain the matter,
and clear their dogmas of this charge, they gravely answer, that
these are holy mysteries, which it is wicked to pry into, even so
far as to make them consistent with themselves. It is very dan-
gerous, they say, to penetrate too deeply into those sacred mat-
ters, which they call bringing them to the profane eye of human
reason: a clear presumption, surely, that they have discovered the
sandy foundation of this system, and wish to silence all inquiry,
for fear others should make the same discovery."

Now permit me to ask, how are we to prevent the spreading of
infidelity, arising from the influence of buch specious arguments?
By filling our works with ridiculous cautions against a close ex-
amination of the christian doctrines, and thus evincing in the face
of the sun that the gentleman's premises are true? I presume we
fiQuld do nothing that would please him better. From the first rise

iro AN ESSAY ON THE

of popery to the present day, some professors seem to dread the
approach of reason, and deists are glad to have it so: They know
it furnishes them with the best arguments they have ever been able
to use, and were it torn from them, infidelity must sneak into a
corner. While divines continue to undervalue reason, the deist
will extol it to the skies: not because he has any more real attach-
ment to it than his adversary; but because he knows that while he
can keep up high notions of reason, and prove from the words and
writings of divines that they are afraid of it, he needs no better ar-
gument, and none which will more successfully contribute to the
support of infidelity.

But let reason be delivered from the shackles of metaphysical
sophistry and hypotheses: let common sense be permitted to appear
without a veil: let pride, prejudice and party attachments have
nothing to do in governing the belief of mankiad: and then let rea-
son take her stand upon self-evident principles, without any thing
to obstruct her operations: you will see infidels and popish doctors
of divinity alike retiring from the contest, or labouriug with all
their might to cast dust into the air, that they may hinder the rays
of evidence from shining on the world.

Let all men thus use their reason, and the religion of the Lord
Jesus Christ will rise like the suninthe midst of heaven, and chase
the dark mists of error from mankind. But we cannot answer for all
the creeds: I suspect some of them would stand exposed in all their
deformity, and perhaps a secret conviction of their being subject
to it, has given rise to that species of prudence which is so neces-
sary to the support of a tenet which cannot bear examination,
*'Those things are against reason, and utterly inconceivable;" says
Dr. William Bates, "that involve a contradiction; and there is no
such doctrine in the christian religion." See Bates on Man's Re-
demption, page 136.

PLAN OF SALVATION. in

SECTION V.

The doctrine of redemption stated in the words of several respect-
able authors,

Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Wesley agree (the latter having ex-
tracted the words of the former,) that " men who are condition-
ally pardoned and justified, may be unpardoned and unjustified
again for their non-performance of the conditions, and all the
debt so forgiven be required at their hands; and all this without
any change in God or in his laws.

" Yea, in case the justified by faith should cease believing, the
scripture would pronounce them unjust again; and yet without any
change in God, or scripture, but only in themselves; because their
justification doth continue conditional as long as they live here.

" Justification is not a single act, begun, and ended immediate-
ly upon our believing; but a continued act, which, though it be in
its kind complete from the first, yet is still in doing, till the
final justification at the judgment dayy They add, " that the
justified may pray for the continuance of their justification; and
that Christ's satisfaction and our faith are of continual use, and
uot to be laid by, when we are once justified, as if the work was
done." Wesley^s Works, vol. xxii. page ±72, 173, 178.

Again: " The pardoning of sin is a gracious act of God, dis-
charging the offender by the gospel grant, from the obligation to
punishment, upon consideration of the satisfaction made by Christ,
accepted by the sinner, and pleaded with God.

" I call pardon a gracious act; for if it were not gracious, or
free, it were no pardon. Let those think of this, who say, we have
perfectly obeyed the law in Christ, and are therefore righteous.
If the proper debt, either of obedience or suffering, be paid, either
by ourselves or by another; then there is no place left for pardon:
for when the debt is paid we owe nothing, except new obedience;
and therefore can have nothing forgiven us: for the creditor can-
not refuse the proper debt, nor deny any acquittance upon re-
ceipt thereof." page 171.

Here we have the authority of Mr. Baxter, of Mr. Wesley, and
of a very conclusive argument, in support of all I contend for:

173 . AN ESSAY ON THE

1. That Christ did not properly or legally discharge our debt,
either by obedience or suftering: for " If the proper debt, either of
obedience or suftering, be paid, either by ourselves or by another,
then there is no place left for pardon."

2. If Christ properly paid our debt, there was no mercy exer-
cised by the Father: " for the creditor cannot refuse the proper
debt, nor deny any acquittance upon receipt thereof."

3. The way Christ satisfied justice by his death, was, that he
made it just for God to grant sinners a. gracious pardon, on certain
conditions: for "The pardoning of sin is a gracious act of God,
discharging the offender by the gospel grant, from the obligation
to punishment, upon consideration of the satisfaction made by
Christ, accepted by the sinner, and pleaded with God."

The next autbor I shall introduce is Mr. Whitby, who speak-
ing of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, gives us the fol-
lowing just observations and arguments:

" It renders the death of Christ to procure the remission of our
sins vain, and that on many accounts;"

1. Because the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us,
doth render his death unnecessary to procure any farther righteous-
ness or justification in our bchalfj for if by virtue of this imputa-
tion we be as righteous as Christ was in his life, there can be no
more need that Christ should die for us, than that he should die
for himself, or any other should die for him; yea, then Christ dy-
ing only for the benefit of believers, could not have died for the
unjust, but only for the just, that is, for them for whom there could
be no necessity that he should die, but only that he should live for
them; seeing faith in him as a Mediator, performing perfect obe-
dience to the law for them, must make them for whom he thus
obeyed perfectly obedient, and therefore must have given them a
full title to the promise, do this and live.

2. According to this doctrine, there remains no place for the re-
mission of sins to believers, for God neither did, nor could forgive
any sin in Christ, because he was perfectly righteous, and in him
was no sin; if then believers be righteous with the same righteous-
ness imputed to tbem, with which Christ was righteous, they
must be as completely righteous as Christ was, and so have no
more sin, to be pardoned, than he had, and so no more need to be
pardoned than he had; thus doth this doctrine destroy Clirist's
intercession for us, and also the necessity ol* his salutary passion,
according to those words of St. Paul, "If righteousness," that is,
"justification come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."—
Whitby's Commentary, vol. ii. p. 229, 230.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 173

From this quotation the following inferences are fairly drawn,
as Mr. Whitby's doctrine: That if Christ's righteousness were
imputed to us, we should be perfectly as righteous as Christ. 2.
That this doctrine makes his death utterly unnecessary. 3. That
it leaves no place, or no necessity for remission of sins. 4. That
it destroys Christ's intercession.

Now if it be a just inference (which it certainly is) that if Christ
perfectly obeyed the law for us, he thereby raised us above the
want of pardon; it will follow equally, that if he discharged the
whole penalty of the law for us, he thereby raised us above the
want of pardon. For the reason why sinners need forgiveness is,
that they stand exposed to punishment, as a penalty of justice,
which they cannot do after that penalty is entirely discharged;
and therefore such a discharge raises them as fully above the want
of forgiveness as the imputation of a perfect obedience.

1 must again produce two witnesses together, and two of the
best, I presume, that have appeared in the world since the days
of the apostles: I mean Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Wesley.

The quotations are the production of Mr. Goodwin, but Mr.
W^esley has made them his own, by incorporating them into his
works, as the reader will find by reading the 23d volume, Bristol
edition, 1773.

« If Christ had fulfilled the law ia our stead, till the uttermost
period of his life, there had been no necessity of his dying for us.
There is no light clearer than this. For if we stand before God,
by virtue of the perfect obedience of Christ imputed to us as our
own, perfectly righteous, we are no more obnoxious to the curse
of the law, and consequently have no need of any satisfaction to
divine justice, nor of any remission of sins by blood. There needs
nothing more to a perfect justification, than a perfect righteous-
ness, or a perfect fulfilling of the law: this the apostle clearly lay-
eth down. Gal. ii. 21. If righteousness be by the law (whether
performed by ourselves, or by another for us) then Christ is dead
in vain." Wesley^s Works, page 10, 11.

*igain: — "It hath no foundation, either in scripture or reason,
to say that Christ, by any imputation of sins was m&dn formally a
sinner: or, that sin in any other sense was imputed to him, than as
the punishment due to it was inflicted on him. So Bishop Dave*
nant makes the imputation of sin to Christ, to stand in the trans,-
latioQ of the punishment of sin upon him. And in another place.
Z

0i> AN ESSAY ON THE

Christ was willing so to take our sins upon him, as not to be made
a sinner hereby, but a sacritiee for sin." page 20.

From this it evidently follows; 1. That Christ remained per-
fectly innocent: 2. That he came under no obligation of justice to
sufter, and consequently justice could never demand it of him as a
penalty, otherwise justice can demund penalties of the innocent.—'
But let the witnesses speak for themselves.

" In this sense, Christ may be said to have suffered the penalty
or curse of the law. First, it was the curse, or penalty of the law,
BOW ready to be executed upon all men for sin, that occasioned his
suffering. Had not the curse of the law been incurred by man,
Christ had not suffered at all. Again: 2dly, Christ may be said
to have suffered the curse of the law, because the things which ho
suffered were of the same kind (at least in part) with those which
God intended, by the curse of the law against transgressors, name-
ly, rfenf/i. But if, by the curse of the law, we understand, either
that entire system of penalties, which the law itself intends in the
term death, or the intent of the law, touching the quality of the
persons on whom it was to be executed; in neither of these senses
did Christ suffer the curse of the law; neither ever hath it, nor
ever shall be suffered, by any transgressors of the law that shall
believe in him. So that God required the death and sufferings of
Christ, not that the law properly, either in the letter or intention
of it, might be executed, but on the contrary, that it might not be
executed upon those that believe." page 2i,22.

Now, if the curse of the law has not been suffered by Christ, in
the full sense, either in the letter or intention of it; if it never luithy
atid never shall be suffered "by any transgressors of the law that
shall believe in him;" it is clear that it never has been, and never
shall be suffered by either the sinner or his surety: consequently,
Christ died to make it just for God to blot out the penally, or de-
liver us from punishment, by granting us a gracious pardon.

Once more: " In this sense of imputation (and this only) the sins
of men may be said to be imputed to Christ, namely, because he
suffered the things which he did suffer, in consideration of them:
and these sufferings of his may be said to be imputed to us, be-
cause we are rewarded, that is, justified and saved in considera-
tion of them. But that either our sins should be said to be im-
puted to Christ, because he is reputed by God to have committed
them, or that his righteousness, whether active or passive, should
be said to be imputed to us, because we are reputed by God to

PtAN OF SALVATION. i,n

have done or suffered the one or the other, hath no foundation
either in scripture or reason." page 30, 31.

" God hath opened another way for the justification of sinners,
namely, faith in Christ, and he never sets up one way against
another. Therefore to affirm, that the fulfiling of the law is re-
quired of any man, either by himself or by another in his stead,
for his justification, is to affirm, either that a man that hath sin-
ned, hath not sinned, or that, that which God hath said, he hath
unsaid." page 33.

Now I infer, if the fulfiling of the law is not required of any
man, either by himself or by any other in his stead, those breaches
of the law which true believers have been guilty of, have been
properly forgiven, and that the demand of the law in those cases,
has never been rendered by any one, either by obeying or suffer-
ing; otherwise it cannot with truth be said, that the fulfilling of
the law is not required of such a man, unto his justification, either
by himself or by another in his stead. Consequently, if Mr.
Goodwin and Mr. Wesley be in the right, Christ never died to
save sinners, by means of a legal righteousness, imputed to them
or fulfilled in their stead, but to make it consistent with the na-
ture of God to grant pardon: that is, graciously to forbear requir-
ing a fulfilment of the law in those eases, either by obeclience or
penalty.

« Lastly, in case a man hath transgressed the law, and suffered
(whether by himself or some other for him) the full punishment of
it, he is no farther a debtor to it, either in point of obedience, or
of punishment, nor hath any thing to do with the law more or
less, for his justification; because the punishment which hath
heen so suffered, is of equal consideration to the law, with the
most absolute conformity to its precepts. So that as no man is ot
ever was, bound to fulfil the law twice over, for his justification:
so neither is it equal, that he, that hath suffered in full the penal-
ty of the law, which is as satisfactory to it as the exactest obedi-
ence, should be still bound to the observation of the law (whether
by himself or any other) for his justification; this being all one, as
the requiring a second obedience to the law, after a man hath per-
fectly fulfiled it once." page 98, 99.

Thus, the whole I contend for, is affirmed in the most unequivo-
cal manner.

It is an easy thing, I know, for a mind blinded by prejudice, to
affirm, that the doctrine here defended is false, and that Mr. Good-

0^ AN ESSAY ON THE

win and Mr, Wesley have said nothing in favour of it; hut I must
request every person of candour and cuniiuon sense, to look back
at those quotations, and tell me if it be not declared most eocpress-
ly, 1. That if sinners were justified, in consequence of having per-
fectly obeyed the law, either by themselves, or by another in their
stead, there would be no place for remission of sins. 2, That if
they were juslitied, in consequence of a full discharge of the pe-
nalty, whether by themselves or any other, it would be of equal
consideration to the law, with the most absolute conformity to its
precepts, and thereibre would involve the same consequences. —
And, 3. That tliis would be all one, as the requiring a second obe»
diepce to the law, after a man hath perfectly fultiled it once.

This being so fully in point, to establish every thing that can
be desired in confirmation of the subject, and that from such high
authority, 1 shall trouble my reader at present with the testimo-
ny or judgment of only one more writer on the Arminian side.

We find a short essay on the atonement, in the Methodist Maga-
zine, founded on this motto from Ur. S. Clark " the design of me-
4iation was, that God would testify his hatred and indignation
against sin, by consigning the pardon of it, through the blood of
the Mediator,"

<.'God, who is not only a Being supremely excellent in goodness,
but a most wise governor, was disposed so to dispense his pardon-
ing grace to IV sinful world, as at the same time to encourage men
to repent, aud to prevent their presuming on his goodness, and
abusing its rich discoveries by greater eorruptionand wickedness."

<'What cquld more demonstrate the will of the Divine Being, to
advance holiness, and destroy the very seeds of vice, than his sub-
jecting, for this end, his only Son to the meanness and labours of
a mortal condition, and the suifering of death?

"If it be ot^jef'ted, where is the justice of punishing the innocent,
that the guilty may go free; 1 answer, there is no injustice in per-
mitting those evils to fall on the innocent, which to the guilty are
punishnK;nt^ of sin, when important ends of the divine government
are hereby answered."

Suppose a ki"g? nut of a concern to maintain his authority, and
secure the future obedience of his subjects, refuse, even at the re-
quest of his only Son to recall banishttd rebels, unless the Son
would partake of their banishment, and endeavour personally tp
reclaim them to a sense of their rebellion and of their duty, and the
prince willingly undertake this^ it it^ certain by living a time with

PLAN OF SALVATION. iTy

the banished, he suflTers the punishment of their rebellion, though
himself innocent; and this, without any injustice, because it is his
own voluntary act, and because he hath the satisfaction of reclaim-
ing the banished, and as a reward, sees them restored to forfeited
favour, and receives himself a share in his Father's throne." Me-
thodist Magazine for the year 1811, vol. 34:, page 30, 32, 34.

Leaving the reader to make his own comment on this quotation,
I will close this section with a few remarks upon our twentieth ar-
ticle. The article stands thus; <'the offering of Christ once made, is
that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the
sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is
none other satisfaction for sin but that alone."

Here it is unequivocally affirmed,

1. That a perfect propitiation or satisfaction has been made for
ain, by the oft'ering of Christ.

3. That this satisfaction is made both for original and actual
sin.

3. That it is made for the whole world of mankind.

4. That it is made for all the sins of the whole world, and of
course for final unbelief, unless it can be proved that this is not a
gin, or not a sin belonging to any man in the whole world.

Does our article mean by this satisfaction, that the sentence
of the law was executed, by an inflexible demand of justice, and
that all penalties were thus legally discharged by Christ for all
the sins of the whole world.'' "If so, every sinner in the whole world
js as free from all penalties, as God is free from absolute injustice.

But we believe all men who die in their sins will have to suffer
the penalty, as though Christ had never died for them: I therefore
conclude the meaning of the article is, that Christ rendered such
satisfaction as made it just for God to pardon any sinner in the
world, on condition of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ.

Some appear to think Christ discharged all penalties, except
for the sin of final unbelief; but when a sinner submits to the con-
ditions of the gospel, is not his former unbelief forgiven, as well
as his other sins? If so, they must confess the sin of unbelief has
been expiated, because it has sometimes been forgiven after hav.
ing been indulged for forty years. Do they mean that it is the last
act of unbelief, for which no atonement was made.^ And is this the
only act for which sinners are to be punished in a future state?
J^o: *' For God shall bring every work into judgment with ever?
secret thing, whether it be good, or evil. — Ecclesiastes, xii. 14.

iU AN ESSAY ON THE

Now it is just and consistent for sinners to be punished eternal-
ly, "for the very sins which were expiated by Christ," or it i»
not; If it is, then what necessity of his leaving some sins without
being expiated, and why recur to this subterfuge to prove the con-
sistency and justice of the sinner's condemnation? If it is not, the
eonclusion follows, either that all for whom he died will infallibly
be saved, or that there is some particular sin for which he did not
die and for Mhich alone peniteirt sinners will be punished, without
ever having to account or suiter for the generality of their trans-
gressions. Thus we should contradict our articles of religion to-
gether with the whole tenor of the scriptures.

SECTION VI.

The testimony of e7nimnt Calvinistic Divines.

I propose now to show that our Calvinist brethren themselves
are forced into this doctrine, whenever they attempt to give any
reasonable account of their views of redemption.

To this end I shall take the liberty to give a quotation from
Dr. Andrew Fuller, reminding the reader that those passages
which directly point to the subject I have attempted to explain,
are put in Italics.

" The sense of mankind, with regard to the necessity of a Me-
diator, may be illustrated by the following similitude. Let us
suppose a division in the army of one of the wisest and best of
kings, through the evil counsel of a foreign enemy, to have been
disaffected to his government; and that without any provocation
on his part, they traitorously conspired against his crown and life.
The attempt failed; and the offenders were seized, disarmed, tried
by the laws of their country, and condemned to die. A respite
however was granted them, during his Majesty's pleasure. At
this solemn period, while every part of the army, and of the em-
pire, was expecting the fatal order for execution, the king was em-
ployed in meditating mercy. But how conld mercy be shewn? "To
make light of a conspiracy," said he to his friends, would loosen
tiie bands of good governmentt other divisions of the army might be

PLAN OF SAUVATION. 179

tempted to follow their example^ and the nation at large might be
in danger of imputing it to tameness, fear, or some unworthy mo-
tive."

" Every one felt in this case the necessity of a mediator, and
agreed as to the general line of conduct proper for him to pursue.
He must not attempt,' said they, * to compromise the ditter-
enccs by dividing the blame: that would make things worse. He
must justify the king, and condemn the outrage committed against
him; he must oflfer, if possible, some honourable expedient, by
means of which the bestowment of pardon shall not relax, but
strengthen just authority; he must convince the conspirators of
their crime, and introduce them in the character of supplicants;
and mercy must be shewn them out of respect to him or for his
sake.

" But who could be found to mediate in such a cause.'' This was
an important question. A work of this kind, it was allowed on
all hands, required singular qualilieations.

" He must be perfectly clear of any participation in the of-
fence,' said one, ' or inclination to favour it.'

" He must,' said another, ' be one, who on account of his char*
acter and services stands high in the esteem of the king and of the
public: a mediator in effect pledges his honor that no evil will re-
sult to the state from the granting- of his request."

« I conceiv e it is necessary,' said a third, ' that the weight of
the mediation should bear a proportion to the magnitude of the
«rime, and to the value of the favour requested ; and that for this
end it is proper he should be a person oi' great dignity,

" A fourth remarked, that he must possess a tender compassion
towards the unhappy offenders, or he would not cordially interest
himself in their behalf.

" Finally, it was suggested by a fifth, that " for the greater fit-
ness of the proceeding, it would be proper that some relation or
«onnexiou should subsist between the parties.

" Meanwhile the king and his son, w horn he greatly loved, and
whom he had appointed generalissimo of all his forces, had retired
from the company, and were conversing about the matter, which
attracted the general attention.

" My son, said the benevolent sovereign, what can be done in
behalf of these unhappy men,^* To order them for execution, vio-
lates every feeling of my heart: yet to pardon them is dangerous.
If mercy be exercised, it must be through a mediator; and who is
qualifted to mediate in such a cause? and what expedient can be

180 AN ESSAY ON THE

devised by means of which pardon shall not relax, hut strengthen
just authority: speak, my son, and say what measures can be pur-
sued?

" My father,' said the prince, * I feel the insult offered to your
person and government, and the injury thereby aimed at the em-
pire at large. They deserve to die without mercy. Yet 1 feel for
them. I cannot endure to witness their execution. What shall I
sav? On me be this wrong! Let me suffer in their stead. Inflict
on me as much as is necessary to impress the army and the nation
with a just sense of the evil, and of the importance of good order and
faUhful allegiance. Let it be in their presence, and in the pre-
sence of all assembled. When this is done, let them be permitted
to implore and receive your majesty's joarrfon in my name. If any
man refuse so to implore, and so to receive it, let him die the
death.

" My son!' replied the king, ' you have expressed my heart!
The same things have occupied my mind; but it was my desire that
you should be voluntary in the undertaking. It shall be as you have
said. The dignity of your person and character will render the
sufferings of aw hour, of greater account as to the impression of the
public mind, than if all the rebellious had been executed: and by
how much I am known to have loved you, by so much will my
compassion to them, and my displeasure against their wicked con-
duct be made manifest^

" The gracious design being communicated at court, all were
struck with it. The only diffieully that was started, was amongst
the judges of the realm. They, at first, questioned whether the
proceeding was admissible. ' The law,' said they, ' makes
provision for the transfer of debts, but not of crimes. Its language
is, the soul that sinneth it shall die." But when they came to
view tilings on a more enlarged Sfo^e, considering it as an expedi-
ent on an extraordinary occasion, and pereeiviug that the spirit of
the law would be preserved, and ail the ends of good govern-
ment answered, they were satisfied. " It is not a measure," said
they, " for which the law provides, yet it is not contrary to the
law, but above it. [Goodness is more than justice.]

" The day appointed arrived. The prince appeared, and suf-
fered as a criminal. Returning to the palace, amidst the tears
and shouts of the loyal spectators, the suffering hero was embraced
fcy his royal lather; who, in addition to the natural affection
^hich he bore to him as a son, loved him for his singular interposi-

FLAN OF SALVATION. I8i

tioii at such a crisis. < Sit thou,' said he, < at my right hand!
though the threatenings of the law be not literally accomplished,
yet the spirit of them is preserved, the honour of good government
is secured, and the end of punishment is more effectually an-
swered, than if all the rebels had been sacrificed. Ask of me, my
son, what I shall give thee!"

*' He asked for the offenders to be introduced as supplicants at
the feet of his father, for the forgiveness of their crimes, and for
the direction of affairs till order and happiness should be perfectly
restored.

" A proclamation, addressed to the conspirators, was now issu-
ed, stating what had been their conduct, what the conduct of the
king, and what of the prince. Messengers also were appointed to
carry it, with orders to read it publickly, and to expostulate with
them individually, beseeching them to be reconciled to their of-
fended sovereign, and to assure them, that if they rejected this*
there remained no more hope of mercy.

" When the proclamation was read, many paid no manner of at-
tention to it; some insinuated that the messengers were interested
men, and that there might be no truth in what they said; and some
even abused them as impostors.

" My heart,' says one, ' rises against every part of this pro-
ceeding. Why all this ado about a few words spoken one to
another.'*'

" If a third person,' says another, ' must be concerned in tha
affair, what occasion is there for one so high in rank and dig^
Hity? To stand in need of such a mediator, must stamp our char-
acters with everlasting infamy.'

" I believe,' says a fourth, 'that the king knows very well that
we have not had justice done us, and therefore this mediation bu*
siness is introduced to make us amends for the injury.'

" You are all wrong,' says a fifth,' I comprehend the design,
and am well pleased with it. I hate the government as much as
any of you: but I love the mediator; for I understand it is his inten«>
tion to deliver me from its tyranny. He has paid the debt, the
king is satisfied, and I am free. I will sue out my right, and rfe-
mand my liberty.^'' See the Gospel its own Witness, &c. page 141,
142, &c. &c.

Mr. Fuller afterwards introduces Paine's objection, that « the
doctrine of redemption has for its basis an idea of pecuniary jus-
tice, and not that of moral justice." And in answering it he ob-
Aa

19^ AN ESSAY ON THE

«ervcs, " A mnrderer owes his life to the justice of his country;
and when he suffers, he is said to pay the awful debt. So also if a
great character, by suffering death, could deliver his country, suet
deliverance would be spoken of as obtained by the price of blood.
No one mistakes these things by understanding them of pecuniary
transactions. In such connexions, every one perceives that tlie
terms are used not literally but metaphorically; and it is thus that
they are to be understood with reference to the death of Christ."
Page 154.

He says again, page 156, " Redemption by Jesus Christ was ac-
eomplished, tiot by a satisfaction that should preclude the exercise
of grace in forgiveness, but in which the displeasure of God
against sin being manifested, mercy to the sinner might be exer-
eised without any suspicion of his having relinquished his regards
for righteousness.^^ Again:

After mentioning some who " have considered the death of
Christ as purchasing repentance and faith, as well as all other
spiritual blessings, on behalf of the elect; and upon this ground
have maintained that God is bound in strict justice, in respect to
Jesus Christ, to confer grace and glory on all those for whom he
died:" he observes, " The writer of these pages, acknowledges
he never could perceive that any clear or determinate idea was
conveyed by the term purchase in this connexion, nor does it ap-
pear to him to be a doctrine taught in the scriptures. The notion
of grace being bestowed, on account of value received, appears to
him inconsistent with the freeness of grace itself, and with the
perfection of the divine being, to whom nothing can be added or
given which can lay him under obligation."

He concludes upon the whole, « If we say, a way was opened
by the death of Christ for the free and consistent exercise of mercy,
in all the methodsivhich sovereign wisdom saw fit to adopt, perhaps
we shall include every material idea which the scripture gives
us of that important event." Page 157.

Now I must appeal to the good sense of the world, and ask if
these quotations be not a plain defence and illustration of the sub-
ject in question? Is it possible to make them accord with the
Antinomian doctrine of atonement? No: they are a positive and
express contradiction of it; and afford unequivocal evidence, that
even those good men who have been unhappily entangled in the
horrors of reprobation, are forced into our system whenever they
attempt to give any consistent account of their views of salvation
through J#8U8 Christ.

PLAN OF SALVATION, ltd

Our doctrine is also advanced by the Rev. Samuel Davis, some-
time president of the college in New Jersey.

Id his first volume of sermons, speaking of God, he says, « His
goodnesH is that of a ruler, and not of a private person; ai^d hi»
pardoning of sin, and receiving ofteuders into favour, are not pri-
vate kindnesses, but acts of government, and therefore they must
be conducted with the utmost wisdom; for a Mrong step in his in-
finite administration, which aftects such innumerable multitudes
of subjects, would be an infinite evil, and might admit of no re-
paration."

« These things I hope are sufficient to convince your under-
standings that divine justice is not that unkind, cruel, and savage
thing sinners are wont to imagine it; but that God is just, because
God is love; and that he punishes not because he is the enemy,
but because lis is the friend of his creatures, and because he loves
the whole too well to let particular ofifenders do mischief with im-
punity."

"It may perhaps be objected," 'That to represent justice under
the notion of love, is to aftect singularity in language, to destroy
the distinction of the divine attributes, and the essential differen-
ces of things.' — To which I answer, 1. That a eatachresis may be
beautiful and emphatieal, though it be always a seeming impro-
priety in language. Such is this representation, 'divine justice,
divine love.' 2. I do not deny that God's executing righteous pun-
ishment upon the guilty may be called justice; but then it is his
love to the public that excites him to do this; and therefore his do-
ing it may be properly denominated love, as well as justice, or
love under the name of justice, which is love still. 3. 1 do not mean
that the usual names of things should be changed, but that we
should affix suitable ideas to them. We may retain the name of
justice still, but let us not affix ideas to it that are inconsistent
with divine love. Let us not look upon it as the attribute of a ty-
rant, but of a wise and good ruler."-/SVrmon on God is Love, vol. i
page 4-5 3. 454.

Here are two important principles laid down: 1. that goodness
and justice operate in constant harmony, and can never be contra-
dictory to each other. 2. That " it is his love to the public that
excites him to execute righteous punishment upon the guilty be-
cause he loves the whole too well to let particular ofifenders da-
mischief with impunity." Hence it follows, that all the satisfac-
tion goodness or justice wanted in the free-pardon of the guilty,
was that the ends of government, and the general welfare should!

18* AN ESSAY ON THE

be secured. This is effectually done by the glorious Redeemer, and
therefore through him sinners may be freely forgiven.

That this was Mr. Davies's judgment in the matter, is very
clear from his own words in another place. For, speaking of re-
demption, he says, "God being considered in this affair in his pub-
lic character, as supreme Magistrate, or Governor of the w orld,
all the punishment which he is concerned to see inflicted upon
sin is, only such as answers the ends of good government. Private
revenge must vent itself upon the very person of the offender, or
be disappointed. But to a ruler, as such, it may in some cases be
indiffertint, whether the punishment be sustained by the very per-
son that offefided, or by a substitute suffering in his stead. It may
also be indifferent, whether the very same punishment, as to kind
and degree, threatened in the law, be inflicted, or a punishment
equivalent to it. If the honour of the ruler and his government be
maintained, it' all disobedience be properly discouraged^ H' iu short,
all the ends of government can be ansiaered, such things as these
are indifferences. Consequently, if these ends should be answered
by Christ suffering in the stead of sinners, there xvould be no ob-
jection against it." — Sermon on " the Method of Salvation through
Jesus Christ." page li-i.

Again he says, page 116, "Was it difficult how to reconcile the
salvation of sinners, and the public good? that is, how to forgive
sin, and yet give an effectual warning against it? How to receive
the sinner into favour, and to advance him to the highest honour
and happiness, and in the mean time deter all other beings from
offending.? All this is provided for in the sufterings of Christ. Let
all worlds look to his cross, and receive the warning which his
wounds and dying agonies proclaim aloud^ and sure they can ne-
ver dare to offend after the example of man. Now they may see
that the only instance of pardon to be found in the universe, was
not brought about but by such means as are not likely to be re-
peated: by the incarnation and death of the Lord of Glory. And
can they flatter themselves that he will leave his throne, and
bang upon a cross, as often as any of his creatures w antonly
dare to offend him? No: such a miracle as this, the utmost effort of
divine grace, is not often to be renewed; and therelore, if they dare
to sin, it is at their peril. They have no reason to flatter them-
selves they shall be favoured like fallen man; but rather to ex-
pect they shall share in the doom of fallen angels."

Nothing can be plainer from these quotations, than the great and
interesting principle under consideration; namely, that Christ

PLAN OF SALVATION 186

sever came to give the sinner a legal discharge from all demand*
of'tha divine law; but he bore the sins of the whole world in suck
a sense only, as should "reconcile the salvation of sinners, and the
public good; that is, that God might /or^iue sin, and yet give an
effectual warding against it."

It is true, Mr. Davies advances some things in other placesj and
•ven in the sanre sermon, which I cannot reconcile with the above
quotations; but t.iis proves only that the good understandings of
our brelhrew .vere so influenced and filled with the light of truth,
that they were somstimes constrained to give their testimony in its
J^ehalf, though they thereby sapped the foundation of some peculiar
opinions which they had unhappily espoused without sufficient ex-
amination.

President Davies was what some have termed a moderate Cal-
vinist. I am convinced, from the character given of him, that he Mas
a man of a generous mind, of a true spirit of christian piety, and
of an excellent, improved understanding. Some may think this a
gulftcient reason for receiving ail his opinions; but I cannot, because
this rule of searching after truth was never given by our Heavenly
Master, and if we were to follow it, we should be led to receive
contradictions, as other men of equal character and abilities have
espoused very different opinions from those of his persuasion.

Now let me appeal to my friends and fellow labourers, who glory
in preaching a free salvation for all the world: and permit me to
ask, whether we must be backward in proclaiming the whole truth,
while the light of it shines so bright that others are constrained to
publish it abroad, notwithstanding its opposition to their system,
and its inseparable connexion with ours.''

While they declare that Christ came to vindicate the govern-
ment, and thus introduce the sinner to a throne of grace to obtain
a free pardon, and yet inconsistently maintain that all for whom
he died must inevitably be saved, or else his blood was shed in
vain: shall we involve ourselves in alike inconsistency, by saying
with one breath, Christ died only to make salvation possible for all,
and with the next, that he really discharged all penal sanctions
that lay against every sinner in the world? This sui-ely would be
»ore than making salvation possible for all, because it would
make the salvation of all men as absolutely necessary, as it is for
God's law never to demand two penalties, or never to inflict the
same penalty twice over.

ifiS AN ESSAY ON THE

CHAPTER III.

THE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF REASON AND REVELATION, IN DEFENCE
OF THE DOCTRINE STATED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER^

SECTION I.

»3 brief view of the nature of forgiveness.

The mysterj' ofaionemcnt, like that of the Trinity, has been
thought too sacred for human reason to examine; or at least, that
it is dangerous, not to say presumptuous, for men to labour by sub-
tle reasonings to obviate the difficulties in which it seems to be in-
volved.

We have indirectly acknowledged to our infidel objectors, that
our principles dare not approach the light, and their writers have
gladly availed themselves of our concessions, to increase the ef-
fect of that insinuating ridicule, with which they wage a perpetual
war against our benevolent religion.

" I am the better pleased with this method of reasouing," says
Mr. Hume, in his Essay on Miracles, "as I think it may serve
to confound those dangerous friends, or disguised enemies, to the
christian religion, who have undertaken to defend it upon the
principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded
on faith, not on reason; and 'tis a sure method of exposing it to put
it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure." Hume's
Essays, vol. ii. page 198.

Thus it appears, that Mr. Hume was very confident, that it is
imprudent to bring the christian mysteries to a close inspection,
and that those are dangerous friends to the christian religion, or
disguised enemies, who attempt to defend it upon the principles of
human reason. Are not some christian divines of the same opi-
nion? H' so, is there not an agreement of sentiment between them
and Mr. Hume? And who is nearest to infidelity, the man who
agrees with deists, that Christianity is in danger of being exposed
when too closely examined, or he who differs from them in this
important point, and says with Dr. Campbell, «We scorn to take

1»LAN OF SALVATION. isr

shelter in obscurity, and meanly to decline the combat; confident
as we are, that reason is our ally and our friend, and glad to find
that the enemy at length so violently suspects her?"*

The reason why atonement has appeared to be such a danger-
ous mystery, is, that the Antinomian notion of it is founded on a
palpable contradiction. Justice and mercif have been considered
as two principles in the divine nature, which were contradictory
to each other, till they were reconciled by the Redeemer. Thus
it would seem, our Saviour came into the world for the purpose of
reconciling contradictions.

Did the attributes of God contradict each other before sin en-
tered into the creation? If not, they could not do it afterwards,
unless we say, sin made a change in the Divine Nature: and if
they were always opposed to each other, till Christ reconciled
them, it follows, that he came from Heaven to change the nature
of that Immortal Being, with whom is no variableness or shadow
of turning.

The divine perfections agreed as harmoniously in the plan of
restoring creatures from guilt and misery, after their fall, as in
their creation or government before; and as goodness was no more
disposed to appoint a plan of restoring God's creatures, which
should be contrary to justice, than in tirst forming a plan of gov-
erning them, it is evident that justice was as far from contradict-
ing its operations in one case as in the other.

If justice demanded that sin should never be forgiven, but that
all sinners should stand condemned, until it should be unjust to
condemn them any longer; and if Christ came to render this
demand, it is evident his death was so far from reconciling justice
and mercy together, that it confirmed their irreconcilable opposi-
tion, and blotted mercy out of existence.

But nothing is more evident from the Bible than this soul-cheer-
ing truth, that mercy belongeth unto God, and is daily exercised
towards the fallen children of men.

Among all the dlfterent sectaries in Christendom, I have never
heard of any who professedly called this principle into question,
or denied its being an essential doctrine of revelation. However
we differ in other matters, we all profess to agree in the existence
of this gracious attribute, on which we depend for eternal life, and
without which we could never hope for pardon. The unmerited

* See his Lectures and Dissertations, bound together, p. 429.

188 AN ESSAY ON THE

kindness of our Maker, not only diffuses happiness through the
heavenly regions, but extends its benign iuiiuenees to the fallen
and the guilty. This is evident from the structure of the Heavens
and the earth; more so, from the testimony of Moses and the
Prophets; and more still from the gospel of Jesus Christ, which
having "brought life and immortality to light, has proclaimed a
gracious pardon to the world, free for every sinner who will re-
pent and believe the record God has given of his Son."

The doctrioe of forgiveness is as universally admitted, among
chrisiians, as that of the Divine Mercy, and is justly considered as
a consequence of it; but the nature of this act ol pardon or justifi-
cation has long been a subject of controversy, chiefly, perhaps,
because the disputants did not understand each other, and were
not fully aware of theambiguiiy of their language, and the indis-
tinctness of their conceptions.

Let us endeavour to conceive this subject clearly, that we may
know what we mean, and what we believe concerning it: till we
do this we shall be in danger of disputing about words, and of dis-
senting from those, who, when they rightly conceive our meaning,
are of the same sentiment with ourselves.

The act of pardon is an act of the divine will: it is no act of the
sinner's will, nor does it consist in any change produced upon him.
It is true, indeed, that the performance of the condition on which
the pardon is suspended is an act of the sinner's will: it is true like-
wise, that he experiences a gracious change wrought in him, as a
consequence of his pardon; but if we say, on the one hand, that the
pardon consists in the act of the sinner's will, we say he forgives
himself; and if, on tlie other, that it consists in the change produc-
ed in him, we confound pardon with sanctilication, and suppose
the sinner stands in the same relation to God he did before; seeing
we make forgiveness signify merely a change of his nature,
which is surely as distinct from forgiveness, as the act of a phy-
sician is different from that of a governor.

Many justified believers still need the sanctification of their na-
ture, but all men before they are justified, need deliverance from
the penal consequences of their crimes, as well as from their natu-
ral effects: none but God can grant us this deliverance, and that
act of his will which remits the sentence, or fori>eais the execution
of it, is what we understand by the grant of pardon.

The proper and only subject of forgiveness is a rebel who justly
deserves the penalty. It is ridiculous to talk of granting pardon
to the innocent. And if a sinner be delivered from the sentence
any other way than by au act of pardon, he certainly needs no for-

PLAN OP SALVATION. 189

giveness, because he has, by other means, obtained as complete a
deliverance from the sentence of death, as any act of pardon co Id
possibly aftbrd him. If a sinner be now exposed to the penalty, it
stands in full force against him, and it would be just for the sen-
tence to he executed upon him immediately; if he be not exposed
to it, and yet has never obtained forgiveness, it follows that he
has been delivered some other way, and upon principles of pure
justice will be eternally free from the infliction of it, though no
pardon should ever be granted.

The principle from which forgiveness flows, is that of benevo-
lence.

Sinners, by their rebellion, hate forfeited their right to demand
exemption from the curse due to the guilty; the death of Christ
was not intended to restore that right to sinners, otherwise they
would have the same demand they had in a state of innocence,
and consequently be as free from the want of pardon*

Ood is not bound in a debt of justice to any criminal, however
penitent, seeing the claim of innocence is forfeited by sin; and as
there is no right of demand in the sinner, there can be no corres-
ponding obligation on his sovereign to remit the sentence^ or deli-
ver him from the penalty.

But it must be carefully observed in the mean time, that al-
though God is under no obligation, in his individual relation to the
criminal, yet he has graciously bound himself by promise, to par-
don all sinners who will repent and believe the gospel. This pro-
mise he has confirmed by an oath, and sealed it by the blood of
the everlasting covenant. Therefore his veracity, and of course
his unchangeable character, is pledged before the whole universe,
to receive and pardon all sinners, who will truly submit to the go-
vernment of the Lord Jesus Christ: consequently he could not vi-
olate those promises and sacred pledges, without involving his
character and government in such darkness and contradiction, as
would throw the minds of all his innocent children into confusion.
In this sense he may be said to be bound by his justice; but this bond
arises, not from a restoration of the sinner's right to the demands
of innocence, but from his own voluntary goodness, pledging him-
self by promise or benevolent engagement, to remit the sentence
on certain specified conditions.

Every innocent creature, as before observed, has an individual
and inherent right to the character and consequences of innocence:
of course he has a just demand upon every being, not to de&troy
Bb

t99 AN ESSAY ON THE

his character of innocence by false imputations of guilt, or to pun-
ish him as a criminal. But all tliis being forfeited by sin, the re-
bel has no demand or claim to the character of innocence, or to be
exempted from the penalfy of justice. Neither the death of
Christ, nor the promises of God were ever intended to restore the
eriginal rights of innocence to sinners in this probationary state:
but to entitle them to the privilege of obtaining pardon and salva-
tion, on gospel conditions, from the clemency of their gracious so-
Tereign.

After their probation shall have ended; after every act of bene-
volence shall have been completed; and after their intelligent and
moral nature shall have been restored and perfectly fitted for the
regions of eternal happiness; — then the rights of innocence will
be theirs in common with all the heavenly hosts: but we have no
evidence to believe any man is in this state till he is fully sealed
to the day of eternal redemption.

Whether any man be thus fully sealed on this side death, I pre-
sume not to decide; but that seal, whenever he receives it, must be
considered as the closing point of his probation.

Mr. Baxter and Mr. Wesley agree, that "justification is not a
single act, begun and ended immediately upon our believing; but
a continued act, which, though it be ia its kind complete from the
first, yet is still in doing, till the final justification in the judg-
ment day. That the justified may pray for the continuance of their
justification, and that Christ's satisfaction and our faith are of
continual use, and not to be laid by, as if the work was done."
Wesleifs fForlcs, vol. 22, page 178.

The conclusions I would draw from what has been said, and
which I hope to defend in the sequel, are these;

1. That Christ never came under any obligation to suffer, but
that of benevolence, pledged by way of promise.

2. That God in Christ never came under any other obligation
to any sinner of'Adam's race.

3. That no sinner has any more inherent right to demand par'
don from God, than he had to demand the death of Christ, for his
redemption.

4. That Christ died to make it just for sinners to be forgiven,
and finally saved, on condition of repentance, fiiith and gospel
obedience.

3. That even upon the performance of those conditions, Christ's
death has not bound God, iu any other sense than as it has been

PLAN OF SALVATION. 191

given as a seal of his gracious promise, engagement or covenant
with his creatures.

We have been told, on the contrary, that Christ has done and
suffered all that sinners were bound to do or to suffer: that he
obey«d the whole law and suffered the whole penalty, in their
stead; and that his tibedience and sufferings are so made over, or
transfered to the sinner, by some mysterious imputation, that
God really views him as having done all the law required, and
as having suffered tlie whole penalty it demanded. This system
is clogged with the following consequences:

First: it charges God with being an unjust extortioner: for if an
obedience has been rendered to the law, pei'feetly equal to its dc:-
mand, all penalties are necessarily precluded; unless we say a
lavv perfectly obeyed demands a penalty. For what does it de-
mand a penalty? Not for disobedience, because it has been per-
fectly obeyed: the penalty then must be for obedience or for no-
thing at all. If the sinner, by imputation, be really clothed with
a perfect righteousness, exactly such as the law demands, it
would be forever unjust for any penalty to be inflicted either oc
him or his surety.

Secondly: clothed in this perfect righteousness, he appeals to
inflexible justice as the ground of his justification; he looks up to
the law for protection, having fulfilled every precept in his surety;
he justly demands an exemption from the curse, and stands in uo
more need of pardon than the brightest angel there is in heaven.

Thirdly: if God demanded that the whole penalty should be ac-
tually inflicted before any sinner should escape, he certainly re-
solved that sin should never be forgiven; for if we say an infliction
of the whole penalty is no proof that the siu was not pardoned, it
may be true that the sins of all that are in hell have been forgi-
ven, seeing their suffering the penalty is no proof to the contrary.
If crimes forgiven, and those which are not, must be equally pun-
ished, it is plain to common sense that forgiveness is a mere name
which signifies just nothing.

Fourthly: let our objectors admit, for the sake of argument,
that the death of Christ did not discharge the penalty, but only-
accomplished that which was necessary to make the grant of par-
don accord with the general welfare: would it be just for God to
grant pardon in this way, or not? If it would, then there was no
necessity in justice for Christ to discharge the penalty; if it would
not, then we say God ha^ »o authority to forgive offenders, even
when it can be done in perfect consistency with good government.

493 AN ESSAY ON THE

and with the security of the public welfare. Consequently, that he
has less authority than human rulers, who we know have the pre--
rogative to grant pardon to those w ho have been legally condemn-
ed when it can be done without jeopardising the general welfare
of society.

Fifthly: if we say God has authority to grant pardon, when the
general good is secured, but that he will not do it, until the whole
penalty be endured, these consequences will inevitably follow: i.
That God has no Mercy in his nature. 2. That in demanding pun-
ishment when the public welfare does not reqnire it, he has no re-
gard to the rights or happiness of others as the reason of this de-
mand, and of course that he has no regard to the principle of jusr
lice or benevolence. 3. That this demand arises solely from a sel-
^sh principle, that is, a principle which has no object in view but
its own private gratification. 4. That this private principle or
passion is gratified with another's misery, seeing that misery could
be abolished without injuring any creature in existence. And
•what is the diiference between this principle, and the most con-
firmed and unrelenting malice.^ "can you split this hair.^ I doubt,
I cannot."

Another scheme of redemption is, that Christ came merely to
display the love of God to man, and reconcile man to his heavenly
Father: that God never actually punishes sinners, because there
is no wrath in his nature: but that sin, of its own nature, makes
us miserable; and nothing ijbstructs our salvation but our own op-
position to God and to holiness: and of course Christ did nothing
to satisfy any demand of God, but merely to reconcile the sinner
and bring him back to his allegiance. — See a short treatise on the
atonement, by Mr. Stone.

We cannot receive this doctrine for several reasons.

1. Because it contradicts the scriptures which every where de-
clare that God will execute just judgment upon the wicked, and
that the end of Ciirist's coming was, "that the world through him
might be saved," which surely implies that >Yithout him the world
could not be saved.

2. This doctrine, like the other, contradicts divine justice: for
if God has no wrath against sin, or no justice to punish it, which
is the same thing, it must be because justice is not an attribute of
his nature. Sinners deserve punishment, or they do not; if they de-
serve it, then it is just for it to be inflicted on them, and therefore
t^jsay it is contrary to the nature of God to inflict punishments, is
to say it is contrary to his nature to execute justice upon unrelent-

PLAN OF SALVATIOrf . 198

jng offenders: if, on the contrary, they do not deserve it, then it fol-
Jows that there is no demerit or ill-desert in transgression. And
if misery has no just relation to moral evil (as it cannot have if evil
does not justly deserve it) we should be constrained to say it is as
righteous a thing to punish men for doing good as for doing evil.
Thus the dictates of reason and conscience would be contradicted,
all moral distinctions confounded, no difference left between right
and wrong, and we should find ourselves let loose into the wide
fields of atheism.

3. It also destroys the scripture doctrine of forgiveness: for if
sinners deserve no punishment from God, or stand exposed to no
penalty, there is no sentence to be remitted, and of course a par-
don would be a mere sham that could afford them no more securi-
ty than they possess without it. Their actions, in a moral view,
must deserve punishment, be entitled to reward, or be entirely in-
differentj and if they deserve no punishment, to talk of forgiving
them would be a ridiculous pretence of granting pardon to those
actions which were either rewardable or totally indifferent in their
nature.

If there be no ill-desert in disobedience, we are not bound either
to obey our Maker, or to be just to our fellow creatures; for the
sole reason sinners deserve punishment, if they do deserve it, is,
that they injure others and act in defiance of moral obligation.
And if we be not morally obliged to obey our Maker, he has no
right to demand our obedience, and therefore, all his demands
upon us would be unjust, because it were demanding of us that to
which he has no right. It follows that our obligation to obey, and
God's right to punish for disobedience must stand or fall together,
and if we deny them, we cut dqwn at one stroke, all religion and
morality.

We must therefore renounce these two systems, which would
make the pardon of sinners impossible or unnecessary; we must
reject the notion that Christ died to raise the sinner above the
want of pardon, by discharging all claims against him, as well ag
this latter one which teaches that the laws of God have no penal
sanctions; and we mustmaintain with the apostle that "we have
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, acco^:-
ding to the riches of his grace." Eph. 1. 7.

194 AN ESSAY ON THE

SECTION II.

The nature of justice and benevolence considered, in their relation
to each other.

Dr. Reid must be considered as standing among the most dili-
gent and candid inquirers after truth: and he had as clear con-
ceptions of intellectual and moral subjects, perhaps, as any man
that ever lived. His account of justice is so clear, and so impor-
tant, that I will give it in his own words, and notice the conclu-
sions it will afford us.

"To sum up what has been said on this point," says he^^'a. fa-
vour, an act of justice, and an injunj are so related to one anotlier,
that he who conceives one must conceive the other too. Tliey lie,
as it were, in one line, and resemble the relations of greater, less,
and equal. If one understands what is meant by one line being
greater or less than another, he can be at no lo^s to understajid
what is meant by its being equal to the other: for, if it be neither
greater nor less, it must be equal.

*'In like manner, of those actions by which we profit or hurt
other men, a favour is more than justice, an injury is less; and
that which is neither a favour nor an injury is a, just action.''^

This statement is very clear, and must recommend itself to eve-
ry man's conscience in the sight of God.

But when we illustrate moral principles by the relation of great-
er, less, and equal, it is necessary to observe thait happiness is al-
ways their object. A favour is more than justice: that is, when you
do a favour you give a person more happiness, or more of the
means which are essential to it, than he has a right to demand of
you. "An injury is less:" that is, you injure a person by taking or
withholding from him a part of his good things, whereby you
make his happiness, or the means of it, less than his right of de-
mand.

Thus, injustice always tends to enlarge misery, and benevolence
to enlarge happiness; while justice, occupying a middle ground,
forbids the introduction of misery, and demands the maintenance
of happiness in exact proportion to every one's right, without ei-
ther forbiding or demanding an enlargement of it, above that
standard. Injustice is the only thing that justice ever can forbid,
because it is the only thing that ever sinks below her demand:
Bhe has nothing to forbid or to enjoin upon benevolence, because

PLAN OF SALVATION. 195

tiie essential nature of it is, not only to secure her full demand, but
to rise above it, and bestow more happiness than justice had aright
to claim.

But how, it may be asked, can justice relinquish its demand in
behalf of mercy, in the pardon of a criminal? Answer, the de-
mand of justice is, that the rights of the innocent shall be secured;
benevolence will never grant pardon in any other way but that
which secures them; and therefore justice never relinquishes her
demand.

The office of justice is to defend the public welfare, which this
attribute alone can only do by punishing the guilty; but benevo-
lence interposes, and pledges herself, not only to secure the public
welfare, but also to extend the means of happiness to the guilty.
This is doing more than justice alone could do, whereas injustice
consists in doing less: consequently the demand of justice is not
relinquished, but is completely satisfied, seeing all the happiness
19 secured which was demanded, and even more than was demand-
ed.

As the object of justice is to defend happiness, it can never be
dissatisfied with benevolence for enlarging it, nor with the means
that are necessary to accomplish the end.

If the innocent voluntarily suft'er a temporary evil, to secure an
eternal good to others, this can i>ever be unjust; otherwise we say
the innocent have no right to be benevolent, except in those cases
in which it will cost them nothing.

Justice and injustice are contradictory to each other: the former
tending to maintain happiness, and the latter to destroy it: the
former including a regard to the general welfare, and the latter a
disregard of it. This will surely be granted by every man in the
world.

Now as justice and injustice are contradictory to each otherj
benevolence must of necessity agree with one or the other of them:
if with the latter, it is an essential principle of wickedness; and if
with the former, it is as impossible for justice and mercy to contra-
dict each other as it is for righteousness and wickedness to be the
same thing.

He who loves the principle of justice, delights to see all crea-
tures enjoy the full degree of happiness, which God has given
them a right to claim: he who loves the principle of benevolence,
delights to see them enjoy their full right of demand, and if they
need it, something more: these persons both agree to delight in
geQ«ral happiness, and coBsequently they agree in their opposi-

196 AN ESSAY ON THE.

tion to that injustice, which if not prevented, would fill the uni-'
verse with misery.

From what has been said we may deduce the following plaiu
and interesting conchisions.

There is no possible way for one person to violate justice, but
by injuring another; that is, by doing less for him than he has a
right to claim. Consequently an act of the deity, or of any other
being, which does not infringe upon another's right of demand, is
in perfect harmony with the purest dictates of everlasting right-
eousness.

2. An act of benevolence, being no injury, but the contrary,
stands at the utmost distance from injustice of any thing that can
possibly be imagined. There is as absolute an opposition between
them, as there is between happiness and misery — light and dark-
ness— or any other opposites in nature. To deny this, is to say
positively that God never exercised kindness to any living crea-
ture, or that, whenever he did so, he was guilty of injustice. For at
the moment he bestowed a favour, he had a right to withhold it,
otherwise it was no favour at all; but if he had a right to w ithhold
it, then it was just for him to do so: consequently goodness consists
in giving up a right which justice allows us to retain. Injustice,
on the contrary, consists in withholding a right from another, which
justice demands us to render, and does not allow us to retain. Any
doctrine therefore, which obviously jumbles perfect goodness and
injustice together, as though they were the same thing, is most ri-
diculous and senseless confusion.

3. As goodness cannot violate justice, when God graciously and
freely forgives a sinner, justice is as perfectly satisfied as it would
be with the sinner's damnation: because in this case the right of no
being is withheld from him, but the loving Parent of all mankind
exercises the optional right of goodness, which can dissatisfy no
principle but that of unrelenting barbarity and malevolence.

4. The only case in which the communication of happiness, or
the diminution of misery, can be unjust, is that of one person con-
fering a particular benefit on another, not from the principle of be-
nevolence, but from that of partiality: I mean, when the benefit or
privilege allowed to one will tend to the injury of others.

We will suppose a number of murderers are taken up within
this commonwealth, and cast into prison. They all deserve to die,
and if they were immediately pardoned and set at liberty, justice
would not be satisfied. Why? Because the commonwealth would
be endangered; the citizens would be exposed to their unrestrained

PLAN OF SALVATION. 497

Olalevolence; their rebellion would be encouraged; the governor
would be suspected of a deficiency in <noral principle; his adminis-
tration would be brought into contempt; disaft'ection would be per-
mitted to spread abroad with impunity; anarchy and wretchedness
would advance with rapid strides, and the peace of the common«
wealth would stand in jeopardy every hour. In this case it could
not accord with good government, nor consequently with justice^
for a pardon to be granted; because it would interfere with the
rights of others, and the governor, in setting the prisoners at li-
berty, would not act upon the principle of goodness, which always
regards the general welfare; but upon that oi' partiality, which in*
variably results from some private and selfish passion.

On what condition will justice be satisfied, and allow the pri-
soners to be pardoned and set at liberty? ."Will it never be satis-
fied till the prisoners be authorised, by some means or other, to
demand their liberty, and the governor be bound to render it as
their right.? If so, justice forbids the exercise of any clemency, and
enjoins on the governor to hold the prisoners while he is bound to
do it, and to set them at liberty only because he is equally bound,
and cannot refuse it without violating their right of demand. If
this be our opinion, we ought, as honest men, to speak out, and tell
the world we believe the eternal demand of justice is, that good-
ness, mercy and compassion should be excluded from God, angels
and men.

The criminals have forfeited their right to life and liberty, and
the right to execute the sentence upon them is now in the govern-
or, who, for the security of the public welfare, is bound to execute
them, unless it can be secured in some other way.

Now, supposing the governor to be possessed of power, wisdom
and goodness enough, to devise and execute some plan through
which the pardon of criminals may be made to accord with the
general welfare; who will say that he thereby abolishes the sin-
ner's demerit, and gives him a right in justice to demand the pri-
vileges of an upright citizen, which his crimes had entirely for-
feitedf Who will say that the criminal's right would be violat-
ed by punishing him according to his crimes? It is evident he is
as void of any right to be exempt from punishment as he was be»
fore, and can only look for deliverance in a way of mercy.

But still the governor may act unjustly in his relation to the

commonwealth, by refusing to grant pardon, when the proper terms

are complied with: for, as the plan was devised and executed in

the presence of all, with tht declared intmtion of shewing mercy

C c

i»8 AN ESSAY ON THE

to offenders, and thus extending happiness as far as it could be ex-
tended, consistently with the principles of good government; the
members of the community would have a right to expect an ad-
ministration according to the benevolent intention that had been
thus openly proclaimed.

A subsequent departure from it would prove a want of veracity,
and a manifest deception in the governor. It would afford a just
ground for suspicion, that the original plan of redeeming those
criminals did not result from benevolence, as was pretended, but
from some private passion, or secret partiality, subversive of every
just and equitable government; why else are criminals rejected,
who are fully disposed to avail themselves of the plan of mercy,
and to comply with its conditions?

In this way the supposed ruler would indeed be under obliga-
tion, but not from the crirainars rigbt of exemption, or from any
thing else but the voluntary pledges of his own truth and benevo-
lence.

By applying this to our Maker's government of the moral
world, we may discover the harmony of justice and mercy in the
salvation of a sinner through Jesus Christ. The Redeemer makes
it accord with the general welfare for sin to be forgiven, by a full
demonstration of the divine character in the method of forgive-
ness; but God is not thereby brought under obligation to sin-
ners, farther than he has graciously condescended to bind himself
by promise. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to for-
give us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

5. From the preceding view of the subject, it appears that be-
nevolence is the only thing that merits reward or gratitude, and
injustice is the only source of demerit and punishment: so far are
they from being one and the same thing!

Every one knows that a man merits nothing, and deserves no
thanks, merely for paying his debts; because he was bound in jus-
tice to do it, and did nothing more than his duty. But when
a kind friend, on whom we have no demand, bestows a favour
upon us, we at once perceive tliis to be a praise-worthy action,
and feel ourselves bound under obligations of gratitude. Had
he withheld the favour, he would have done us no wrong,
and we should have had no right to blame or censure him for it:
because, as the benefactor has a right to withhold his favours,
there could be no demerit in his retaining that which was entirely
his own.

For the same reason, there is no proper merit in the mere dis-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 199

cliarge of justice, because it consists in rendering that which is
another^s right, and which we have not the option to retain. If
we refuse to render it, in violation of anotlier's right; this is the
principle and conduct which deserves reproach and misery, be-
cause it inflicts misery on others which they do not deserve. It
operates in contradiction to justice, by infringing upon the rights
of the innocent: and in opposition to goodness, by obslructicg that
fiow of happiness which it w ould communicate: yea, it sets at de-
fiance every just and amiable principle of morality, and would, if
not prevented, despoil angels of their felicity, and involve the
whole creation in misery and ruin.

Hence it appears that injustice tends to the diminution of hap-
piness, and to the increase of misery; whilst benevolence, pursue
ing a contrary direction, is ever delighted to assuage the grief of
the miserable, and, if possible, to banish all wretchedness from
the creation. The former always implies an intention to injure us,
and the latter an intention to do us good: for if we be accidentally-
hurt by any one, or accidentally benefitted, the one is no proof of
injustice, nor the other of goodness; because a voluntary intention
is essential to all the responsible actions of a moral agent; and
where no good or bad intention exists, there is no ground for
either praise or blame; otherwise we might blame or praise the
actions of an idiot, or even the operations of the wind. If then
those two principles are as opposite to each other as lieaven \&
from hell— opposite in the intention of the agent, in his actions,
and in the final eflect or tendency of them, how absurd must that
system be which supposes that every departure from the inflexible
standard isalike improper, and that goodness itself is unjust!

Benevolence is the source of all happiness in the creation. If
the office of justice were to enjoin on all beings to do whatever
they have a right to do, God would have been bound in justice
not to create the universe, and diff'use his multiplied favours

abroad: because lie had an undoubted risrht to withhold them.

o

Had he confined himself to this standard, and resolved not to do
any thing, but as a previous obligation enjoined, it is evident, unless
some rare genius can demonstrate that we eternally had a right
to our creation, and to all the blessings which followed it, that
his actions would have been solely confined to himself, and no liv-
ing creature would have ever existed. But if the display of his
goodness in the creation, was perfectly just, because there were
no other beings whose rights and privileges could be affected by
it; by a parity of reason it follows, that it is perfectly jijst for

300 AN ESSAY ON THE

God to deliver guilty sinners from misery, whenever it ean b«
done, without infringing upon the rights and liberties of others.
Presuming that any attempt to produce additional arguments in
defence of this point, would insult the reader's understanding,
and intrude h|)ou his patience, I submit these to his candid re^
flections.

SECTION lit

^n objection answered.

It may be alleged, that, if benevolence imply a double right,
to give or to withhold, then all men have a right to live without
ever bestowing a favour: and also, when thej do aji act of kindness
according to the preceding statements, there is real merit in their
worksj a doctrine totally opposite to the whole spirit and letter of
the gospel.

In answer to this we may observe:

1. That no action among men is benevolent as it relates to God,
hut only in relation to our fellow-creatures. They have no right
to demand it, but God has a right to enjoin the performance of it,
because he is our author, and we are dependant on his goodness
for our faculties, and for all our ability to exercise them. To him
such actions are a mere discharge of duty, which cannot be omit-
ted without ingratitude, and a defiance of moral obligation. No
actions in the universe are absolutely and independently benevo-
lent, but those of the Deity himself, who cannot be bound in duty
to any superior authority. He is not dependant on any other bcr
ing for his power to do good, and therefore his right of option, to
give or withhold his favours, is perfectly free from the controul of
any other authority. But as man's power, and liberty, and very
existence, is dependant on an higher arm, so is his right of option:
he is therefore bound in duly to the creator, even in the eommuni.
cation of his faypurs, though his fellow-creatures have no inherent
fight of demand.

-2. Hence it appears that men are not at liberty to live without
benevolence, but are bound by divine authority to exercise ijxeif
flbility in acts of kindness, as well as in those of justice.

PLAN OF SALVATION. SM

And thougli their benevolent actions have a degree of merit ia
them, and are deserving gratitnde, as they relate to their fellow
men, yet it is very evident they merit nothing from God, because
he has authority to command us to do good to our brethren, and
after we have done all that he has commanded, ive are unprofitable
servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

Yet there is more moral worth in those actions in the estima-
tion of God himself, than in acts of mere justice between man
and man. They are the nearest imitation of his essential na-
ture of any thing that can be found in a creature. Benevolence
is the highest moral attribute of the Deity, to which all the rest
are perpetually subservient: he is therefore pleased with the exer-
cise of it, above all things in the creation. Mr. Wesley very
rightly observes, " The scripture doth not say that God is justice,
or that he is truth, though he is just and true in all his ways; but
it doth say, God is love. He is love in the abstract, and there is no
end of his goodness. This is the attribute in which he peculiar-
ly delights, in which he glories above all the rest."

It is therefore evident, from the nature of God, that such ac^
tions are pleasing to him in a high degree, and though in their
relation to him they are not properly meritorious, yet they are
rewardable, and God will manifest his approbation of thenx
through eternity.

The Lord Jesus in describing the day of judgment, mentions
acts of benevolence alone, as being of great price in the sight of
God, and as being the conditional works of our final justification:
f Then shall the king say to them on his right hand, come ye bless-
ed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world; for I was an hungered, and ye gave me
meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: 1 was a stranger, and
ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited
me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Inasmuch as ye have
done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it
unto me." Matt. xxv. 34, &e.

It is very observable, that all the works he mentions are works
of charity or mercy, as they relate to man, though in their relation
to God, they are a mere discharge of duty; because it is impossi-
ble for a creature to do more than his duty to his creator. These
works can only flow from the love of God, for there is no moral
virtue in acts of kindness, which result only from animal affec-
tion, otherwise there is virtue even in the actions of brute beasts.
Our works of chanty must result i'rom a love of goodness, which m

202 AN ESSAY ON THE

the same thing with the love of God; for God is lovt; and Tt-e love
him because he is good, or which is the same thing, because he
jirst loved us.

Nor let any conclude, that since charity is of the greatest value,
and will stand so high in the day of judgment, men may therefore
be discouraged in performing acts of justice, and be tempted to
neglect them under pretence of preserving more time for the per-
formance of greater works: for it is impossible for an unjust man
to be benevolent. He may, indeed, perform acts of kindness from
some selfish principle, or animal afteetion, but this is not moral
goodness, because he does not act from a regard to the principle.
Let this principle perpetually govern his soul, and he will not
neglect the demands of justice, or bestow favours on one to the in-
jury of others, which is not goodness, hut partiality. If I bestow
that upon objects of charity, which ought to discharge my just
debts, and thereby defraud my creditors of their right, there
is surely no moral vvorth in such an action, but it results from
some whimsical delusion, or partial fondness, irreconcilable
with every righteous principle. A man must therefore come up
to the standard of justice, before he can possibly be benevolent;
because " a favour is more than justice, injustice is less;" and to
suppose a man can be benevolent in the neglect of justice, or in
doing less than it requires, is the very absurdity that has been re-
futed by all the foregoing arguments.

Some depend for salvation upon an imaginary /jicfy, which pre-
tends to worship God, by the exercise of injustice and cruelty to
men; others, through self-love and partiality bestow favours on
some, while they defraud others, and call this benevolence; a
third class pay little regard either to piety or benevolence, and
value themselves much upon their honesty; but when the saviour
enumerated our rewardable actions, on which we should be invit-
ed to our father's kingdom iu the day of judgment, he did not men-
tion common honesty as one of them: and though none but an ho-
nest man can do the works he mentions, yet according to his ac^
count of the matter, no man will be rewarded in heaven merely
for paying his debts, and discharging the common demands of jus-
tice.

If we act from a love of goodness, mc love God, who is the foun-
tain of it: this includes the whole exercise of true piety. We also
act from a regard to the general happiness, and this includes the
yery principle, and leads to the perfect exercise of true charity.
The office of justice is to defend that happiness whieh goodness

FLAN OF SALVATION 203

communicates, and therefore the love of goodness essentially in-
cludes the lo^e of justice. Thus it is plain, that he who sincerely
loves God, and all mankind; he who hates partiality and injus-
tice, and proves it by corresponding actions, is the very man that
possesses moral worth, and will be rewarded in heaven with ever-
lasting happiness.

SECTION IV.

The fitness, importance and necessity of redemption*

Our opponents will be apt to insist, that the doctrine we defend
renders the death of Christ unnecessary and contemptible; for if
God can freely forgive sins, before justice satisfies itself by iiflict-
ing the punishment due to the criminal, they would have us con-
clude that Christ died in vain, and evinced the folly of heavtn in
sending us a saviour, when we could have been justly pardoned
and saved without his interposition.

But we perfectly agree with them that sinners could not be s£.ved
consistently with the divine attributes, but through a mediator;
and also that our saviour did actually satisfy justice in our be-
half. The difterence between us consists in these two particulars;

1. We believe Christ died to make it just for God to pardon
penitent sinners; whilst their system supposes he died to give an
absolute right to salvation, independent of their penitence, and
without being beholden to God for mercy or forgiveness.

2. They think the death of Christ satisfied the justice of God,
considered as a private principle that demanded full vengeance
for every crime; we on the contrary believe he satisfied the justice
of God, only in his public character, as moral governor of the uni-
verse; or in other words, that Christ secured the ends of good gov-
ernment in the pardon of penitents, as efi'ectually as ii would have
been done by their damnation.

Do our views of the subject render redemption unnecessary? Uo
they in any degree diminish the glory of it, as represented in the
scriptures? I think not. And I moreover think the charge fafls just-
ly upon the opposite system, and hope t» make it appear by the

m4f AN ESSAY ON THE

1. If they grant the wliole punishment was not endured, whicis
was due to sin, they concede tJie very thing for which we contend?
namely, that justice can be satisfied without an infliction of the
whole penalty. But if, on the contrary, ihey declare the whole
must of necessity be endured before justice can be satisfied, it fol-
lows, that, wjiatever effect redemption might produce, it could not
diminish the misery which was incurred by moral evil. And if the
same quantnm of misery take place, upon the plan of redemplion,
that would have existed without it, there is no other principle
from which we can conclude redemption necessary, but the un-
scriptura) hypothesis, "that penal sufferings must never be dimi-
nished, but must be, transfered fron> the guilty to the innocent. If
redemption did notliing towards the diminution of misery, what
goodness was displayed in it, unless we say benevolence consists
in nothing else than the transfer of punishment from the guilty to
the innocent.^

. 2. Our opponents themselves explain the penalty of God's bro*
ken Iftw to be "death, temporal, spiritual and eternal." Now God
can, consistently with his attributes, diminish this penalty, and
infliflt but a part of it, or he cannot; if he can, then it was not ne-
cessfiry for the whole to be endured by the Redeemer; if he cannot,
it plfiinly follows that all mankind must yet be damned, unless it
can he proved "that the Lord Jesus suflered death temporal, spi-
ritual and eternal." The word of God assures us that he, having
once suffered for sins, now suffereth again no more, but is exalted
above all principality and power, on the right hand of the Majesty
on high. I never yet heard any one profess to believe, much less
attempt to prove, that Jesus Christ suffered everlasting punish-^
nient even for the elect themselves; but this is (confessedly) the
punishment which the law required of them, and which consti-
tutes the penalty that must be inflicted to the very last mite, before
justice can l^e satisfied: therefore the elect must yet suffer death
eternal, anrjjredemption has accomplished " a solemn nothing."

3, I woultl be glad to know whether punishment be the only
thing that c^n satisfy justice, in its relation to a sinner; or whe-
ther benevolence can render any satisfaction, and thus diminish
the extent of misery.^ If benevolence can do this, I conclude, if the
death of Christ satisfied justice, in its relation to the government^
and God's benevolence satisfied it in its relation to his individual
right of punishing, a complete and entire satisfaction is thus ren-
dered, and yet we are all dependent on the divine clemency for
jusli Ucation, and have no legal deoiaud upon our Creator.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 205

If it be said, on the contrary, that nothing can satisfy this at^
tribute but punishment, I would ask again, whether it demand
that the guilty should suffer, or whether it be indifferent to justice
who is punished, provided the whole penalty be endured? If the
latter, it follows that all the devils might now be taken out of hell,
and justice would be satisfied, provided as many holy angels were
put in their place, seeing it is a matter of inditterence who endures
the misery. But if, on the contrary, nothing can give satisfaction
but the punishment of the guilty, the sufferings of an innocent Sa-
viour would be of no avail, and the redemption of mankind would
be absolutely unrighteous, and therefore impossible.

4. If it be granted that goodness can satisfy justice, in its rela-
tion to God's individual right, all objections against our system
are gone at once: for if Christ died only to make it just for sinners,
on certain conditions, to be forgiven, and left the sentence still in
force against them, till it should be blotted out by the divine com-
passion, it cannot hence be concluded that justice is only satisfied
inparlj because the act of goodness in the grant of pardon, renders
the satisfaction complete and entire.

But if we deny the merit of goodness, and maintain that mere
punishment is the only thing which is effectual to a sinner's sal-
vation, it would follow, that Christ must necessarily suffer as much
real torment as all his ransomed creatures ever deserved, before
they could be redeemed or delivered from the sentence. This is re-
presenting him to suffer as a criminal, which, to say nothing of the
injustice of it, supposes the suft'eriug of sinners, and those of their
Saviour, are exactly equal in merit; seeing all merit, availa-
ble for the guilty, is supposed to consist only in the degree of mi-
sery endured.

What was it that rendered the death of Jesus peculiarly meri-
torious.^ Was it necessary for sin to be imputed to him, and for him
to die a real criminal? just the contrary: he suffered, being inno-
cent, for the sake of sparing the guilty, and his whole merit, as a
Saviour, consisted in that voluntary goodness which influenced
him "that was rich in glory to become poor, that we through his
poverty might be rich." •

I presume all men will acknowledge that there is no merit in
the sufferings of the damned, because they, as criminals, deserve
it, and suffer the whole as a penalty of justice. But there was
great merit in the sufferings of our Saviour; therefore he did not
suffer as acriminal, by becoming guilty in their place, but endured
the whole asa burden assumed by voluntary kindness, and this con-
stitutes the meritorious efficacy of his death, for our salvation.
Dd

J06 AN ESSAY ON THE

There would have been no peciillar merit in the sufferings of
Christ, had he been bound in justice to endure the whole; no dig-
nity of person would have increased their merit, because the mere
payment of a debt or the discharge of a just obligation, is no more
meritorious in a prince or other ruler, than a like action in the
meanest subject of his dominions. It is true Christ's peculiar me-
rit consisted in the dignity of his person; because he being God
over all blessed forever, was far above the law given to creatures,
, and was under no obligation to obey or to suffer. Had he been thus
bound to suffer, his death would have been of no avail, unless we
suppose there is great merit in a person's suffering what justice
requires of him, jvhich were to attribute merit to the sufferings of
devils: therefore the benevolence of the Lord Jesus, was the foun-
tain of his merit, and was the only thing which rendered his death
effectual to our redemption and salvation.

Now if it be granted, (J.) that our Saviour's goodness was the
sinirce of his merit, and (3.) that merit is the thing that satisfies
justice in behalf of sinners, it will follow that Christ was not, by
imputation, constituted a criminal, or else that there was no merit
in his death: for there is no benevolence, and therefore no merit,
in a criminal suffering what justice requires of him.

Dr. Crisp,had the boldness to declare, on the contrary, that "God
makes Christ as very a sinner as the creature himself was."
Again, as quoted by Dr. Williams, page 370: "Nor are we so com-
pletely sinful, but Christ, being made sin, was as completely sin-
ful as we." — And it is well known, that Luther, in one of his un-
guarded moments, called Christ* the greatest sinner in the world.
See Fletchers Checks, vol. 2. page 339.

* "And this, no doubt, all the prophets did foresee in spirit, that
Christ should become the greatest Transgressor, Murderer, Adul-
terer, Thief, Rebel and Blasphemer, that ever was or could be
in the world. For he being made a sacrifice for the sins of the
whole world, is not now an innocent person and without sins, is
not now the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary: but a sinner
which hath and carrieth the sin of Paul, who was a blasphemer,
an oppressor and persecutor; of Peter, which denied Christ; of
David, which was an adulterer, amurderer,and caused the gentiles
to blaspheme the name of the Lord. When the law therefore, found
him among thieves, it condemned and killed him as a thief. — If it
be not absurd to confess and believe, that Christ was crucified be-
tween two theives, then it is not absurd to say also that he was
accursed, and of all sinners the greatest."

Luther's commentary on St Paul's epistle to the Galations, Lou-
don edition, 177-i: page 303.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 2or

As the counter part of tliis, we have been taught to believe that
the merits and righteousness of Christ are really transferred, or
made over to us by imputation, just as he was made guilty by ha-
ving our sins imputed to him.

"To deny, therefore, that God imputes righteousness to an elecl.
while he is full of unrighteousness; or to suppose that he imputes
sin to an apostate, who is sold under sin, is but a decent way of de-
nying the imputation of our personal sins to Christ, and the vica-
rious satisfaction which he made on the cross.

••To detect the fallacy of this argument," says Mr. Fletcher,
"we need only observe, (i.) that God never accounted Christ com-
pletely guilty. Such expressions as these. He made him sin for us:
He laid on him the iniquities of us all, &c. are only Hebrew idioms,
which signify, that God appointed Christ a sacrifice for sin; and
that the chastisement of our forfeited peace was upon him: which
no more implies, that God put on his back, by an absolute imputa-
tion, a robe of unrighteousness, woven with all the sins of the elect
to make him completely guilty, than St. Luke, when he informs us,
that the Virgin Mary ofiered two young pigeons for her purifica-
tion, supposes her ceremonial uncleanuess was, somehow, woven
into a couple of little garments, and put upon the back of two pi-
geons, which by that means, were made completely unclean.

'Gallio gets drunk, and as he reels home from his midnight re-
vels, he breaks thirty -six lamps in the streets, and sends out vol-
lies of curses to the number of two hundred. He is brought before
you,* and you insist on his going to the house of correction, or pay-
ing so much money to buy three dozen of lamps, besides the usual
fine for his profane language. As he is not worth a groat, his sober
brother Mitio kindly offers to lay down the sum for him. You ac-
cept of the vicarious satisfaction, and binding the rake to his
good behaviour, you release him at his brother's request. Now
sir, would you be reasonable, if you reckoned Mitio completely
guilty of getting drunk, swearing two hundred oaths, and break-
ing thirty six lamps.^

*And will you defend a doctrine which charges God with a mis-
take ten thousand times more glaring, than that you would be
guilty of, if you really reckoned Metio an abandoned rake, and
Gallio a man of an exemplary conduct? Will you indeed recom-
mend still as gospel, an opinion which supposes, that the God of
everlasting, unchangeable love, once loathed and abhorred his be-

* Mr. Hill being a magistrate, he is here addressed as such.

m AN ESSAY ON THE

loved Son; and that the God of invariable truth could once say to
the holy Jesus, 'Thou art all foul, O thou defiled object of my ha^
tred, there is no purity in (hee;' while he addresses a bloody adul-
terer with, 'Thou art all fair, my love, my undefiled, there is no
spot in thee?" Fletcher's Works, vol. 2, page 163, IG*,

To Mr Fletcher's just and ingenious illustration, we may add
the following plain consequences of the Antinomian system of im-
putation.

1. If our sins were actually imputed to Christ, to make him
completely guilty; we are delivered from the curse, not through
the merit of Christ's death, but by virtue of God's act of imputa-
tion, whereby we are constituted innocent; and Christ, being as ve-
ry a sinner as the creature himself was, is bound injustice to suf-
fer the whole penalty for himself,

2. It was just for the Lord of glory to be charged with our
crimes, and the guilt vf them absolutely transferred from us to him,
or it was not; if it was not, the doctrine we oppose is false, or God
is an unjust being; if it was, then he suffered nothing but what in
justice he deserved, and consequently there was no more merit iii
hi* death, than there is in the death of any other sinner.

3. If this mysterious doctrine of imputation be true, we must
necessarily receive the following jumble of contradictions; that
Christ w as a sinner and yet a meritorious saviour — that he was
guilty and not guilty — innocent and not innocent — that we are
guilty and not guilty — innocent and not innocent — that God i^
good, but refuses to be gracious. — and that he is just in the viola-
tion of justice.

4. Lastly, if the merits and righteousness pf Christ be actualr
Jy transferred to us by imputation, we are all as completely right-
eous and meritorious as ever he was, unless our objectors will leap
into another contradiction, and say his righteousness is imputed
{ind not imputed — his merit made oyer to us and not made over,
at the same time. This would not constitute us ransomed sinners,
hut gracious saviours of the world, possessing the whole right-
eousness and merit of that sacred cliaracter.

These conclusions arc too obvious to be denied, and too ridicu-
lous to be admitted, by any unprejudiced, reflecting mind; and I
hope the lovers qf truth will not receive such inconsiderate and
absurd opinions under the popish cover of "holy mysteries," nor
\ie dissuaded from a diligent search and inquiry, through the
groundless fear that truth will be exposed, and error established,
by a close and candid examination; or, as some would express it,
by "carnal reasonings and metaphysical distinctions."

PLAN OF SALVATION. 20.9

Perhaps our opponents, in reply to the doctrine of this section,
■will declare they never taught nor believed that Christ suffered
the entire degree of punishment that was due to sinners; but that
he rendered that satisfaction to divine justice, which was equiva-
lent to the whole penalty. We answer:

1. If our sins were really imputed to Christ, and if nothing but
punishment can render satisfaction for them, he must of necessity
suffer the whole that was required, and nothing less could be re-
ceived as equivalent; but if there is merit in every act of the re-
deemer's goodness, with which divine justice is satisfied, then our
doctrine is true, that benevolence was the source of our saviour's
merit, Avliich made it just for sinners to have a probation granted
them; and that his benevolence in the grant of pardon, is also me-
ritorious, and makes it just for sinners (when renewed) to be ad-
mitted into heaven.

2. In what sense was the death of Christ equivalent to the pe-
nalty.'' Not in the degree of punishment; and I would fain hope no
person will say it was so, in the degree of guilt. In merit it was
more than equivalent; for I presume there is no merit at all in a
f)erson's suffering what he deserves, and therefore a sinner's suffer-
ing what he deserves, is not meritorious. Do they mean that the
death of Jesus was equivalent to the penalty in the effects produc-
ed by it, or in the satisfaction it rendered to the divine nature?
I believe in both these respects it was more than equal to the
damnation of all sinners: for it not only displayed God's holiness
and hatred against sin, which their damnation would have done,
hut procured a day of mercy and salvation for all mankind, and
opened the way for goodness to diffuse its benign influences even
to the guilty, which an infliction of the penalty would never have
accomplished. And the divine nature was certainly better satisfi-
ed with the death of Christ, than with the condemnation of all re-
bels, otherwise they would have been condemned, and the saviour
would never have come into the world. God was more glorified, or
his attributes were more extensively displayed, by redeeming sin-
ners, than by consigning them all to perdition, because his wonder-
ful goodness, benignity and wisdom, were manifested in the salva-
tion of sinners, and this was done in perfect concord with his jus-
tice and impartiality.

If by equivalent, our opponents mean that Christ's death, though
not equal in punishment to the requirements of the law, yet gave
the sinner as absolute a discharge or deliverance from guilt and
demerit as he had before sin entered into the world, the conse-

210 AN ESSAY ON THE

quence is, that all for whom the redeemer died, are perfectly se-
cure and innocent in the midst of all their crimes.

We must maintain that this scheme would prove that his death
was not equal to an execution of the sentence upon all offenders:
for, (1.) how is his holiness or hatred against sin displayed, if he es-
tablishes a plan of redemption, which gives his creatures full li-
berty to sin without any danger, or possibility in justice, of ever
being punished for it? Where is his general goodness and impar-
tiality, if a few are thus absolutely saved, and the rest as uncon-
ditionally neglected, reprobated and danmed? What becomes of
his wisdom, if he puts the reigns of government out of his hands,
gives all mankind a sham trial; threatens his elect with hell if
they repent not, and invites reprobates to partake of the waters
of life freely, when he cannot punish the former, or reward the
latter, without being wnjust? Where is his justice and equity, if
his innocent creatures were placed in a state from which they
might fall and perish forever, and his guilty ones in a state of
sham trial, in which they are absolutely secure in the midst of all
their abominations? What is this but manifesting a complacency
for wickedness, and even reAvarding it with that safety and uncon-
ditional assurance of eternal life, which Adam in paradise, and
ihe very angels in heaven were not in possession of?

And if we say he died for ail mankind, and discharged every de-
mand thatjustice can have against any of Adam's race, then all must
Lave a sham trial, and be unconditionally saved, in which case
sin, in the finally impenitent, will be rewarded, and God's appro-
bation of it declared; or else, standing in a state of real probation,
all impenitent sinners must be condemned, and the Almighty
would thereby display an act of unrighteousness, by requiring the
same penalty twice over, or by execuling t!iosc against whom jus-
tice had no demand. If Christ by his death satisfied every de-
mand that ever justice had, or now has, against (he sons and daugh-
ters of Adam, we are all absolutely free from all penalties:
otherwise you say justice has been fully satisfied, and not fully
satisilcd; has received its whole demand against sinners, and not
received it, at the same time.

Thus it appears the system we oppose, renders redemption use-
less, unjust and contradictory: useless, because it teaches that the
whole penalty must of necessity be endured; but (his penalty i*
death eternal, which Christ never suffered, and tkerefore all sin-
ners are left without hope and without remedy. Unjust, inas-
much as it presents a false charge of guilt against the innoceut

PLAN OF SALVATION. 211

redeemer, (by imputation,) that he may sufter according to his de-
merit. Contradictory, in declaring that ail demands of the law
have been discharged, and yet that they continue in full force: that
all our guilt has been transferred to a surety, >vho has satisfied
every claim in his own person, and yet that we remain guilty
children of wrath, who >vill be everlastingly damned unless we
repent and obtain forgiveness: finally, that God's law has but one
penalty against sinners, the whole of which has been actually en-
dured, and yet thousands shall suffer eternal punishment for the
very sins that have thus been completely expiated; and we must
neither call this the same penalty which the redeemer suffered,
nor any other one; but must receive the whole in jumbled confu-
sion, without presuming to indulge "the almost magical power
of our metaphysical distinctions."* These strange mysteries must
be believed and defended, it seems, for the honour of Chris-
tianity, and to support the glory of redemption! I hope, however,
that a candid survey of the following section will convince the
judicious reader, that the dignity and importance of our holy re-
ligion, can be supported upon very different principles.

SECTION V.

The same subject.

To understand the scheme of redemption correctly, it is neces-
ry to trace the economy of providence, and the principles of mo-

is the proper foundation of all just conclusions in divinity, and un-
less we bring our views of redemption to this criterion, our infer-
ences are drawn in the dark, and we know not what we say, nor
whereof we affirm. We will therefore, as the foundation of our
superstructure, lay down the following positions, some of
which will be admitted without hesitation, and the others I trust,
shall be supported by correct and conclusive evidence.

1. The Almighty riiler of the heavens and the earth, being

See Mr. Shirley's Reply, to Mr. Fletcher^s Vindication.

2t2 AN ESSAY ON THE.

glorious in holiness, and perfect in goodness, enjoys unceasing and
infinite felicity.

2. This complete and perfect happiness is not derived from any
thing foreign from himself, but results from the harmony and per-
fection of all his eternal attributes.

3. He is perfectly free and voluntary in all his actions, because
he is omnipotent, and cannot be controuUed by any other power
or authority. To deny his free agency, is to ascribe our being
and happiness to necessity, seeing if God be not a free agent, they
depended not upon his liberty of option, and could not be other-
wise than they are. It is to deny that power belongeth unto God;
because a power to do any thing, includes a power to leave it un-
done, and to affirm a being has power, who is destitute of agency,
is an absolute contradiction.

4. There is no immoral principle in his nature, and no error or
mistake can ever enter into his infinite mind; therefore God can*
not be tempted w ith evil, neither tempteth he any man. It is im-
possible for God to lie; he is the same yesterday, to-day, and for-
ever: therefore he never has done, and never will do any thing
" but what is eternally just, right and kind."

5. This great and immortal being, from the pure benevolence
of his nature, was influenced to create various orders of intelligent
and moral creatures, that they might behold his glory and partici-
pate in his felicity.

6. To this end it was necessary for them to possess understand-
ings liberty and moral goodness for if the happiness of deity re-
sults from his own nature, it is evident that his creatures, to par-
take of the same kind of enjoyment, must possess a degree of the
same nature, otherwise we say his nature is essential, and at the
same time not essential, to moral happiness.

That God did in fact endow his creatures with free agency, is
evident from their fall: for if they were not free, it is certain that
lliey w ere made wicked, or else w ere driven into sin by some other
power; if they were made wrong, the fault was in their Maker,
not in themselves; and if they were forced into sin by the agency
of another, God only could be the author of it, because there was
no other power in the universe. Therefore we are reduced to this
dilemma: either to believe that our creator is essentially wicked,
or that his creatures were made free, and introduced evil by an
abuse of their liberty. *•

But why was this agency or active power bestowed upon them ?
We must answer that it was essential to the enjoyment of moral

PLAN OF SALVATION. 213

happiness, or that it was not: if it was, this good and perfect gift
is resolvable into the divine beneficence; if it was not, then we say-
God bestovved a useless power upon his creatures, which could do
them no good, and which might prove fatal to their tranquillity. If
we say he gave it in order to ruin them, we charge him with ma-
levolence, and if we say he gave it for no eu«l, we charge him with
folly: therefore the only modest and rational conclusion is. that he
gave it through benevo-lence, because it was essential to their spi-
ritual or moral happiness.

7. To secure and perpetuate the happiness of his children, God
gave them a law or moral government, founded upon the attributes
of his own nature. For as His felicity results from the perfections
of his own nature, the government, to promote theirs, must be es-
tablished upon the same principles.

His giving them a moral law is, of itself, an incontestable proof
of their free agency. For had God intended to regulate all their
actions by the force of destiny, nothing more would have been ne-
cessary than to subject them to the mechanical laws of matter, be-
cause these are entirely sufficient to accomplish the end. Are not
the general laws of nature perfectly adequate to the government
of those parts of God's creation that possess not the power of ac-
tion in themselves, and can only act as they are acted upon.'' And
if God intended that angels and men should be governed by the
same necessity, would not a moral law be both useless and ridicu-
lous.?

The winds, and waves, and all the elements of uature are moved
by mechanical influence: if the actions of men and angels are all
directed in the same way, they need no other law, and are as inca-
pable of moral government as a stone or a tree. And what wisdom
or goodness is there in commanding or warning a creature against
evil conduct, if he either has no power to do wrong or must fall in-
to it of necessity.? The absurdity of such a law is obvious to com-
mon sense, and it is truly astonishing that men should be disposed
to impute such folly to the Almighty.

But it may be asked, why did not God govern all living creatures
by the law of instinct, as the brute creation are governed.? Could
they not enjoy sufficient happiness by voluntarily following the in-
stincts of their nature, without any responsibility, and therefore,
without any danger of losing their felicity.?

They might, it is true, have thus enjoyed the happiness of a
brute; but not the happiness of a man^ and much less that of an an-
gel. The reason why brutes are not morally aeeountable is, that
E e

214 AN p:ssay on the

they have no conception of right, or of moral obligation: to bring
men and angels to this state, their knowledge must be taken from
them, and they must be brought down to the ignorance of brute
beasts.

I presume the happiness of all creatures, that of a beast not ex-
cepted, depends upon knowledge and liberty. Some, however, ap-
pear to imagine that beasts, birds and fishes, have no more liber-
ty or power than a mill-wlieel, or any other machine; but I know
no argument to prove ihis conjecture, but what would equally
prove that men have no power. For men have similar instincts,
appetites and affections, and are under the same necessity of choos-
ing happiness in preference to misery. Man chooses happiness in
preference to misery, of necessity; and so, I presume, does every
creature in existence; but the means of enjoyment are innumera-
ble, and we have the lil)erty or power to use them at our option.
The inferior animals have a degree of the same liberty, confined,
indeed, within narrow limits, from the imperfection of their know-
ledge, which deprives them of spiritual and moral happiness; but
although their enjoyments are almost entirely confined to sensation,
yet they have a free range through the earth, and air, and water;
and we cannot abridge their power, or obstruct the freedom of
their choice, without, in the same proportion, diminishing their
happiness.

But waving the case of beasts for the present, it is sufficient to
our purpose that all men are conscious of a degree of power over
their actions, and that their highest happiness arises from know-
ledge, and is inseparable from a voluntary choice. The exercise of
virtue, or the enjoyment of moral happiness against our consent
is impossible: because it implies a state of complete slavery.
If it be asked, why was not the will inclined to choose all the pro-
per means of happiness, as necessarily as it is inclined to choose
happiness as its end, in preference to misery; I think the proper"
answer is, that it was impossible for creatures to possess moral
rectitude, and of consequence, moral happiness, without the liber,
ty of option, or, which is the same thing, without a degree of pow-
er, which essentially implies that agency of will that can choose
one thing or its contrary; — that can perform an action,. or omit
the performance of it — that can determine, or omit the determi-
nation.

If this be true (and that it is »o, I hope to prove directly) it
clearly follows that the reason why God did not hinder the intro-
duction of moral evil, by making it impossible for his creatures

PLAN OF SALVATIOK ^5

to sin, was because it could not be done without making it impos-
sible for any creature, to enjoy holiness or moral happiness.
God left his creatures free, because God is love; and he-'
inglove, hedelighti to see his creatures enjoy that sublime feli-
city, which the chains of desii'iy would have deprived them of for-
ever.

It follows also, from the same principle, that, as the chief hap-
piness of angels and men consisted in the voluntary exercise of
tJieir faculties, and as it was possible for those faculties to be di-
rected wrong; it was necessary for the nature and law of God to be
communicated to their understandings, both to inform them how
to act, and to furnish motives to good conduct. To this end the na-
ture and effects of good and evil were made known to them, accord-
ing to their capacity of receiving this knowledge; the divine be-
neficence was displayed before them, inasmuch as the law was
calculated to promote universal happiness, while justice guarded
their liberty by all the warnings and sanctions of supreme autho-
rity.

But how is it to be determined whether the principle itself be a
truth, or a mere hypothesis.^ My reasons for believing it a truth
are derived chiefly ij-om the moral attributes of God. Other argu-
ments might be produced; but lest they should be thought too me-
taphysical, I will content myself with appealing to those sacred
perfections which we all acknowledge, and which are supported
by the clear evidence of reason and revelation. Why were motives
offered, or warnings given to angels or men, but because it was
possible for them to act wrong.? And why were they made in a
state, in which it was possible for them to act wrong, but because
power or agency was essential to their happiness.? That they were
not bound to the right by necessity is a matter of fact, as both an-
gels and men departed from their first estate by rebellion against
their Creator's laws: and if we say they could have been as com-
pletely happy in a state of absolute iivtality, as in (hat of moral
liberty, it will follow that God had no regard to their felicity, in
giving them the power of self determination. And if he had no
regard to this, there was no benevolence in the matter, and conse-
quently no creature ever had reason to thank his Maker for the
gift of moral liberty, seeing it is of no use to men or angels, and
has become the cause of general misery.

It is a little remarkable that our opponents seem unwilling to
own that the creature's free agency was essential to God's glory,
and to the perfect happiness of his children, and chose rather to

216 AN ESSAY ON THE

insist that sin was necessary to accomplish these ends! We see it
is a lamentable matter of fact that moral and natural evil have
entered into the creation: the question has long since been started,
why did not God prevent it? Some have answered that God pre-
destinated or determined that sin shr>uld be introduced because it
was necessary for the display of his glory: and therefore "accord-
ing to the council of his own will, he fore-ordained whatsoever
comes to pass." We answer that sin was never necessary, and God
never predestinated it; and the reason why he did not make it im-
possible forhis creatures to do wrong, was, that the liberty of op-
lion was essential to the happiness and perfection of their nature.
Had he deprived them of this, he would thereby have suspended
the operations of his goodness, and prevented all that sublime
and angelic felicity, which results from a voluntary obedience to
his commandments. This is the only conclusion that is worthy of
God, or that can ever be made to accord with those perfeetione
which are every where ascribed to him by the incontestable voice
of revelation. Need we now produce particular passages to prove
that God is holy, wise and good.^ Every one knows the bible must
stand or fall with these essential truths; but if God either forced
his creatures into sin, or gave them liberty for no end but to en-
snare them, what holiness or justice, or hatred of sin, is herein
manifested? If he gave them this power when it was not at all ne-
cessary to their happiness, it is ridiculous to say it resulted from
kindness; it is equally so, to say it resulted from wisdom, if it was
bestowed on them for nothing; or from trnth and sincerity, if he
cautioned and warned them against evil, and at the same time
secretly contrived or predestinated their apostacy. We must there-
fore give up the divine attributes, and contradict the leading
principles of revelation, or admit that God bestowed the gift of
moral freedom, from the principle of loving kindness, to promote
that progressive improvement and felicity, which can never re-
sult from either a mechanical or a brutal nature.

8. If then the happiness of God's creatures resultetl from a vo-
luntary exercise of their free powers, according to the principles
of his divine government; and if they were influenced to good con-
duct by moral motives exhibited in that government; it plainly
follows that the law must be maintained and displayed in all its
purity, and in all its force, that happiness may be perfect and uni-
versal. Consequently any violation of il, or any departure from
the just principle on which it is founded, is a direct attack upon
the general welfare, and an audacious insnlt te its eternal Author^

PLAN OP SALVATION 217

Hence the odious nature and deep criminality of moral evil. It is a.
yery dreadful evil, not merely because it has been forbidden, as if
it was no evil till the prohibition made it so, but because it natu-
rally tends to misery, and is a violation of the essential rights of
God, of angels, and of men.

9. It is a mournful truth, but too notorious to be denied, that the
inhabitants of our world are involved in the horrors of depravity
and guilt. We drink in iniquity like water, and seem bent upon
our own destruction. If sin is such a crying evil, our danger
must be great; and had not divine goodness interposed in our fa-
vour, we could have no hopes of ever ascending to the regions of
the blessed.

The reason why God executes vengeance upon sinners, is because
it is necessary. It is just for them to be punished, because they de-
serve it; but justice is executed upon them, not merely because
they deserve it, but because it is needful for the security of those
creatures whom the divine attributes are engaged to defend. If
we deny this, we say the execution of justice is an unnecessary
thing, and punishments are inflicted for no other end, but because
it is the good pleasure of God to inflict them; which supposes him
to be actuated by the spirit oi revenge.

If rebels pass with impunity, the whole creation are tempted at
once to disbelieve the goodness, justice and holiness of their crea-
tor, and moral governor; and nothing can give them that evidence
of these attributes which they ought to have, but a full manifesta-
tion of God's abhorrence of moral evil. This evidence they had
before, by the divine attributes maintaining their happiness, and
warning them against evil; but now that the supreme authority is
insulted, some new proof must be given, which before was not ne-
cessary; because if the sinners now pass with impunity, and no-
thing be done to evince the creator's displeasure of their crimes,
the former evidence is contradicted, and the creatures of God are
thereby exposed to the most fatal delusions and temptations; such
as are calculated to destroy the harmony of heaven, and to pro-
duce universal misery. To prevent this, the pare nature of God,
and the ruinous eftects of sin, must be set in a proper light, for the
sake of those creatures whose nature is fitted to the influence of
moral motives. For these righteous purposes, and not for the
gratification of revenge, are punishments inflicted under any just
government in the world: and surely the administration of Al-
mighty God is more perfect than that of men, and is infinitely far-
ther removed from any private passion or animosity.

^8 AN ESSAY ON THE

10. It plainly follows from M'hsd has been said, that if sinners
were not pardoned without a redeemer, it was not because there
ivfts no disposition in God to forgive them, but because he had too
Ipiuch regard for the general good to let particular offenders pass
unpunished; unless the fatal influence of their sin could be by some
other means prevented. If he had no disposition to jiardon them,
there was no mercy in his nature, and if he had, nothing hindered
him from doing it, but his regard for good government and the gen-
eral safety: consequently the accomplishment of these ends in re-
demption, vvas all that the nature and attributes of God ever de-
manded, as an atonement, propitiation, or satisfaction for sin.

SECTION \T.

The same subject.

We come now to consider the formidable objection which
deists, and some predestinarian divines will be apt to allege
against us.

Be pleased to inform us, will they say, how God's hatred of sin
could be manifested by inflicting punishments upon the innocent.

Before we give a direct answer to this objection, it may not be
amiss to show how easily it may be retorted.

, First: Let it be observed, that every thing in nature is surround-
ed with difficulties, when we attempt to discover why it is so, or
how certain effects are produced. The fact may be plain, and may
be supported by evidence which cannot be resisted; and yet the
maimer of it may remain inscrutable, or at least very inadequate-
ly comprehended by the human mind.

Consider the Avorks of nature, and tell us how it is (hat he
stretcheth the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth
upon nothing? Consider the laws of gravitation, magnetism, vege-
tation and dissolution, how are yonder stars and suns suspended in
the heavens, and in what manner have the planets been kept in
their orbits for thousands of years.-^ How is animal life supported
by various kinds of material substances, taken into the stomach,
and why must there be a perpetual motion of the heart, and circu-
lation of the blood, to keep us from dropping into the dust? How is

PLAN OF SALVATION. 219

if, that we see by means of one member of this body, hear by means
of another, and taste and smell by means of organs separate from
both the others? Why is it that I cannot see \vith my ears, and
why is my whole body susceptible of the sense of touch, while the
other sensations are confined to different small parts of it? Can
any one inform me why I can move my arm, and alter its motion
as I please, while I have no power over my blood or heart which
continually move independent of my will? or how the members of
my body, and other parts of matter, are put in motion at the in-
conceivable influence or command of thought, which is immateri-
al? This is a mystery so profound, that it is acknowledged to sur-
pass all human conceptions, even by Mr. Hume, whose testimony
or opinion in this case, is of some importauce, as it shows that
the greatest philosophical sceptics are forced to admit the myste-
ries of nature while they inconsistently reject those of revela-
tion.

- "]s there any principle in all nature," says Mr. Hume, "more
mysterious than the union of soul with body; by which a supposed
spiritual substance acquires such an influence over a material one
that the most refined thought is able to actuate the grossest mat-
ter? Were we empowered, by a secret wish, to remove mountains,
or controul the planets in their orbit; this extensive authority
would not be more extraordinary, nor more beyond our compre-
hension."*

If the creation be thus full of mysteries, and if the connexion
between cause and effect, or the manner of operation by which ef-
fects are produced, be inconceivable while the facts are obvious,
and supported by evidence most conclusive and irresistible; why
should it be thought wonderful that we cannot entirely compre-
hend the influence of redemption, or tell how the death of Christ
produced those great effects which are ascribed to his sufferings
in the christian revelation?

Secondly: as infidels are inconsistent in complaining of gospel
mysteries while they themselves hold others that are parallel, so
are our christian objectors in charging our system with being in-
definite, while the complaint is so applicable to their own, and
can be so successfully retorted.

Let us inquire, in the first place, how they will give us a clear
and definite account of the connexion between our Saviour's suf-
ferings and the "resurrection of the dead." He said, "because I

* Hume's Essays, vol. 2, page 104, 105.

250 AN ESSAY ON THE

live ye sLall live also: he is called the first fruits of them that
slept: the apostles preached tlnough Jesus the resurrection from
the dead: and St. Paul says, for since by man came death, by man
came also the resurrection of the dead.'' — John.xiv. 19. i Cor.
^y. 20, 2i. Jids, iv. 2.

Now if they can understand the clear connexion between the
death of Christ, and the resurrection of all mankind from the
grave, we will wait patiently to have the matter explained; for
to Hs it appears very difficult and hard to be understood. If men
will be raised from the dead in consequence of Christ's having died
for them and rose again, according to the scriptures; and if, as our
opponents tell us, Christ did not die for reprobates; it plainly fol-
lows that reprobates will never rise from the dead. But our Sa-
viour says, "all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and
shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of
life, and they that have done evil, nnio the resurrection of dam-
nation." John V. 28, 29. f

Let us inquire again how their system clears up the mystery of
atonement, and how they explain the suffierings of Christ, as a
cause of the sinner's justification. The scriptures inform us, that
he died for our sins, and arose again for our justification. That he
gave his life a ransom for all, and made his soul an oflFering for
sin. That he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for
our iniquities: that the chastisement of our peace was upon him,
and by his stripes we are healed.

In this we are all agreed: but strange as it may seem, the very
men who caution us against explaining away the divine mysteries,
adhere to an hypothesis, unknown in the gospel, that was invented
to account for the death of Christ, and to explain how the justifi-
cation of sinners is accomplished by his atonement. We will sup-
pose an objector to state his argument in these terms:

'You urge with great earnestness and assurance, that the end of
Christ's death was to vindicate the divine purity in the pardon of
sinners, by declaring his righteousness, or evincing his hatred
against sin; but suppose all this be granted, your conclusion is not
yet secure: for if Christ was innocent^ as you contend, who is able
to conceive how God's hatred of sin was manifested, by inflicting
punishments upon the innocent? But admit our doctrine, that he
becameguilty and suffered the penalty as such, and it is easy to see
how his hatred of sin is manifested, because he punished the sins
of all his people in their surety,who voluntarily became guilty in
their place.'

PLAN OF SALVATION. 521

In answer to this, 1 propose to prove these three things: First:
that though it were true that no man could have any conception
of the manner how Christ's death made our salvation accord with
the glory of God, yet we should be bound in reason to believe the
fact, notwithstanding our incapacity to comprehend the manner
of it.

Secondly: that the Antinomian hypothesis, far from clearing this
mystery, makes it more obscure, and even involves it in contradic-
tions.

Thirdly: that our view of the matter, though it does not explain
the mystery of redemption fully, or enable the human mind to
have an adequate conception of it, yet it makes the subject of
atonement more intelligible than the other system, because mere
consistent with itself, and with the nature of God.

First: Suppose we had no conception how the death of Christ
declared God's righteousness, or manifested his hatred of sin,
would it be a fair conclusion, to infer that we ought to disbelieve
the doctrine of redemption, until the manner of it, or the connex-
ion between cause and eftect, should be made clear? I conclude it
would not, for the following reasons:

1. It is possible for us to have full evidence of a fact, or of cer-
tain effects produced by some cause, witheut knowing either the
cause or the manner of its operation. Instance the ebbing and
flowing of the tide: whether it be produced by the immediate volition
of some active agent, or by the mechanical influence of some other
part of the material creation, I presume remains a secret to this
day: at least it remains so to thousands who are capable of know-
ing the fact, by the most irresistible evidence.

2. We may know both the cause and the effect, and yet have
no conception of the connexion between them: witness the power
of the mind over the menibers bf the body, which Mr. Hume ac-
knowledged to be ai inconceivable a mystery, as our actions would
be, "were we empowered by a secret wish, to remove mountains,
•rcontroul the planets in their orbit." While I move my hand over
this paper, I am certain of the effect, that my hand does move,
and equally certain that I am the cause of it, because I am con-
scious that it moves by the volition of my will; yet the connexion
between my volition and the motion of this piece of matter, or the
manner how the effect is produced, remains a secret, of which I
have no conception.

3. We may know the cause, the effect and the means made use
•f, and yet have no conception of the manner how the means ope^

Ff

332 AN ESSAY ON THE

rate, or why snch means are necessary to produce the effect. Wit-
ness the thousands who have been restored to health, by the in-
fluence of various kinds of medicine, who knew the agent, the
means used, and the effect produced, and yet had no conception of
the secret operations by which their health was restored, and were
unable to tell why such particular kinds of matter were necessary
to produce the effect, rather than others, or how the healing influ-
ence operated, to remove their disorders.

The creation of the world, is a mystery of this latter kind. We
have full evidence of an Almighty being, as the cause: by the evi-
dence of our senses Me ascertain the existence of a material uni-
verse as the effect pf his power: and by revelation we are assured
the world was created by means of his word.

"God said let there be light, and there was light."

"God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom
he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the
worlds. And upholdeth all things by the word of his power." Heb.
i. 23.

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God,
and the word was God. All things were made by him; and with-
out him was not any thing made, that was made." John i. 13.

Now will any man imagine that he can comprehend how God
by his word produced the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and
the dry land? And will any one do violence to his reason, and re-
ject all the evidence we have for the cause and the effect, because
the manner of his operation is incomprehensible by us? Wifl he
deny the existence of God or the existence of the world, because
he cannot understand how the world was madc^" As little reason
has any one to disbelieve oiir redemption by Jesus Christ on ac-
count of his incapacity to conceive how this salvation is accom-
plished, or why such particular means are to be used.

The cause or agent in this work was the same that created the
world; the means made use of were his assuming our nature, and
submitting to suffer and die, even the death of the cross: the effect
produced was, a full display of the glory of God, in the grant of
pardon to penitent sinnei-s.

For all this we have abundant evidence; and if we had no more
conception how his death exhibited the evil of sin, and the purity
of the divine nature, than how light came into being, when God
said let there be light, our ignorance would afford no more evi-
dence against the truth of redemption, than against the creation;
and therefore we are bound to reject this infidel pka, or leap at
ouce into atheism, seeing the objection bears equally against the

PLAN OF SALVATION. 323

creation of the world, as against its redemption by our Lord Jesus
Christ.

Secondly; The Antinomian hypothesis, far from clearing this
mystery, involves tlie subject in darkness and contradiction.

It were easy to show, that the practice of inventing hypotheses
to account for the works of God, has had the same tendency in all
fLges: it has never improved human knowledge, but on the contra-
ry, has bewildered the understanding, and led to conclusions the
most absurd, and inconsistent that can be imagined.

It may not be improper to mention one or two cases, and show
their similarity to the present theory of our objectors.

It is impossible for us to conceive hoiv God created the world out
of nothing; and hence the fact has been denied, and theories have
been invented to account for its existence. It has been arbitrari-
ly taken for granted, that small particles of matter, called atoms^
have existed eternally; that they arranged themselves together by
chance, and that it is only by chance that this great universe con-
tinues in being.

The answer to this is the same that is to be given to other hy-
potheses: First, There is no manner of evidence for the principle
which is taken for granted:

Secondly: The principle, if true, would not assist our concept
tions, but would leave the subject as mysterious as it was before.
Thirdly: It contradicts the immediate dictates of our intelli-
gence, " that nothing can begin to exist, or be put into motion,
without a cause adequate to produce the eftect, and that from the
signs of power and wisdom in the eftect, we may certainly know
that those attributes exist in the cause which produced it."

Again: The fact is clear, that we perceive external objects by
means of our senses; but the manner of it is inconceivable: hence
the hypothesis has been invented, that ideas come from external ob-
jects, through the organs of sensation, which ideas the mind imme-
diately perceives when seated in the brain. This has been thought
to account for the fact, and to show how we perceive the various
objects around us.

We are told that two grand axioms in Sir Isaac Newton's Philo-
sophy were these: 1. That in accounting for any phenomenon or
event in nature, " the cause we assign must be shown to exist :"
and secondly, " it must be adequate to produce the effect."

Now I think Dr. Reid has made it very clear, 1. Thatnoevi
dence has been produced, that there are ideas in the brain :

Secondly: That such ideas, suppose their existence to be ad

334 AN ESSAY ON THE

mitted, do not account for our perception of external objects, or
enable us to understand the manner of it any better than we do
without them: and thirdly: That the theory contradicts com-
mon sense, and led bishop Berkley and Mr. Hume by regular and
consequential reasoning, to disprove and disbelieve the existence
of a material world.*

The atonement made by our Redeemer, like all the other workg
of God, has something in it, surpassing our limited conceptions.

The fact is clearly revealed, " that Christ Jesus came into the
world to save sinners:" we are fully informed who the Author of
our salvation is, and also concerning the means he made use of,
and the ultimate end of his sufferings; but how the means he uses
produce the effect, or accomplish the end intended, is not so easi-
ly understood. Here we must be content with a partial concep-
tion, aided by metaphors and similitudes, without giving them a
literal application; we must be content in a state of ignorance,
where God has not given us the means of knowledge, lest Me run
into dangerous errors, which are far worse than ignorance.

But alas! the professors of Christianity have followed the ex-
ample of the scholastic philosophers, and the effect has been the
same. They have formed an hypothesis, to explain how the death
of Christ made atonement for the sin of man, which instead of mak-
ing the matter more clear, has involved it in tenfold obscurity,
and led thousands to attribute the principles of moral evil to the
Almighty.

The hypothesis is. That Christ by imputation, became guiltyj
and that God punished him as a guilty being, who, having assum-
ed the obligation of sinners, stood obnoxious to the whole penalty
of justice in their place.

Though this hypothesis, like most otJiers,at first vieM', has some
appearance of plausibility, yet I think it is not difHeult to make ap-
pear, (1.) that we have no evidence that the principle is true: (2.)
if it were proved, it would still leave the subject of atonement as
inconceivable as it was before: and (3.) that it is opposed to the
clearest evidence, and involves the doctrine of redemption in obvi-
ous and self-evident contradictions.

1. What evidence have we that the Lord Jesus Christ became
guilty, and stood obnoxious, in law and justice, to penal sufferings.^'

* See his Essays on the Intellectual Powers, Essay II. American
edition, vol. i. chap. xiv. pj^ge 302,

PLAN OP SALVATION. 225

The scriptures assure us "that he was without sin: that he was
jnanifested to take away our sins, and in him is no sin: and that
he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." Heb. iv.
15. 1 John, iii. 5. 1 Peter, ii. 22.

The prophet represents him as dying innocent, as a lamb that
is led to the slaughter. He himself looked round upon the Jews,
and from the consciousness of heavenly integrity said, « which of
you convinceth me of sin." Pilate's wife, being warned in a
dream, sent unto him, saying, ''have thou nothing to do with that
just man." And Pilate washed his hands, saying, "I am innocent
of the blood of this just person, see ye to it." Matt, xxvii. 19, 2^

Accordingly the apostles upbraided the Jews with their wick-
edness, iu crucifying the innocent redeemer, and said, "ye denied
the holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted
unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from
the dead; whereof we are witnesses." Acts. iii. 14, 13.

Itis acknowledged on all sides, that our Saviour was innocent be-
fore he came to redeem fallen men.

Now if he voluntarily departed from a state of innocence to a
state of guilt, he brought this guilt upon himself by an act M'hich
depended entirely upon his own will: and yet we believe the thing
be did was perfectly right and good: then it is right and good for an in-
nocent person voluntarily to do that which brings him into a state
of guilt.

If it be said, Christ was not really guilty, but tie guilt of others
was imputed to him, I must take the liberty to ask a few plaia
questions.

Did Christ impute the guilt of others to himself? If he did, are
we to understand by it, that he chose to ha^ e their guilt transfer-
red to himself.'' If so, did his choosing it really make him guilty
or not.^ If it did ^not, he really remained innocent, and they re-
mained guilty as before; if it did, I M'ould ask again, whether
his thus becoming guilty of their crimes rendered them innocent
or not.^ If they were rendered innocent they were from that mo-
ment raised above the want of pardon as effectually as innocent
Adam was before the fall: but if the Saviour became guilty, and
yet they remain equally so as before, then we say justice was sa-
tisfied by having additional guilt produced: inasmuch as Christ
brought new guilt into the creation, without diminishing the old.
There is no way to avoid this conclusion but by saying Christ took
fart of their guilt, and left the remainder on themselves: and if so,
they still need pardon for what remains^ because Christ only ap-

226 AN ESSAY ON THE

peased the divine vengeance, for the proportion of guilt which he
received. Again:

If Christ did not choose to become really guilty, in what sense
did he impute guilt to himself? If he believed he was guilty, when
he was not, he deceived himself, and if he professed to be so,
when he was not, he deceived others: if then he was not really
guilty, did not believe himself guilty, nor profess to be so, in
what way can it be imagined that he imputed sin to himself?

And if the Father accounted him guilty, when he was innocent,
was not this imputation contrary to truth? Or does a false charge
presented against an innocent person really make him guilty?

If it be said, it is blasphemous to ask these questions, or to an-^
swer them; and that it is enough for us to know that Christ con-
sented to become guilty, because it was necessary to the redemp-
tion of his people; I must reply, that this is nothing more than tak-
ing the hypothesis for granted. What proof is there that Christ
ever consented to become guilty, or that his becoming so was ne-
cessary to our redemption?

We have sufficient evidence, indeed, that he consented to take
upon himself the form of a servant, and to die, the just for the un-
just: we have sufficient evidence likewise that all this was was neces-
sary to our redemption: but this is so far from supposing him guil-
ty, that it plainly supposes the contrary, unless we choose to con-
found the distinction between the just and the unjust.

2. The theory of our opponents, if admitted, would not ac-
count for the necessity of atonement, or explain the manner of it,
any better than we understand it without such assistance.

They say it is hard to conceive how the sufterings of an innocent
person can prove God's opposition to sin. We reply, it is equally
hard to conceive how his hatred against sin is manifested by impu-
ting guilt to an innocent person. The latter case affords no aid to
our conceptions; for surely if it is difficult to conceive why the in-
nocenf should suffer, it does not mend the matter to charge the in-
nocent with being guilty when he is not so, and thus add a false
accusation to his other sufferings.

3. The hypothesis, far from clearing the mystery, involves the
subject in darkness and contradiction.

Though we are unable to conceive adequately of the atonement^
in our present state of being, yet we clearly conceive that it ac-
cords perfectly with every righteous principle for the innocent
to suffer, when the pain is voluntarily endured from the dictate of
benevolence. And as we know the greatest works of benevolence

PLAN OF SALVATION. 22^

performed in this world, cost the agent very considerable suffer-
ings, of one kind or another, why should it be thought incredible
that the redemption of sinners, an act of benevolence that trans-
ported the heavenly hosts, should cost its gracious Author an un-
common degree of misery?

But the sentiment we oppose can never be reconciled with right-
eousness; for though it is right for an innocent being to suiter
through voluntary kindness, yet to charge an innocent person with
guilt, and then to punish him as a criminal, is a plain violation
of truth and justice. The imputation is false, and the innocent
person cannot be punished as a criminal under sentence from such
a charge, without unjustly violating his right both to the charac-
ter and consequences of innocence. Thus the contradiction follows,
that justice is satisfied by the violation of justice.

Thirdly; our view, though it does not furnish us with a full and
adequate conception of atonement, is nevertheless more definite
and intelligible than the opposite.

1. Our Saviour, by assuming human nature, (sin excepted) and
submitting to suffer the agonies of the cross in that nature, on ac-
count of sin, and as an expedient through which sinners were to ap-
ply for mercy, plainly proved, that though God isagracious Being,
and we are his offspring, yet he is so far from being moved by a
partial fondness to tolerate our iniquities, that if we or any other
creatures were as near to him, as the humanity was united to God
in Jesus Christ, he would not depart from the principles of his go-
vernment to deliver us from punishment. This was plainly signi-
fied by our Saviour's death, which was therefore endured as a
proof of the purity of the divine nature. God hereby proved before
all worlds that though he was disposed to receive human sinners
to favour after their rebellion, yet this was so far from arising
from a connivance at iniquity, or from a fondness for them to the
neglect of other creatures, that if human nature was so near to him
as to be, as it were, a part of himself, it slwuld not be delivered
from punishment through partiality, or through a neglect of just
and impartial government.

2. He displayed the destructive nature and demerit of sin,
by exhibiting the dreadful effects of it in his own body on tha
cross. We may safely admit that he voluntarily endured the penal
consequences of sin in a considerable degree, to show what awful
miseries are incurred by disobedience; but never will we admit, I
hope, that he consented to deserve this miiery, or to take any part
of our guilt upon himself.

3SW AN ESSAY ON THE

His groans, and "strong cries and tears" on Calvary, spoke a
language which may have been understood far better by angels
than by men; and demonstrated that God is a Being ot'such unsul-
lied holiness, and of such abhorrence to moral evil, that the dire-
ful consequences of it shall beheld up by his beloved Son, between
heaven and earth, as the only medium through which forgiveness
shall be granted.

Let all creatures in the universe look to the cross of Jesus, and
learn that the pure laws of Almighty God are not to be broken
with impunity: no mercy can be shown, but through the medium of
"God manifested in the flesh, to put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself," and what creature will presume that God will sacrifice
himself at every turn, or whenever any part of his subjects shall
choose to enter upon a course of rebellion? This glorious expedi-
ent to save sinners, shows such love and condescension on the one
hand, and such a jealousy for the security of good government on
the other, that it appears calculated to astonish heaven, and cause
•very thinking man upon earth to rejoice with trembling. We have
cause to rejoice that our Redeemer has opened the way to heaven
before us by his own blood; and to tremble, lest we be found
among the number who neglect so great salvation, and for whom
"there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearlul
looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation which shall devour
the adversaries."

3. Our gracious Creator,by appointing the death of Christ as
the only medium of access; by demanding suitable humility and
submission on the part of the sinner; and by refusing to grant
pardon to those under the gospel who refuse to avail themselves
of the sacrifice of Christ as the foundation of their hopes, and to
implore mercy through his merit and intercession; has displayed
his divine authority and unchangeable purpose to hold the
principles of moral government, and make every rational crea-
ture submit to them, or feel the consequences of disobedience.

Thus he gives incontestable evidence of his regard for right-
eousness; whereas, had Christ by his death discharged all clainuof
justice against the sinner; God would have proved in the face of
heaven that redemption was designed to unnerve the principles
of his govei'nment, and to raise ransomed sinners above all obliga-
tions of law, during the whole of their probation. By establish-
ing a plan of redemption, which should give them a legal indul-
gence in their iniquities, he would demonstrate his want of holi-
ness, i^udif he were to demand and execute the penalty twice over

PL\N OF SALVATION. 359

first on their surety, and then on themselves, he would thereby
prove his deficiency in equity and moral justice.

Hence it appears, that the hypothesis invented to account for
redemption, far from assisting our views of God's hatred against
sin, represents him as devising an expedient which brings him in-
to an inextricable dilemma: either to raise his creatures above all
law, by granting them indulgences in sin, or to exhibit a proof of
injustice by inflicting the same penalty twice over.

4. As the death of Jesus Christ, proved the great extent of God's
benevolence, and at the same time evinced his love of righteous-
ness and hatred of sin; — -as it maintained the divine authority,
and the sinners obligation to his law, and thereby exhibited the
equity and impartiality of his supreme and holy administration; —
the moral character of God was fully manifested, and his attri-
butes harmoniously exercised in the plan of saving sinners through
a Redeemer.

Though the grant of pardon to rebels was a new act, which his
creatures had never before witnessed, yet he makes it manifest to
them that he has adopted no new principle of action; that no
change has taken place in his nature, but that the pardon of sin-
ners through a Redeemer flows from the same attributes which
were before made known, and by which his creatures had been
governed from the beginning. Hence the obedient part of the crea-
tion are guarded against delusion, and their welfare is secured,
because there is nothing in this plan of saving sinners that is cal^
culated to weaken their confidence in God or his government; but
on the contrary, his attributes are exhibited more extensively than
before.

From what has been said, I must take the liberty to draw two
general conclusions.

1. According to our view of atonement, the redemption of sin-
ners by our Lord Jesus Christ flowed from all thd divine attri-
butes in harmony: it was done for the sake of showing mercy to
the guilty and the miserable, which was a display of benevolence:
it was done for the sake of guarding his creatures from falling in-
to error concerning his nature, or his act of administration in res-
toring sinners, which was a display of his moral attribute of truth:
it was done for the sake of guarding the native happiness of his
creatures, and of showing that no partial fondness had any influ=
fence to diminish his sacred regard to universal right, which clean-
ly manifested his justice.

330 AN ESSAY ON THE

2. The theory of our opponents, supposes redemption to flow
from some principle in the Deity, vvliieh contradicts every known
attribute of his nature: (1.) It supposes him to have no disposition
to show favour to the fallen, but absolutely to execute full ven-
geance for every crime, which contradicts his mercy or benevo-
lence: (2) It supposes him to impute guilt to the innocent Redeem-
er when he is not guilty, which must be a false charge, and there-
fore his truth is contradicted: (3.) It supposes him to liave arrest-
ed the Redeemer upon tliis false charge, and to have legally
punished him as a criminal, and thereby to have violated his right
to the character and consequences of innocence, which plainly
contradicts his jujitice.

And after all this is done, he is supposed either to raise sinners
above all obligations to his law, or else to impose the same obli-
gation over again that has been to all intents and purposes dis-
charged, by the legal condemnation and execution of the surety in
the sinner's place.

What a character, to be displayed to the view of the universel
It exhibits a scene well calculated to inspire all intelligent crea-
tures with gloomy apprehensions, that God is about to abandon
every moral principle of his nature, and to act upon those of false-
hood, injustice and arbitrary malevolence. And all this is to be
done, it seems, to satisfy divine justice!

I pray God to deliver all men from such dangerous and ruinous
delusions, and enable tkem rightly to contemplate the immutable
perfections of his nature, as they were exhibited by him who diedy
the just for the unjust, and who "has entered into heaven itself,
now to appear in the presence of God for us."

As to the objection, that Christ died upon an uncertainty, with-
out being assured of a single soul of Adam's race, the answer is
easy:

The salvation of all who die in infancy is secured through the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the way is opened for all who live to years of ma-
turity. Will any one say the merit of our Saviour's work is really
diminished by the numbers who neglect this great salvation? Doesit
depend upon them, or their conduct, whether the plan of redemp-
tion be complete or not? If so, the Saviour must secure theirabsolute
salvation, so as to make their perdition impossible, in order to
keep them from destroying his own merit! Their will must be con-
trolled by an irresistible power, lest they should choose to conti-
nae in sin, and thus their Redeemer would be robbed of his glory!

PLAN OF SALVATION. 23 i

The truth is, that as we advance in this controversy, it appears
more and more evident to every reflecting mind, that the Antinomi-
an scheme must be received in all its parts, or must be demolished
from the foundation. The single point of legal atonement, supports
the whole system of predestinarian orthodoxy, and one or other of
these three things must be our inevitable portion: either (l.)to re-
ceive the entire system of Antinomianism, or (2.) to contradict
ourselves, or (3.) to disprove and abandon the notion of Christ's
death having legally discharged all penalties in behalf of sinners,
which is the chief corner stone of the ("fulsome'*) building.

Had it been our Saviour's purpose to save mankind by force, or
any particular part of them, he doubtless had power suflicient to
accomplish his design, without dying on the cross; and had such a
compulsive system been consistent with the moral attributes of
God, I have no doubt but he would have done so: he would have
changed every man from sin to holiness, or rather, from bad pro-
pensities to good ones, by an absolute and irresistible influence; but
the actions of a person thus compelled could have no relation to
morality, and therefore God's moral perfections demanded that
they should be saved, if at all, in a way that should not destroy
their agency: for this reason our Saviour's atonement had rela-
tion to the moral attributes alone, and therefore his plan must be
so laid as only to influence sinners by motives, and leave them to
the liberty of choice. ./

The merits of Christ wM-e never intended to secure the salvation
of any definite number of men, as the predestinarians do vainly
talk: but to open the ivay to heaven, and make the throne of grace
accessible to all mankind.

" By whom also we have access into this grace wherein we stand
and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Rom. v. 2.

<-And an highway shall be there, and it shall be called the way
of holiness." Isa. xxxv. 8.

"Jesus saith unto him, Jom the way, and the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John xiv. 6.

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest
by the blood of Jesus, by a new ami living way, which he hath con-
secrated for us through the vail, that is to say, his flesh; let us
draw near with a true heart," &c. Heb. x. 19, 20.

Thus it appears the blood of Christ was intended to open a way
through the wilderness of sin where there was no way, that sin-
ners might have access to the throne of grace.

SAS AN ESSAY ON THE

This work is accomplished: the May is open: we are under
great obligations to God our Saviour for this invaluahle privilege:
and surely our refusing to walk in the way, does not diminish the
merit which opened it, aod Christ is under no necessity of forcing
any man to heaven, for fear of losing his merit, or the glory of his
performances. We might as well say God was under the necessity
of forcing all men and angels to continue upright, for fep,r of lofiing
hji^ merit aad glory iu their creation.

SECTION VII.

The same subject.

Ouaprinciple of atonement not only is more definite and inteU
ligible than that of our opponents; but also accords better with
the providence and the works of God,

1. It agrees better with the state of man in the present world*
If Christ died to discharge every penalty of justice in behalf of
the human rape, Mheuce is it that the wrath of God still abidetU
on all impenitent sinners, and that th •^' are condemned already,
by the very sentence that w as executed on their surety? All this
is darkness and confusion upon the x\ntJnomian scheme; but upon
Qur plan the incongruity at ouce disappears. Because if Christ
died to procure a day of grace for us: if we are to stand our trial
here for a future state of reward or punishment, the calamities of
the present world are adapted to our condition, and accord per-
fectly with the wise and benevolent designs of providence,

2. It agrees better with thesimplicityof the gospel. We learn from
the scriptures, iliAt Christ died for our sins, and >et those who re-
pent not shall die for their own sins, and every man shall bear his
Qwn burden. That he bare our sins in his own body on the tree; and
yet the soul that sinneth it shall die, and God, without respect of
jiersons,judgeth according to every man's work. These are irre-
concilable contradictions upon the plan of legal atonement which
we oppose; but nothing can be plainer or more consistent, if it be
true (,hat Chirst died to give us the privilege of obtaining pardon,
or in other words, that the redemption through his blood consists in
the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of liis grace; aii4

PLAN OF SALVATION. 238

not in a legal exoneration from the curse of the law, upon prin-
ciples of eternal justice. Our doctrine makes the day of grace and
the day of judgment harmonize in the divine economy. It recon-
ciles the dift'erent offices of the Lord Jesus, as the Saviour and
the Judge of human kind. It exalts the merits of Christ, and yet
maintains the accountability of man; and shows that they are per-
fectly consistent with eac!» other. If the sinner repent not, it is
just for him to be condemned: and if he repent and believe the
gospel, it is just for him to be forgiven, because universal right
has been secured by a display of the divine attributes in Jesus
Christ.

What stronger evidence could be given of God's love to hijB
creatures on the one hand, and his regard for holiness and justice
on the other, than for his only begotten son to assume our nature,
lead a life of spotless purity among the disaffected part of his
creatures, submit to the dreadful effects of moral evil, and hang
bleeding I)etween earth and heaven, a spectacle to angels and to
men? The great design of God in this astonishing event, was to
exhibit a grand and awful argument or proof to all worlds, that sin
is such a dreadful evil, so destructive in itself, and so hateful to
the pure nature of Deity, that no sinner can be forgiven, however
penitent he may be, but through the intercession of that Redeemer,
who exhibited ihe direful effects of sin, in his own bleeding body
on the tree. He that was rich in glory, became poor: the son of
God, whose right hand formed the stars of heaven, takes upon
himself the form of a servant, and becomes obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross! Behold him, ye heavens! and hear him
groan his last! his agonizing spirit as it were abandoned by earth
and heaven, cries out in the bleeding anguish of distress, " My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me! His sweat became as
great drops of blood falling to the ground; while his soul was ex-
ceeding sorrov/ful even unto death!" With all the innocence and
parity of heaven in his nature, he is wounded, and bruised, and
mangled with thorns and nails; while a burden of grief intolerable,
presses down his spirit. Sin, the original cause of all misery, is held
in such unchangeable detestation by the Creator, that to discour-
age the practice of it, and to exhibit iis dreadful horrors, the Lord
of Glory expires under that misery which is its native production.

This is the great proof of God's unchangeable perfections: and
the very end for which the Redeemer thus suffered, was, " To de-
clare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,
through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time,

234. AN ESSAY ON THE

his righleousiiess, that he might be just, and the justiiier of him
which helieveth iu Jesus."

The Almighty gave proof of his holy attributes, before sin enter-
ed into the creation, by those rewards, uhich evinced his appro-
bation of righteousness; and by those threafenings or penalties
annexed to his laws, which declared his abhorrence of moral
evil. But after sin is entered into the world, what must be done?
Can angels do any thing to justify the government? No. If a thou-
sand of them were sacrificed for man, this would be so far from
proving God's regard for holiness and justice, that it would be a
demonstration of injustice and partiality. No being less tban God
can do any thing for the redemption and salvation of fallen crea-
tures. Divine mercy pities fallen men, and is disposed to pardon
all that will submit to proper government, whereby they may be
qnalitied to become members of the peaceful society of heaven; but
as an evidence to the whole creation, that this pardon does not re-
sult from any disposition to connive at a spirit of rebellion, God
takes npon himself the mortal nature of man; in that nature he
exhibits a shining example of the most pure andheavenly virtue:
in that nature he opposes sin in all its secret windings in the heart
and life of man; and in that nature he takes upon himself the bur-
den of our sins, not by becoming guilty, but by submitting to bear
the excrutiating effects of sin, in his own body on the tree. Eve-
ry groan he utters, cries aloud to earth and heaven: behold ivhat
vianner of love the father hath bestowed upon man: Behold (he
horrid nature and tormenting influence of moral evil! Behold the
Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the God of all the armies
of heaven, thus concealed in humanity, and bleeding on the cross!
Behold the Lamb of God ivlio taketh away the sins of the world!

Behold these wounds and bruises, sweat, and blood and tears:
liear those strong cries, and witness those dying agonies, as a c?c-
■ monstration of God^s righleousiiess — and see all nature corro-
borate the amazing argument! The veil of the temple is rent from
the top to the bottom; the mountains tremble, as if shaken from
their foundation; thegraves are opened; the sun blushes as in sack-
cloth, and hides his shining face in darkness; while the very an-
gels, it may be, suspend their song; and all the heavenly regions
are brought to pause in holy and astonished silence, while God
breaks down the dreadful barrier; condemns sin to eternal infa-
my, and opens the gates of mercy to mankind!

This was a pro»f of the divine goodness and holiness, which
none but God could give: for if Christ was am^re creature, be wa.s

PLAN OF SALVATION 235

under an obligation oi'perpettial obedience to the law for himself: if
he voluntarily left his own duty, which the law required, to go and
do that which it did not require of him, it was a proof of disobedimce
to God's government: if he was a sinner, he deserved what came
Upon him: if he was an innocent and holy creature, and if God pun-
ished him as a criminal, it would prove nothing but injustice and
partiality. But if the eternal God himself, who was under no
obligation to the law given to crcTatures, voluntarily came under it
that he himself might redeem them that were under the law, his
regards for righteousness are gloriously displayed, as well as his
compassion for miserable offenders.

This argument is urged with peculiar force and propriety, by
Mr. Joseph Benson, who revised and finished Mr. Fletcher's "Vin-
dication of Christ's Divinity, inscribed to Dr. Priestley."

"According to the apostle," says he, "one principal end of the
death of Christ was to demonstrate God's righteousness — that is.
the purity of his nature, implying his infinite hatred to sin, the au-
thority of his law, which denounces vengeance against the sinner,
and the equity of his government, — or, in one word, his justice.
♦Justified freely says he by his grace, through the redemption
which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth a propitiation,
through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteous-
ness, by or on account of the remission of past sins, through the
forbearance of God, for a demonstration I say of his righteousness
in this present time, that he might be just, and yet the justifier of
him that believeth in Jesus,' But surely, if satisfaction can be made
for the injury done to the glory of God by all the sins of all man-
kind, and their salvation from eternal destruction into everlasting
life and happiness, can be rendered consistent with the divine at-
tributes in consequence of their repentance upon such easv terms
as the giving up of one mere man to temporal death for two or
three days; — whatever inference the intelligent creation of God
may draw from hence in favour of his clemency, they can draw
none in favour of his righteousness or justice: but on the contrary,
they will find their ideas of it contracted; and will be inclined to
suppose, both that sin is no verij great evil, and that God is not
much displeased with it; inasmuch as \\id forgives the complicated
and aggravated guilt of so many myriads of sinners, merely be-
cause one mere man, like tliemselves, dies for them. Surely to
talk of God's righteousness being demonstrated by such a selienie
as this, — that he might be and ajjpears to be just, while he is the
mcrfciful justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, would be highly
absurd aud_ ridiculous." — Uational Vindication, vol. 1, j^cg^ 119-

236 AN ESSAY ON THE

As this argument of Mr. Benson not only supports the divinitjr
of our Saviour, but proves that the end of his suffering was (o de-
mousti-ate the equity of God's government, by displaying the great
evil of sin, and the Almighty's displeasure against it, his conclu-.
sion stands upon the very principle defended in these pages, and
therefore the al)ove quotation is another proof of the respectable
authority and antiquity of this doctrine, and that it is not a novel-
ty, never before heard of in the christian world.

3. Our view of redemption is better calculated than the op-
posite to influence the minds of angels or men, and to reconcile
all things in Christ, whether they be things in earth or things in
heaven.

If the Lord Jesus died, not to give man a right to demand his li-
berty, but to open a way of salvation, to bring him nnder a gra*
cious government, or covenant of mercy, and thus to introduce
men into the society of angels, not by constituting them innocent
with Antinomian imputations, but by purifying them unto himself,
a peculiar people, zealous of good works: — how does the wisdom
and goodness of this economy shine forth and influence the very
angels to rejoice, and give glory to God in the highest! Jesus
displays the glory of God before them, and secures the influence
of the divine government: through his name sinners are pardon-
ed and saved, and not till his grace has given them a moral fitness
for that salvation; therefore the interests of heaven and earth
completely centre in the Lord Jesus Christ, and angels rejoice at
the salvation of sinners, and gladly own them as their brethren.

"In this our first period of existence," says Dr. Beattie, " our
eye cannot penetrate beyond the present scene, and the human race
appears one great and separate community: but with other worlds,
and other communities, we probably may, and every argument fof
the truth of our religion gives us reason to think, we shall be con-
nected hereafter. And if, by our behaviour, we may, even while
here, as our Lord positively affirms, heighten, in some degree, the
felicity of angels, our salvation may hereafter be a matter of im*
porlauee, not to us only, but to many other orders of immortal be-
ings. They, it is true, will not sutler for our guilt, nor be rewarded
for our obedience. But it is not absurd to imagine, that our fall and
recovery may be useful to them as an exujnple: and, that the Di*
vine grace manifested in our redemption may raise their adoration
and gratitude into higher raptures, and quicken their ardour to
inquire, with ever new delight, into the dispensations of infinite
wisdom. This is not mere conjecture. It derives plausibility front

PLAN OF SALVATION. 257

many analogies in nature, as well as from Holy Writ, which repre-
sents the mystery of our redemption as an object of curiosity to su»
perior beings, and our repentance as an occasion of their joy." —
BeattiePs evidences, page 133.

This subject is father illustrated by Dr. Porteus, late bishop of
London.

«It is, I believe, generally taken for granted," says he, "that it
was for the human race alone, that Christ syftered and died; and
we are then asked, with an air of triumph, whether it be conceiva-
ble, or in any degree credible, that the eternal Son of God should
submit to so much indignity and so much misery for the fallen, the
wicked, the wretched inhabitants of this small globe of earth,
which is as a grain of sand to a mountain, a mere speck in the
universe, when compared with that immensity of worlds, which the
sagacity of a great modern astronomer has discovered in the bound*-
less regions of space.

"But on what ground is it concluded, that the benefits of Christ's
death extend no farther than to ourselves.'* As well might we sup-
pose, that the sun was placed in the firmament merely to illumi»
nate and warm this earth that we inhabit. To the vulgar and the
illiterate this actually appears to be the case. But philosophy
teaches us better things. It enlarges our contracted views of di-
vine beneficence, and brings us acquainted with other planets and
other worlds, which share with us the cheering influence and the
vivifying warmth of that glorious luminary. Isjt not then a fair
analogy to conclude, that the great 'spiritual light of the world,'
the fountain of life, and health, and joy to the soul, does not scat-
ter his blessings over the creation with a sparing hand, and that
the Sun of Righteousness rises with healing in iiis wings to other
orders of beings besides ourselves.'' Nor does this conclusion rest
on analogy alone. It is evident from scripture itself, that we ar«
by no means the only creatures in the universe interested in the
sacrifice of our Redeemer. We are expressly told, that as by him
were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth,
visible and invisible; and by him all things consist: so by him also
was God pleased (having made peace through the blood of his
cross) to reconcile all things unto himself, whether they be things
in earth, or things in heaven: that in the dispensation of the ful-
ness of times, he might gather together in one, 'all things in Christ,
both which are in heaven and which are in earth, •vea in him.'*

» Col. i. 16, 20. Eph. i. 10.
H h

538 AN ESSAY ON THE

"From intimations such as these, it is highly probable, thatia
the great work of redemption as well as of creation, there is a
vast stupendous plan of wisdom, of which we cannot at present
so much as conceive the whole compass and extent. And if we
could assist and improve the mental as we can the corporeal sight;
if we could magnify and bring nearer to us by the help of instru'-
ments, the great component parts of the spiritual, as we do the
vast bodies of the natural world; there can be no doubt, that the
resemblance and analogy would hold between them in this as it
does in many other well-known instances; and that a scene of
wonders would burst in upon us from the one, at least equal, if not
superior, to those which the united powers of astronomy and of ap-
tics disclose to us in the other.

"If this train of reasoning be just; if the redemption wrought by
Christ extended to other worlds; if its virtues penetrate even into
keaven itself; if it gather together all things in Christ; who will
then say, that the dignity of the agent was disproportioned to the
magnitude of the work; and that it w as not a scene sufficiently
splendid for the Son of God himself to appear upon, and to display
the riches of his love, not only to the race of man, but to ma ny
other ordersof intelligent beings." Porteus^s Sermons,pag'e274i,2V5.

The above sentiments may apjjear alarming to those who may
be disposed to limit the Holy One of Israel; but as the heaven is
high above the earth, so great is his mercy towards his creatures:
<'my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your
ways, saith the Lord." As the sentiment of those respectable au-
thors accords with the perfections of God, the analogy of nature,
and the testimony of revelation, we are surely warranted in yield-
ing to their conclusion, so far at least, as to believe that all God's
upright creatures receive advantage by the display of his glory in
the plan of redemption by our Lord Jesus Christ. Are they not in-
terested in the divine attributes as well as mau? And if redemption
displayed those attributes beyond every thing that has appeared
since the creation, how can it be imagined that the bene-
fit of this wonderful event should be confined alone to us and our
children? Are the angels of heaven indifterent spectators.? Or are
their interests closely connected with ours in that common Sa-
viour who came to reconcile all things unto himseH?

Whether the following scriptures do not establish this doctrine,
I leave the reader to judge:

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgive-
ness oi* sins, according to the riches of his grace, having made

PLAN OF SALVATION. 239

known unto us the mystery of Lis will, according to his good plea-
sure, which he hath purposed in himself: [namely] that in the dis-
pensation of the fullness of times [when all the times and dispen-
sations of his grace and providence shall be full or completed] he
might gather together in one. all thiugs in Christ, both which are
in heaven and which are in earth, even in him. Eph. i. T, 9, 10.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, [and what has
that redemption accomplished] even the forgiveness of sins, in his
name who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every
creature; for by him were all things created that are in heaven,
and that are inearth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones,
or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created
by him and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all
things consist; and he is the head of the body, the church; who is
the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things he
might have the pre-eminence: for it pleased the Father that in him
should all fulness dwell: and (having made peace through the blood
of his cross) by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I
say, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven. Col. i.
14, 15, &c. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is na-
med. Eph. iii. 15.

O for this love let rocks and hills,
Their lasting silence break;
And all harmonious human tongues,
The Saviour's praises speak.

Angels, assist our mighty joys,
Strike all your harps of gold;
But when you raise your highest notes,
His love can ne'er be told.

SECTION vm.

The two systems of redemption^ tested by the native consequences
which flow from them.

As no doctrine, founded in truth, will be discredited by exami-
nation, or be put out of countenance by an exposure of its genu-
ine consequences; we desire that our views of atonement may be

3*0 AN ESSAY ON THE

gcrutinized, and traced in all their native tendency*, not doubting
the more clearly truth is seen, the mare conviction it will car-
ry to every candid mind. I purpose, in this section, to exhibit
some other eft'ects of the two opposing systems, that we may
judge of them by their fruits.

1. In what a consistent, and soul-cheering light does our plan
represent that Eternal Being, who is love in the abstract, and of
whose goodness there is no end! It represents him as exercising
his jwwer, and wisdom^ and justice, in perpetual subserviency to
his pure and everlasting kindness. Why did he lay down a plan
of salvation, by a demonstration of his righteousness througli a
Redeemer.'' That, everlasting felicity miglit flow to mortal men.
Why does he determine that justice and holiness shall be display-
ed and satisfied by the punishment of obdurate and incorrigible
sinners.? That the principles of moral order may not be deranged
or interrupted, through which the benignity of God supports the
unceasing happiness of heaven. Why does he govern his children
by moral motives, and not by a compulsive or irresistible influence?
That they may be assimilated into the Divine nature, and enjoy
that ineffable tranquillity which is inseparable from a voluntary
cjipice, Why does he give some of his servants one talent, some
two, and others five? That his manifold wisdom may be display-
ed, a pleasing variety be maintained through the spiritual as well
AS the natural world, that all hjs children, the constitution of
whose nature is such, that few sources of delight are more reviv«
ing to them than variety, may thus behold his wonderful works,
and exercise tlieir different gifts for the mutual benefit of all.
Here is no reprobation or free-wrath; no partial or humorous
fondness for one to the neglect of another; no double dealing, dis-.
simulation or hypoeris;^ the parts all taken together exhil)it one
general scheme of benevolence, transporting to an intelligent na^
ture. and every way worthy of God.

Dr. Clarke, speaking of the Supreme Being, says, "a general
definition of this Great First Cause, as far as human words dare
attempt one, may be thus given. The eternal, independent, and
self-existent Being: the Being whose purposes and actions spring
from himself, without foreign motive or influence: He who is ab-
solute in dominion: the mo»t pure, most simple, most spiritual of
all essences: infinitely benevolent, beneficent, true and holy: the
cause of all being, the upholder of all things: infinitely happy,
because infinitely good; and eternally self-sufticient, needing no*
thing that he has made. Illimitable in his immensity, jncoijceiva*

PLAN OF SALVATION. 341

We ill his mode of existence, and indescribable in his essence: known
fully only to himself, because an infinite mind can only be com-
prehended by itself. In a word, a Being who, from his infinite
wisdom, cannot err or be deceived; and who, from his infinite
goodness, can do nothing but what is eternally just, right, and
kind." Comment on the first of Genesis.

In the mouth of those three witnesses, Mr. Wesley, Dr. Clarke,
and the apostle John, let the truth be established, that Godis love:
or, in other words, that goodness is the leading principle of his
conduct towards his creatures, from the beginning of the creation
to eternity, and that no other attribute of his nature ever did,
or ever will, contradict for a moment, that glorious and amiable
perfection which is the fountain of all happiness, and without
which, our Creator would be an object of terror and dismay, and
would have nothing attracting in his nature. Power and wisdom
have no charms but what they derive from benevolence: remove
them from under its influence, and they are objects of indiffer-
ence, or of disgust and detestation. The Devil possesses both
wisdom and power; yet he is an object of our just abhorrence, for
this reason only, that his faculties are no longer directed by love
and kindness, but by injustice and malevolence.

"Remove goodness from all the other divine attributes," says
Dr. Brown, "and suppose the Supreme Being unconcerned for the
happiness of his creation, and say, whether his nature would then
appear as amiable, adorable, and transcendently excellent, as it
uow appears to every reflecting mind. And if goodness constitute
the supreme glory of the divine nature, that which gives to every
other perfection its true beauty and light, and completes the real
character of Deity; is it possible that any human excellence or
advantage should compensate for the absence of this primary vir-
tuet" Brown's "Natural Equality of Men," page 163.

2. As our doctrine glorifies God, on the one hand, so, on the other,
it opposes every thing that is contrary to his nature. Nothing
can be more discouraging to sin of every description: for it repre-
sents sin as the parent or first cause of all misery; — as waging war
against the nature of God; — as being unjust, unreasonable, inex-
pressibly detestable;— .and as assaulting the peace and happinesB
of the whole intelligent creation. If the Lord of Glory came down
from heaven to restore our lapsed powers; if he offered himself
without spot to God, and became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross, for our redemption; and if we continually re-
sist all the influeaces of his grace, multiply our crimes, and conti-

84? AN ESSAY ON THE

Bue to injure ami ruin our moral faculties till our probation is
over — what can we expect but sudden destruction, seeing there re-
maineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking
for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the ad-
versaries? If we reject the offers of pardon, and harden our hearts
to the last, as Sure as God is eternally good, just and holy, we shall
J>e banished from his presence and the presence of his holy angels,
into the pit of destruction, with the fallen spirits who have obsti-
nately prepared themselves for those regions of confusion and des-
pair,by treasuring up Mrath against the day of wrath, and revela-
tion of the righteous judgment of God.

3. If all the divine perfections, the principles of God's moral
government, and the common interests of the heavenly regions,
stood jointly opposed to man's salvation, till they were reconciled
to it in Jesus Christ; — what can be imagined more adapted to the
wants of men than our doctrine, or better calculated to influence
them, with all humility of mind, to depend upon Christ for salva-
tion? If they expect or endeavour to attain it any other way, than
this which is procured by his meritorious death and intercession,
they might as well undertake to demolish the throne of God, or to
change his immutable nature. It is evident that Christ, with us,
is all in all: we are dependent on him for wisdom, righteousness,
sanctification, and redemption. Our Saviour has died for us; but
it is not to give us a legal discharge, and put the government out of
his own hands; he still keeps us in a state of proper dependence,
and we must approach in his name, as humble suppliants, for par-
don, and for all things needful for life and godliness.

Whereas the opposite system encourages lawless presumption^
by assuring the elect they are such eternal favourites of God, that
his decree secures their salvation as absolutely as the pillars of hea-
ven are secured. Their sins can never alter the decree; therefore
they may rest safe and satisfied in the midst of their iniquities. But
he whose name has been called Jesus, shall save his people from
their sins: consequently he who trusts to be saved in his sins, is not
depending upon Christ for salvation. As the plan of our Redeemer
is to purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works;—
as this is his method of saving sinners, — it is ridiculous for any
man to look for salvation some other way, and call this depending
upon Christ.

And if they say the unchangeable decree of God secures their
sanctification as absolutely as their glorification, this alters not
the matter: for behold an elect sinner indulging his evil nature

PLAN OF SALVATION. 243

with presumptuous unconcern: while Christand the'gospel are call-
ing him to repentance and amendment, with assurances of aftording
him every necessary aid, he replies, and very consistently upon
the predestinarian hypothesis, that the decree of God is unaltera-
bly fixed, and the precise time of its operation; therefore when the
time comes, he will be dra^vn out of his sins as sure as God is
omnipotent: as he does not feel this irresistible operation at pre-
sent, he waits patiently and rests very securely, assuredly gather-
ing that the day of power will approach in due season, and des-
troy his sins by as absolute an influence as was felt by the Egyp-
tian host when they were overwhelmed in the mighty waters. Now
who does not perceive that this man is depending, not upon Christ,
who says, now is the accepted time, and now is the day of salvation;
but upon the original act of predestination. The decree is his de-
pendence; and if it should fail him, or prove to be an Autinomian
chimera, he will fall as "a foolish man who built his house upon
the sand: but whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth
them, (that is,dependeth upon me for salvation,) I will liken him
unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock; atid the rain
descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon
that house: and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock." Matt.
vii. 24.

Here it will be objected, that Arminians are the men who are
deficient in a proper trust upon the Saviour, because they do not
expect him to draw them to heaven by a force which cannot be re-
sisted. The notion that final salvation or damnation will turn in
any degree upon the creature's agency, has been thought to rise
from the natural pride of man's heart, and that a christian can-
not be truly humble till he is brought to believe that it is impossi-
ble for him to take a single step towards heaven, but as he is im-
pelled by an irresistible power. While governed by the Armini-
an belief, he depends, in part at least, upon himself; whereas a
truly humble christian depends solely upon Christ to do every thing
that is necessary to his salvation. Answer:

1. This objection supposes that humility is inseparable from
the belief, that we are destitute of agency, or that our will is con-
trolled irresistibly: for if humility may exist separate from that
belief, it is not essential to humility, and of course an Arminian
may bo truly humble with the full belief that there is something
for him to do which ho may neglect, and the neglect of which will
forfeit his salvation. It also follows, if such a belief and a spirit
of humility be not essentially connected toi^othcr, that a Calvin-

244 AN ESSAY ON THE

ist may be as proud with his belief, as if he believed the Armini*
an doctrine. And if a man can be truly humble, and repose a true
coniideuee in his Saviour, without that belief, he does not need it
to produce those effects, because they are produced without it,
and entirely independent of its mighty influence.

But if it be affirmed, that the predestinarian faith and christian
humility are inseparable from each other, these consequences will
follow: First, that all sinners, M'ho can but persuade themselves
that salvation depends not at all upon their doings, but that
Christ mast do all for them, and do it irresistibly, are thereby
brought into a state of true christian humility, and gospel confi-
dence in their Saviour. Secondly, that the angels who sinned, and
Adam in Paradise, were destitute of true humility and a right de-
pendence on God, unless they believed their standing depended
not upon any action of their own, and that every thing necessary
to their perseverance in righteousness would be produced by the
irresistible operations of omnipotence.

If they believed this, their belief was either true or false; if it
was true, then their apostacy did not result from the neglect of
any thing depending upon their own power, but from some volun-
tary act of their Creator; if it was not true, and yet they must be-
lieve it in order to continue humble, we say their humility v»'a3
maintained by believing a falsehood.

Thirdly: That a christian to continue truly humble, must not
labour to keep himself in the love of God] for every attempt of the
kind arises from a belief that he has power to do something neces-
sary to his salvation, v.hich belief is supposed to destroy his hu-
mility. For if he believes he has no power to do any good thing
and still tries to do many good things, you say his christian obe-
dience consists in trying to do what he at the same time believes to
be impossible. If an irresistible power is to do for him, and in
him, everij thing that is necessary, he cannot surely aim at doing
any thing else, without labouring to do that which is unnecessary;
a kind of work that holds a close connexion with the popish doc-
trine of supererogation. And if he only labours to do the same
things which the irresistible power is to produce, does this arise
from a belief that his exertions will make the force more than
irresistible, or from a conviction that it may be resisted, and that
it is really necessary for him to labour for the meat which endur-
eth unto everlasting life? John vi. 27.

The truth is, that a gospel trust upon Christ is the trust of a
servant who feels his responsibility, and his need of divine sup?

PLAN OF SALVATION 545

portj but who does not depend upon the Master to obey his own
commandments, or to deliver him from the obligation and necessi-
ty of obeying them.

True humility arises, not from a belief that we have no power,
but from a conviction of our dependance upon God for the power"
we possess, and for the continuance of it, together with a convic-
tion of our obligation to use that power according to the directions
of him who gave it, and of our natural proneness to use it wrong.
Did any man ever feel humbled and debased from considering his
inability to create new worlds, or to eontroul the planets of heaven?
And when a child has a little strength to walk, but cannot move
forward without leaning upon his father's arm, does he not feel his
dependance more than a person feels his dependance upon the
earthy while it supports him by a law of nature which he cannot
resist? A christian humility consists in a conscious sense of his
weakness, which necessarily supposes some degree of activity or
povyer, without which it can have no existence, for certainly where
there is no power there can be no weakness, because the meau»
ing of the word is, a small degree of power.

2. The objection supposes that the work of a christian in doing
the will of God, which is using his power to the end for which it
was given, has a native tendency to produce pride; to keep him
humble, they say, he must be able to do nothing, but Christ must
do all: if you permit him to work out his own salvation, he will
feel his importance, and be proud of his own performances. That
men may be, and often are, proud of their own works is granted;
but this only happens when they lose sight of their extreme weak-
ness and perpetual dependance on God: bring them to a sense of
this, if you would subdue their pride, and never charge God fool*
ishly, by supposing that pride naturally rises out of the proper ex*
ercise of those faculties which he has given to his creatures.

I am apt to think it rises from very different sources: are men
never proud of any thing but what is produced by their own
works? are they not proud of their natural beauty, wit or noble
birth, things which have not been produced by their own activity?
Suppose two men have been exalted to offices of the highest trust
and honour in a nation: one has been gradually raised on account
of his integrity and good conduct; the other, without any regard
to his works, has been suddenly elevated to this honourable
height: which of those men would be the more likely to be high-
minded on account of the great favour he had received at court?
The one, you say, has all his works to boast of, and th« otter hd«
I J

246 AN ESSAY ON THE

received his gratuitous election without either works or condi-
tions: yet it is evident from the common experience of mankind,
that the antlnomian courtier will be more apt to have exalted no-
tions of himself than his neighbour, who had been thus favoured
on account of his integrity and good conduct.

The truth is, when men know they are favourites, it is very
common for them to value themselves highly upon it, though the
partiality exercised towards them be not founded upon any of their
works. It is enough that they have the preference to others,
Hvhom they are fond to consider as inferiors, for no other reason
but because they have not heen so highly exalted. And if I might
be indulged in s,uch a speculation, I would even venture to pre-
sume it not impossible that thousands of the elect in Zyon have
reflected upon the amazing fondness of their prince, upon their
being preferred to the rest of mankind, as the eternal favourites
of God, with d secret gratification very like to that complained of
in the presenl objection-
s'. Do not all men till the ground, or exercise themselves in
Other works of industry, from a conviction that their performances
are needful to Ihe sustenance of life.^ They know they are de-
pendant on God for a harvest; but they believe at the same time,
that their own works are so necessary, that a neglect of them will
bring poverty or death, and idleness will cover man with rags. —
Will this conviction, and consequent diligence, necessarily pro-
duce self-confidence? or is the diligent man more apt to be proud,
who expects to be preserved in a way of industry, than he who ne-
glects his business, and hopes to be supported some other way.^ I
presume our opponents will not deny that the God of nature has
suspended our preservation upon the condition of industry, and
that a total neglect of it will speedily terminate in death: if they
say, therefore, that the performance of conditions, from a convic-
tion of their being so essential, that a neglect of them will deprive
us of the blessings connected with the performance, naturally or
necessarily leads to pride, they accuse the God of nature and pro-
vidence with an egregious blunder in his arrangements, seeing,
according to them, the present constitution of the world has a na-
tive tendency to encourage haughtiness and selfish independence.

4-. Our doctrine gives every encouragement to sinners, at the
same time that it discourages sin, and every vain presumption.

It teaches that goodness is the leading principle of the Divine
Creator towards all mankind: that there is nothing in his nature
which delights in our mis-ery: that the redemption which is in

PLAN QF SALVATION. S^r

Jesu^ Christ has opened a door of salvation for all men: and that
everlasting happiness is secured to all who die in infancy, to all
heathens who/ear God and ivork righteousness, (according to the
light they have,) and to all christians who repent and believe the
gospel. Acts X. 34. Mark i. 15.

The other very naturally leads to presumption or despair. The
fancied elect may presume upon absolute security and inamissi-
ble salvation; but the reprobate is destined to the regions of dark-
ness, and may bemoan his bitter fate in vain. Our opponents teJl
us, however, that we know not who are elected, and who are not.
What then? This only leaves us doubtful whether we mu£t pre-
sume or despair, and when the point is settled in our minds, on one
iide or the other, its corresponding consequence follows as natu-
rally as light flows from the sun. But it is said that our notions
are discouraging to the penitent, because we say salvation is sus-
pended upon his own works, while he feels, in fact, that he can
do.nothing. We answer, the man who is not satisfied till he has
an assurance that his future salvation or destruction depends not
at all upon his doings, is pleading for as great encouragement as
any sinner in the w orld could desire: namely, such as shall assure
him there is no danger in wickedness, and no benefit in refsrma'
f ion, for the salvation of a man's soul. Our doctrine gives every
encouragement, excepting such as shall influence men to presume
upon impunity in their disobedience. The Spirit is ready to help
our infirmities, and is given to every man to profit withal; there-
fore we have every' thing to revive our hopes, provided we be will-
ing to depend upon Christ for salvation, and not upon our vaiu
delusions.

5. The necessity of a change of heart, or of gospel holiness, na-
turally follows from our view of redemption: for if Christ died to
open the way for men to be saved upon certain conditions, and if
those conditions are, a submission to the divine government, and a
conformity of our souls to the holy nature of God, it plainly follows,
that except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John. iii. 3. If the death of Christ alone fully satisfied the divine
attributes in the actual salvation of sinners, then nothing else is ne.
cessary to their salvation; and neither repentance, faith nor holi-
ness are needful to make their final happiness accord with the jus-
tice and purity of God, since as our opponents tell us, every attri-
bute was satisfied with their salvation, by the death of Christ, and
by nothing else. Here stands a sinner for whom the Redeemer suf-
fered on the cross: would the attributes of God be satisfied for him

g48 AN ESSAY ON THE

to be taken to heaven in his present impenitence or not? If they
would, a change of heart is not needful to make a sinner's glorifi-
cation accord with the divine nature; if they would not, then some-
thing is still necessary to reconcile God to our admittance into his
everlasting kingdom. Consequently our doctrine is true, that
Christ's death rendered such satisfaction as reconciled the divine
justice and holiness to man's probation, and to the free offer of eter-
nal life to every man; but that the act of God, in the grant of par-
tlon, and the operation of the Holy Ghost, in our sanctification, are
no less essential than his death, to satisfy them in our final aecep.
tance, or glorification at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Hence it appears that ours is the only system which makes a change
of heart and gospel holiness essentially and indispensably necessa»
ry to salvation.

SECTION IX.

Our system harmonizes the doctrines and clears up tnany difficult
passages of revelation.

The principle defended in these pages unites and harmonizes
the leading and essential doctrines of Christianity. It may be con-
sidered as the Key.stone in the solid arch of revelation, or as the
centre point of union, where "mercy and truth have met together,"
and where "righteousness and peace have kissed each other." At
the head of the following columns stands the Key-stone, which
unites and supports the great doctrines on the right hand and on
the left: take this away and the whole building falls in ruins to
the ground; or in other words, those leading principles of revela-
tion will be found utterly inconsistent with each other.

THE KEY-STONE.

Christ died to procure a gracious probation for men — to open a
way through which they might all be saved-— to make the throne
of grace accessible, by making it just for God to grant assistance,
pardon, sanctification and eternal life to all but the finally impenr
itent:— but he did not die to make the throne of justice accessible

PLAN OF SALVATION. g^^

to the sinner, by discLarging every legal demand against him, and
thus authorizing him to sue out his liberty and claim an exemn-
lion from all penalties as his lawful right.

FIRST CLASS OF TRUTHS.

1. ChrisVs death ^ives US the
privilege to come boldly to the
throne of grace.

2. Without Christ it is in vain
for us to plead {'or pardon before
the throne of grace.

3. It is unjust for men to be
fcrgiven without a Redeemer.

4. A Redeemer is essential to
a, sinner's salvation, [and]

5. Christ is the gracious Sa-
viour of mankind, who delights
to extend mercy unto them, and
blot out their transgressions.

6. Our Works of righteousness
cannot procure our salvation;
but it is accomplished by the
grace of God i/n Jesus Christ.

V. Christ has actually deli-
vered all mankind from the
eurse of the law. [in the irrevo-
cable form in which it stood
without a Redeemer.]

8. Christ's death made it just
for God to grant pardon to sin-
ners.

9. Christ tasted death for
every man, and bare our sins in
his own body on the tree, i P.
ii. 2^,

SECO-NP CLASS OF TRUTHS.

1. God^s mercy, in the grant
of pardon gives us the privilege
to coine boldly to the throne of

judgment.

2. Without pardon it is in
vain for us to plead the merits of
Christ before the throne of judg-
ment.

3. It is unjust for men to be
saved through a Redeemer2f;iYA-
out obtaining forgiveness.

4. God^s mercy in the grant of
pardon is equally essential to a
sinner's salvation.

5. Christ is the moral govern-
or of mankind, who delights to
maintain impartialjustice among
them, and finally to judge and
reward them according to their
works.

6. Without works of right-
eousness, the grace of God in
Jesus Christ will not save any
man.

7. No man is actually deli-
vered from the curse of the law
[in its revocable form through a
Redeemer] till he obtains the
forgiveness of his sins.

8. The gran* q/'j7arrfon makes
it just for sinners to be admit*
ted into heaven.

9. Every man shall hear his
own burden. Every man shall
give account of himself to God.
Gal. vi. 5, Rom. xiv. 12.

350 AN ESSAY ON THE

10. The Lord is not strict or 10. The Lord is of purer
severe to mark what is done a- eyes than to behold iniquity: he
miss; but is long suffering to us will by no means clear the
ward, not willing that any guilty; but will bring every
should perish, but that all should work into judgment, with eve-
come to repentance, ry secret thing, whether it be

good, or whether it be evil.

As all those scripture doctrines are reconciled by the principle
above mentioned, so are many obscure passages made clear,
which upon the opposite system are either contradictory or unin-
telligible.

How innumerable are the instances, for example, in which we
find the apostles declaring that good ivorks are so essential to our
salvation, that without them we shall never be admitted through
the gates into the city; and yet assuring us it is a dangerous delu-
sion for any man to expect salvation by the works of the law? —
Now unless we take our stand upon some principle which will
unite those scriptures, we may dispute forever, and come no near-
er to a conclusion: each disputant will have many passages on his
side, and while we neglect a reconciling principle, our controver-
sy does nothing but afford a presumption to infidels, that the bible
is at war with itself, and can never be brought to support any re-
gular and consistent system of theology.

AVhenee is it that St. Paul sometimes tells us, our salvation is
of grace, through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast;
and at other times, exhorts us to work out our own salvation with
fear and trembling? The solution is easy. If we attempt to work
ourselves to the throne of justice, to merit salvation, or obtain it
as a legal right, our works are an abomination in the sight of
God; but if we, through divine assistance, work in order to ap-.
proach the throne of grace, made accessible by the blood of Jesus,
our labour shall not be in vain in the Lord. If works could take us
to the throne of justice for deliverance, they would not obtain our
salvation through grace, but of debt: those, on the contrary, which
conduct us to the throne of grace, would not obtain our salvation
as a debt, but as a voluntary act of divine compassion. For after
we approach the throne of grace, God is not bound to receive us,
as the Antinomian atonement supposes, only as he has bound him-
self by promise, from the free grace or benevolence of his nature.

Thus the apostle argues: Now to hiin that worketh [in order
t© approach the throne of justice] is the reward not reckoned of

PLAN OF SALVATION. 251

grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not [to obtain a le-
gal exoneration from the curse] but believeth [with the heart
unto righteousness] on him that justifieth [or forgiveth] the un-
godly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. His faith, work-
ing by love, and including a proper submission to the divine go-
vernment, is accounted for, or through an act of goodness is ac-
cepted instead of perfect righteousness: therefore, the apostle
concludes the reward is not of debt, but of grace: why so.'' because
it was pure clemency or grace that accepted him upon the terms
of believing. Had he come with a perfect righteousness either
inherent or imputed, that righteousness alone would be a com-
plete ground of his justification, and there would be no truth in
saying either that faith was accounted for righteousness, or that it
would be any act of grace to accept him in this way, because his
spotless righteousness would give him an unquestionable right to
demand deliverance as a debt. Rom. iv. 4.

The apostle says again, "Even so then at this present time also
there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by
grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.
But if it be of works, then is it no more grace, otherwise work is
no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which
he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were
blinded." Rom. xi. 5, 6.

Here is a very convincing argument in support of the principle
he had before advanced; namely, that there is no medium between
looking for a free pardon from God's benignity and expecting to re-
ceive salvation as a debt. He proves that those w ho deny this con-
elusion are involved in palpable contradictions. For, says he, if
this deliverance or salvation is bestowed by grace, or favour, then
it is not received upon the ground of a legal righteousness as a
debt, for this would prove that there was no benevolence or grace
in the matter. Deny this, and you say grace is no more grace; that
is, that it is grace and not grace — a favour and tlie mere payment
of a debt, at the same time.. But if it be of works, or a legal righte-
ousness exactly answerable to every demand of the law, then is it
no more of grace, because it is obtained upon principles of inflexi-
ble justice, and there is no favour bestowed in only rendering that
which is proportional to your legal right. Will you deny this, and
say salvation may be received upon the ground of tliis legal right-
eousness, and yet be of grace.'' if so, you say work is no more work,
that is, thai it is received upon the ground of a just or legal de-
mand, and not received upon this ground at the same time. These

•«33 AN ESSAY ON THE

manifest contradictions are unavoidable upon any other princi-
ple but that which is defended in these pages, and as St Paul
pointed out these consequences in his epistle to the Romans, it is
a little remarkable that his Mritings should be considered friend-
ly to Antinomianism: more so, that this epistle should be so un*
derstood; and more still that this very text should be thought
a main pillar of predestinarian or imputed righteousness.

He assures them that no man will receive salvation who expects
it as debt, because God's method of saving sinners is ir a way of
mercy. Christ is his elect or chosen one, and whoever receives
him by faith, and receives pardon in his name, is elected, chosen^
or approved of God in Christ, as a child of God and an heir ac-
cording to the promise. What then? Israel hath not obtained that
which he seeketh for; [because they sought it not by faith, but by
the works of the law. Chap. ix. 32.] but the election hath obtain-
ad it, [because they sought it not as a debt but as humble suppli-
ants; they received it as an act of grace, freely vouchsafed to all
that will receive it in this way,] and the rest were blinded.
That is, they were blinded with the vain delusion which the apos-
tle is here labouring to remove, and this was the reason they re-
ceived not that which they sought after. Had they abandoned
the notion of a legal righteousness as the ground of their justifica-
tion, and received pardon from the mercy of God in Jesus Christ,
they too w ould have been a part of the election who hath obtained
it; but they hardened themselves in prejudice against the truth^
and of course loere blinded; because he that runs away from
the light must necessarily walk in darkness, and " this is the con-
demnation that light is come into the world, and men love dark-
ness rather than light, because their deeds are evil."

Another scripture, worthy of particular notice, we find in Acfjs
iv. 27. " For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou
hast anointed, both Herod aud Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles,
and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do what-
soever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be doue.'^
Again: " Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and
fore-knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have
crucified and slain." Acts ii. 23.

From these passages we learn the following particulars; 1.
That God from his fore-knowledge of man's apostacy, had de-
termined, according to his counsel or w isdom, that certain things
should be done. 2. That the Lord Jesus was appointed to exe-
4ttte his counsel or determination. 3. That the Jews aud Gen-

PLAN OP SALVATION. 353

tiles, though their malice was over-ruled, to subserve the purpo«
ses of the Divine wisdom, were very wicked in taking and cruci-
fying the Redeemer.

1. Our Heavenly Father determined, according to the counsel,
or wise purpose of his own will, that all things should be done
that were necessary for the redemption of mankind.

2. The Son of God was anointed, or set apart to execute this
gracious determination, and to do every thing that was necessary
to its accoL'^plishment. I hope no person will say the Jews were
appointed to do whatsoever God's hand and council determined he*
fore to be done. This were to suppose God commissioned them to
perform the work of our redemption. If any shall declare that it
was necessary for the Jews to crucify the Lord of Glory, they must
suppose those sinners did at least a part of the work that was es-
sential to the redemption and salvation of mankind, without whose
assistance the work would not have been complete! God says he
has no need of the sinful man: our Saviour says: No man taketh my
life from me; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
take it again: while the prophet in his name declares, I have
trodden the wine-press alone, and of the people there was none
with me: I looked, and there was none to help; therefore mine own
arm brought salvation unto me. Isaiah Ixiii. 3,5.

3. It follows, that neither the treachery of Judas, nor the malice
of Jews or Gentiles was necessary; but that their crime was enor-
mous in arresting the Redeemer, and nailing him, 6?/ their wicked
hands, to the cross. He was innocent, and did not deserve to suf-
fer: and though he had a right to suiter, yet this right was in him-
self alone, and no mortal had any more authority over his life
than over the life of angels.

Some pretend that the conduct of those men was unavoidable,
because their actions were fixed by an immutable decree; but if
God predestinated their wickedness, that decree resulted from his
goodness or justice, or else it was unjust: if from the former, the
thing which the Jews did was perfectly just and good, because it
was the necessary eftect of a decree that proceeded from those at-
tributes. I hope nobody will say the decree arises from goodness,
and yet the thing is not good which it produces. If, on the con-
trary, we say the decree was unjust, we charge God >vith malevo-
lence, and contradict the most essential principles of revelation.

I am aware of the sophistical evasion often used to conceal the
force of this conclusion: It has been said, "Though God decrees
all the actions of men, yet he does not decree the sitifulness of their
Kk

35i> AN ESSAY ON THE

actions, which consists in the principle or motive that influences
the agent." In answer to this, we would inquire whether it be
possible for men to perform all their wicked actions from good
motives, or not? If it is possible, it plainly follows, that men
might so perform them, and consequently, murder, adultery, theft
and blasphemy might prevail as they now do, nnd yet there should
be no sin in the world! if it is not possible, the inevitable conse-
quence is, that there are many actions that cannot be performed
by an intelligent being, but from bad motives, and of course God
must predestinate the motives which influence them, in order to
secure or bring to pass their wicked actions.

Here stands an innocent man, we will suppose; who never did
me an injury: I have no right to take away his life. Would it be
possible for me intentionally to murder this man with a good mo-
tive or uot.^ I have a conviction that I ought not to kill him; to say I
might have a good motive in doing what 1 feel I ought not to do, is
a contradiction, and confounds the distinction between right and
wrong. If I have a conviction that it is wrong, it is impossible for
me to do it without intending to do wrong: the action cannot be
done with the consent of my will, withoutarising from this wrong
intention: consequently, if I should be moved to do it by the ir-
resistible influence of a secret decree, the evil intention is no less
predestinated than the action which arises from it. Other argu-
ments might be ottered against the pitiful sophistry here opposed;
but it is so futile and ridiculous that it deserves no farther isves--
tigation.

The plain sense of the passage above quoted (and the literasl
meaning of the original, according to Mr. Fletcher) is this: "for of
a truth, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and
the people of Israel, where gathered together against thy Holy
Child Jesus, Avhom thou hast anointed to do whatsoever thy hand
and thy counsel determined before to be done. It was God's deter-
minate counsel that Christ should die for mankind, and fore-know-
ing the wicked disposition of the Gentiles, and the people of Israel,
he determined not to rescue the Saviour by miraculous power, but
deliver him up to their fury. "Him, being delivered by the deter-
minate counsel and fore-knowledge ©f God, ye have taken, and by
wicked hands have crucified and slain." But if their wickedness
was as much the object of his determinate counsel as the Savi-
onr*s death, (which might have been accomplished by a flash of
lightening or by some other means) what was the object of his
forcrknowledge? and why was the knowledge distinguished from

PLAN OF SALVATION. 255

the determination, if they both mean the same thing? It is evident
his determination related to what the Redeemer was to do and
sufter for the salvation of mankind, and his fore-knowledge to the
disposition of the Jews and Gentiles to take away his life. He could
have prevented them from crucifying the Lord Jesus Christ, be-
cause he fore-knew their intentions; but he had determined that
the Saviour should die, and therefore did not hinder them by su-
perior power, but delivei'ed him up to the vengeance of their wic-
ked hands.

Many other passages might be mentioned, and cleared up, by
bringing them to a conformity with the leading principles of reve-
lation, which have often been unjustly pressed into the service of
reprobation; but as they have been examined by Mr Fletcher, and
by other able hands, we will omit them at present, and confine
ourselves to those which relate immediately to the subject of
atonement.

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law," says St.
Paul, "being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every
one thathangeth on a tree." Gal. iii. 13.

From this it hath been concluded that Christ has removed the
whole curse or penalty of the law from his elect, by enduring it in
(heir place. But it is evident from the context, and from other
passages, that the apostle's meaning in this text accords perfectly
with our view of the subject.

He labours in this epistle, as well as in that to the Romans, to
convince the Jews, and those whom they had corrupted, that they
can never be justified by a legal righteoasness, but must submit to
receive salvation through Christ in a way of mercy. "For as many
as are of the w orks of the law," says he, (verse 10) "are under
the curse: for it is written, cursed is every one that continueth not
in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
The law demanded universal obedience, made no provision for de-
ficiency, and admitted of no forgiveness: consequently one trans-
gression would sink the simier beyond the possibility of deliverance
upon principles of law. This was the curse: and it is evident that
all who rejected the otters of mercy, and attempted to come out clear
without receiving pardon, were under the curse, which they never
could remove. Christ has delivered us from this curse of the laAV
because through his atonement sin may now be forgiven, which it
could not be before he demonstrated God's righteousness, and thus
removed the inexorable barrier, or curse, which cut off all access
to mercy, and made the way to heaven impassable.

iS56 AN ESSAY ON THE

But as it is said Christ was made a curse for us, many have sup-
posed this can have no meaning, unless it mean that he became
guilty* by imputation, and endured the nhole penalty as a cri-
minal in our place. The infliction of a curse, in scripture, has
two meanings: 1. it means punishing a sinner according to what
he deserves: 2. It means an act of God, M'hereby his hatred of sin
is manifested. The former sense will be readily admitted; and
that the latter is true, and is the only sense in which a curse was
ever inflicted on the Lord Jesus, can be proved, 1 hope, to the sa-
tisfaction of all that believe the scripture.

"And the Lord Gfod said unto the serpent, because thou hast
done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every
beast of the field: — and unto Adam he said; because thou hast
hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of
which I commanded thee, saying, thou shall not eat of it; cursed
is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the
days of thy life: thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to
thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field."— Gen. iii. 14, 17.

Thus it appears that the ground, as well as the beasts of the
earth and the fowls of heaven were cursed, not as criminals suf-
fering the pcnaity ^' the law; but they were brought under the ef-
fects of sin, as so many standing monuments of God's displeasure
against it. In like manner, but far more conspicuously, the Lord
Jesus was made under the law, or submitted to suffer the dread-
ful effects of sin, not as a criminal, but as a glorious monument of
God's merciful kindness on the one hand and of his hatred
against moral evil on the other. As God said to Adam "cursed is
the ground for thy sake," so he may say to guilty creatures, "The
innocent Redeemer has been made a curse for your sakes:" that is,
^'he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;" and
therefore it may be very properly said, "he was made a curse for
you, because it is written cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree."

The apostle John saith, «If we confess our sins, God is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright-
eousness. 1 John i. 9. From this passage we learn, (1.) that God
is faithful, or true to his gracious promise, that is, he has pledged
his goodness, to forgive us our sins: (2.) In consequence of redemp-
tion this act of pardon is perfectly just also: that is, it violates the

* Sec a quotation from Luther.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 257

right of none: not that justice dcmauds it at the hand of God, so that
he cannot withhold it without being unjust, for if so, there would
be neither goodness nor forgiveness in the matter; but this act of
clemeney is perfectly consistent with justice, through llie mediation
of Jesus Christ, who has "magnified the law and made it honour-
able." We learn (3.) that Godis faithful and just to forgive us our
sins, if we confess them: a clear proof that the penalty was not le-
gally discharged by the death of Christ, otherwise we should be
free upon principles of law, whether we made confession or not.
This text affords incontrovertable evidence, that Christ died to
make it just for God to forgive sins upon certain conditions: if we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Had not the Redeemer in-
terposed in our favour it would not have been just, that is, consis-
tent with the general rights of the creation, for either the justify-
ing or sanctifying grace of God to be extended to his rebellious
creatures: but it has become just, through the redemption that is
in Jesus Christ, for the divine clemency to bestow upon penitent
believing sinners, every thing that is necessary to their eternal
happiness in heaven.

Let us close this section by a few remarks upon that famous pas-
sage of St. Paul to the Romans: "For all have sinned, and come
short of the glory of God: being justified freely by his grace,
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare
his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through
the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, his right-
eousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of ^him which be-
lieveth in Jesus." Rom. iii. 23, 2-i.

To understand this important passage, three terms of it are to
he explained: — coming short of the glory of God— justification—
and propitiation.

1. God is glorified, or his glorious attributes are displayed, by
means of his moral law,' as has been before proved: while all crea-
tures continued upright, his glory shone forth like the sun in the
midst of heaven; but when the dark cloud of moral evil arose, the
beams of divine glory were obstructed; the proof of God's spotless
purity was obscured by those who sinned and came short of his
glory: and some new method must now be taken to declare his
righteousness, for the sake of those who continue obedient, and who
have a right to such clear views of truth as shall guard them against
m danger: to secure this right God must di|pel the cloud of eviJ

35S AN ESSAY ON THE

by a demonstration of his righteousness: if no other method can be
devised, this must be done by the damnation of every criminal; but
if a Saviour can accomplish these ends of government in behalf of
the guilty, then it will become just for mercy to forgive them, and
restore to them the forfeited blessing of holiness and salvation.
Let us consider

1. The meaning of justification. This term, if I mistake not, has
four meanings in scripture: (1.) it means to excuse or vindicate, iu
which sense God never justifies a sinner: He that justifieth the
wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are
abomination to the Lord. Prov. xvii. 15.

3. It simply signifies forgiveness, in vvhicli sense it is to be ta-
ken in the passage under present consideration, and iu many other.
All that believe are justified from all things [that is from all their
sins] from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Acts xiii. 39.

3. It is sometimes taken in an enlarged i>ense as including sane-
tification or the renewing of our minds, as well as the pardon of
our transgressions. "AVhom he justified, them he also glorified:
that is, whom he pardoned, renewed, and qualified for glory, them
he actually glorified." Rom. viii. 38.

4. It means to declare or acknowledge a person to be truly
righteous. In proof of this, see Matt. xii. 37. James ii. 21, 24, 25.

3 Consider we next the meaning of propitiation: propitious
signifies favourable or kind: propitiousness, is favourableness,
kindness. Propitiate, to induce to favour, to conciliate. Propi-
tiation, the act of making propitious, the atonement, the oftering
by which propitiousness is obtained. — See Walker'' s dictionary.

God could not be kind or propitious to man in opposition to the
principles of his government, and the general welfare, because
such partiality is contrary to his perfections: his law must be mag-
nified, and the righteousness or purity of his nature must be de-
monstrated: this was done by the Lord Jesus Christ, and by this
atonement he was propitiated, or influenced to extend favour, kind-
ness or mercy to his fallen and guilty creatures.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." [they
have obscured the evidence of his glorious attributes by introdu-
cing moral evil.] Being justified [or forgiven] "freely by his grace
through the redemption [or display of his glory] that is in Christ
Jesus. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation [to make it
accord with the nature of God to show favour to all men who m ill
receive it] through faith in his blood, [being commissioned] to de-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 239

dare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, [to
prove clearly that he is righteous, and will never show mercy in a
way that shall encourage sin, though the sentence of the law is
suspended] through the forbearance of God [whose goodness does
every thing to save us that can be done without departing from
the general welfare. To declare, I say, [or as the original means
to demonstrate] at this time, his righteousness, that God might be
just [that he might secure the rights of all his children, in his me-
thod of showing mercy, or of becoftiiug] the justifier of him which
helieveth in Jesus."

There is not, perhaps, a more particular account of the design
of our Saviour's coming, in all the scriptures, or a more copious
elucidation of the interesting truths of salvation through Jesus
Christ, than this passage affords us. But upon the Autiuomian
hypothesis, the subject is involved in darkness, and must be made
to run thus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, [that
is, to have all the sins of the elect imputed to him, and suffer the
whole vengeance due to them] that God might be just in being
bound by his justice, to render the just claim, which he has enabled
and authorised his ransomed ones to demand as their right.

SECTION X,

The plain scripture testimony, concerning redemption, reconciled
with the metaphors which represent it as a purchase.

Some appear to imagine that Christ's death had merit enough,
or that he wrought out righteousness enough for all the world; but
that the particular part which is intended for me, or another sin-
ner is withheld till we believe the gospel: when we do this it is
made over to us; but if we live and die unbelievers, it is not made
over, and what becomes of it I have never been informed. But
whether it be reserved for the benefit of the spirits in prison, or
be applied to some other unknown use in heaven, or whatever
else we may suppose, it removes not the difficulty respecting our
ueed of forgiveness.

For if Christ has discharged all penalties, and reserves hii
merit or righteousness in this conditional way, does God forgive a.

26a AN ESSAY ON THE

sinner before this merit is made over to liim, or afterwards? If be-
fore, he does not surely need this legal discharge l»y imputation,
because he has received a gracious discharge already; if not till
afterwards, then he does not need pardon, because the legal atone-
ment is made over to him, and nothing more is wanting for his
complete justification.

It is agreed, on all sides, that God pardons sinners in conse-
quence of what Christ has done and sutTered for them: it is equal-
ly true, that he pardons none against whom there is no penal de-
mand, because they do not need it: consequently Christ's death
does not remove the i)cualty from any sinner, but only opens the
way for divine mercy, to remove it by a gracious act of forgive-
ness. 1. God pardons none but in consequence of the merits of
Christ: 2. He pardons none but those w ho stand in need of it: —
31 None stand in need of it against whom there is no penal de-
mand; it therefore follows: 4. That the death of Christ does not
remove the penalty, but only opens the way for an act of mercy to
remove it. The opposite system, on the contrary, is founded on
the principle that Christ died, not that sinners might obtain for-
giveness, but that they might be raised above the want of it.

And is this the view of redemption which we learn from the ora-
cles of God.^ It is not. "For thus it is written, and thus it behoved
Christ to suffer, and to enter into his glory — for what? that re-
pentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name
among all nations." Luke xxiv. 46.

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesns, whom ye slew, and
hanged on a tree: him hath God exalted with his right hand — for
what? for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." —
Acts V. 30.

"In whom we have redemption through his blood—- and what is
that redemption? tha forgiveness oi' siiis, according to the riches
of his grace." Eph. i. 7. and Col, i. 14.

"Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that
through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." —
Acts xiii. 38.

" We have a great high priest that is passed into the heavens,
Jesus the Son of God — and what inference doth this aftord? Let
us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may ob-
tain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Heb. iv. 14,16.

How has he made this throne of grace accessible? "The Lord
is well pleased for his righteousness sake: he will magnify the
law and mak« it honourable. To declare, I say, at this time, liis

PLAN OF SALVATION. 261

righteousness, that God might be just, and the justifier of him
which believeth in JesHS." — Isa. xlii. 2i. Rom. iii. 26.

These plain scriptures give us a proper and just view of re-
demption, and their evidence is not to be overturned by metaphor-
ical passages, which have been often abused and misapplied

Let us notice some of the passages which have been thought
friendly to the legal atonement and imputation, defended by our
mistaken opposers.

St. Paul saith, "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew
no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."—
2 Cor. V. 21.

This must mean, either that Christ was really made a sinner, or
that he was made a sacrifice for sin. If our sins were positively
transferred from us to Christ, whereby he was properly constitut-
ed a sinner, we were thereby really constituted innocent, and can
justly demand an exemption from all penalties. But the apostle
explains himself in another place, and tells us, "This man, after
he had offered one sacrifice fur sin, forever sat down on the right
hand of God." — Heb. x. 12. Sacrifice for sin signifies to make
atonement or satisfaction for it: accordingly Christ offered satis-
faction to God, as has been sufficiently explained already.

Much stress has been laid upon the word redeem, which often
occurs in the scriptures; but according to St. Paul, it sometimes
means nothing more than opening a new and living way to a
throne of grace: having redemption through his blood, says he, the
forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.

It often means nothing more than deliverance from bondage, by
the power of God: "Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I
am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of
the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage; and 1 will
redeem you with a stretched-out arm, and with great judgment." —
Exod. vi. 6. "But because the Lord loved you, and because he
would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath
the Lord brought you out- with a mighty hand, and redeemed you
out of the house of bond-men, from the hand of Pharoali, king of
Egypt." — Deut. vii. 8.

Thus it is plain that redemption, in these places, means deli-
verance, and so do those passages which speak of our being re-
deemed from our vain conversation — from sin — from the curse of
the law — and that we wait for the adoption", to wit, the redemption
of oxir bodies. To suppose the word redeem, in these places, means
a price literally paid down, as an equivalent for a thing purchas-
L 1

262 AN ESSAY ON THE

ed, is to suppose the Lord Jesus paid a price to our vain conversa-
tion, to our sins, to the curse of the law, and to the grave!

Our redemption by Christ, I grant, is sometimes, in a metaphor-
ical way, represented as a pwrcAfflSc: St. PauUelfs the Corinth-
ians, Ye are not your own, for ye are bought ivith a pricey and the
apostle Peter says, "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not re-
deemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain
conversation, received by tradition from your fathers; but with
the precious blood of Christ, see that ye love one another with a
pure heart fervently." — 1 Cor. vi. 20. 1 Pet. i. 18.

These metaphors are sufficient, it may perhaps be thought, to
support the whole weight of Antinomian conclusions. It is evident,
will they say, that Christ has bought his people, by paying the
full price of justice which their sins demanded; therefore, if any
soul should be lost for whom he shed his blood, he is unjustly de-
frauded of his property. Tins conclusion, I grant, is incontro-
vertible, if the principle on which it rests be really true, that Jesus
Christ entered into a literal contract, and bought souls with his
blood, just as a man purchases a piece of property with his money.

Let us admit for a moment, that such scriptures are to be taken
in the sense of a literal contract: the conclusion very naturally fol-
lows, that Jesus Christ bought a certain number of souls, and
paid such a price as he ought in justice to pay, in order to be le-
gally entitled to the property he had purchased; if he died for a
part of mankind, that part are his forever; if he died for all, then
not an individual of the human race can be taken from him with-
out a violation of justice. Meantime, it remains for us to inquire
from whom did he buy those souls, and what price did he pay.'' As
to the price, St. Peter, tells it was not silver or gold, but the pre-
cious blood of Christ. — 1 Pet. i. 18, 19.

But who was the other party in this contract, that disposed of
such a number of souls, and received a certain quantity of blood
inpayment, — such a quantity as vvas equivalent to the value of
his property.** Did our Holy Redeemer pay his blood to the devil,
to the curse of the law, to our vain conversation, or to the grave?
Or did he purchase us from the Father.'* If so, the Father has no
more right in us now, because he has sold us, aud received the
price of justice, equivalant to the property disposed of! And if we
say he bought us for the Father, it seems not a little puzzling to
ascertain how he lost his original right in us. Had he sold us on
some former occasion, or did the devil claim us as his property by
right of war? These questions may perhaps be said to be replete

PLAN OF SALVATION. 268

with blasphemy; but I must appeal to common sense, and ask the
intelligent reader, if they do not naturally arise from the principle
that Jesus Christ actually bought the souls of men, and paid
down a price for them, proportional to their value, according to
the just principles of a literal contract?

An Antinomian, I grant, can point to 1 Cor. vi. 30. and say, "The
wordof God is plain and indisputable, that yc are bought with a
priceJ'^ With equal propriety and strength of argument, a Papis*
may point to John vi. 53. and tell us, "the word of God is plain
beyond all contradiction, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink his blood, ye have no life iyi youJ^ When metaphors or
comparisons are drawn from the practice of men in buying and
selling, and the blood of Jesus is called a price by which we are
purchased, the whole is to be taken, it seems, in a proper literal
sense; but when this same blood is represented by another figure,
and the Saviour declares. My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is
drink indeed, — he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloody
dwelleth in me, and I in him — the whole is to be understood me-
taphorically. For my part I cannot help thinking the papistical
argument is as good as the Aniinomian, and that they are twin-
sisters that must stand or fall together.

"What loads of heterodoxy," says Mr. Fletcher, "have degra-
ded parables brought into the church! and how successfully has
error carried on her trade, by dealing in figurative expressions, ta-
ken in a literal sense!"

"This is my body," says Christ: "Therefore bread is flesh," says
the papist, and transubstantiation is true." "These dry bones arc
the house of Israel, says the Lord." Therefore Calvinism is true,
say my objectors, and we can do no more towards our conversion,
than dry bones towards their resurrection. Lost sinners are repre-
sented in the gospel as a lost piece of silver: therefore, says the
author of Pietas Oxoniensis, they can no more seek God, than the

piece could seek the woman who had lost it Christ is the Son of

God, says St. Peter: Therefore, says Arius, he is not co-eternal
with the Father, for I am not so old as my parents. — Vol. i. page
224.

Again: "If none go to hell but goats, and none to heaven but
sheep, where shall the chickens go! Where the wolves in sheeps
clothing? And in what limbus of heaven or hell shall we put that
fox Herod, the dogs who return to their vomit, and the swine, be-
fore whom we must not east our pearls? Are they all species of
goats, or some particular kind of sheep.^

26* AN ESSAY ON THE

"My difficulties increase. The church is called a dove, and
Ephraim a silly dove. Shall the silly dove be admitted among the
sheep.^ Her case seems rather doubtful. The hair of the spouse in
the Canticles is likewise said to be like a flock of goats, and
Christ's shepherds are represented as feeding kids, or young goats
beside their tents. I wonder if those young goats, become young
sheep, or if they were all doomed to continue reprobates.^ But
what puzzles me most, is, that the Babylonians are in the same
verse compared to Iambs, rams and goats: were they mongrel
elect, or mongrel reprobates, or some of Elisha Cole's 'spiritual
monsters, in whom the spirit had begotten a lump of dead flesh?"
Fletcher^s Checks, vol. i. page 236, 237.

Mr. Fletcher takes the proper method to refute a hypothetical
absurdity, by setting it before the reader in difterent views, that
he may view it on all sides, and perceive i(s naked inconsistency'
The friends of*' degraded parables" will doubtless complain, that
our running to other passages, and comparing them together, is
not to be tolerated, because it is bringing the scriptures to our car-
nal reason, and the almost magical power of our metaphysical
distinctions, as one of Mr. Fletcher's opponents very wittily ob-
served, when he found himself unable to avoid the strong argu-
ments which besieged hira, and which he could scarcely notice
with any degree of patience.

I must take the liberty, however, to ask a few more questions
upon th*^ subject of buying and selling. When the wise virgins said
to the foolish, < go ye rather to them that sellanAbuy for yourselves,'*
did they really mean that men are to purchase their own salvation,
and that the other virgins were fools for thinking it might be had
by begging or asking for.^ When Soloman said, "Buy the truth
and sell it not," did he mean that some person has a store house of
truth, to whom we must lay down a price exactly equal to its va-
lue.?

Our Saviour tells us, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a
wcrc/mni-jjim (whose chief business is to buy and sell) seeking
goodly pearls: who when he had found one pearl of great pricet
went and sold all that he had and bought it, ^' — Matt. xiii. 44,45,

Would he have us understand by this parable, that every man
must purchase salvation for himself, and give a great price for it.**
True, says an antinomian, but he furnishes the purchase-money
})imself, and every elect soul buys it in the name of his surety.

But the surety himself, who says "1 am he that was dead, and
behold, I am alive forevermore, (Rev. i. 18.) invites us to come and

PLAN OP SALVATION. 265

purchase it of him: I counsel thee, says he, (Rev.iii. iS.ytobuyof
me gold tried in the fire, and white raiment, that thou mayest be
clothed."

Are we to learn from this, that he, like a merchant-man, to
whom he compares his kingdom, has bought righteousness and
salvation by the gross, and proposes to retail it to us, at proper
retail prices, counselling every one to come and buy for himself? Or
are we to be told from the chair of dictatorial infallibility, that all
these and such like scriptures, are to be considered as metaphors
and parables, while those only which relate to redemption are to be
taken in a literal sense? By what rule shall we understand the
metaphors of scripture? Shall we compare spiritual things with
spiritual, as the apostle directs us, or must we keep " the profane
eye of human reason" down to the standard of popish and antiuo-
mian orthodoxy?

Papists have invented an hypothesis that bread and wine are a
god; antinomians have invented another, that Jesus Christ took
the sins of the elect upon him, and has discharged all claims of jus-
tice against them: neither of them are willing that one figure of
scripture relating to their favourite scheme, should be explained by
comparing it w ith other passages where the same term is used; but
every passage must be understood in the sense most favourable to
their respective systems, as the only standard of explanation.

The papists reason very consequentially upon this subject: if
every man should be allowed to use his own reason, they say, eve-
ry man must then be allowed to have his own opinion, and there
will be no rule by which the true divinity and orthodoxy can be as-
certained.

Heresy will abound, and there will be no short and easy rule by
■which to convince heretics of their delusions. A criterion must be
had, and the only decisive and sure one is that of infallibility,
continued from age to age in St. Peter's chair at Rome. Here is
the grand asylum where we may run and be safe from all danger
of heresy! Meantime we must be very cautious not to indulge our
heretical curiosity in asking, "what reason we have to believe his
holiness is infallible?" — but we must learn to subdue our profane
and rebellious reason, and obediently submit to the maternal in-
structions of our holy moiher. They will excuse my mentioning
these particulars; for what I have said is nothing more than the
account which they themselves have given of the matter.*

* See a modern performance of a popish doctor of Hexham, en-
titled "Reflections on the spirit of religious controversy," &c. page
176-215.

S66 AN ESSAY ON THE

To conclude: when the blood of Jesus Christ is represented as a
fountain in which we are to wash our robes and make them white,
the meaning of it, according to the well known doctrines of reve-
lation, is, that we are indebted to his suflferings and death for re-
newing grace or sanctification. When it is said we must eat his
flesh, and drink his blood, we understand by this figure, that we are
to live a spiritual life by faith in the Son of God: as we must eat
and drink in order to live naturally, so we must exercise faith in
the merits of Christ to live spiritually. «The life which I now
live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved
me, and gave himself for me." — Gal. ii. 20.

In like manner when his blood is called a price, or when we are
told he gave his life a ransom for many, the meaning is, that we
•were held under the bondage of sin, from which there was no es-
caping, till his death made the throne of grace accessible: he res-
cued sinners from despair, and opened a door of hope and mercy
for the world, by his bloody passion on the cross: hence, by a figure
common among men, we are said to be ransomed, redeemed, or
bought with the price of blood. Such expressions are not applied
to literal contracts or pecuniary transactions, and I am persuaded
the world would never have heard of such an application of them,
had not such "degraded parables" been found convenient to the
support of a tottering hypothesis, that must be concealed under
cover of distorted allegories to be kept in any tolerable counte-
nance in the world.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 267

CHAPTER IV.

AN EXAMINATION OF SOME GENERAL OBJECTIONS CONNECTED
WITH OTHER DOCTRINES OF RELIGION.

SECTION I.

Of the full display of Eternal Justice.

Objection. — "Justice is an essential and eternal attribute of
God. Its demands must therefore be fully and entirely satisfied;
otherwise the Almighty must relinquish a part of his justice, and
thereby abandon that which is essential to his nature, and con-
sequently cease to be God." Answer;

1. Benevolence is an eternal attribute of God, equally essential
to his nature; it must therefore be fully' and entirely displayed:
Justice forbids the exercise of benevolence, or it does not; if it
does not, then God never relinquishes any part of his justice by
the exercise of kindness and mercy: if it does, then God to be
just must relinquish the exercise of benevolence, seeing justice
forbids it: therefore he must abandon that which is essential to
his nature, and consequently cease to be God.

2. The objection supposes God's eternal justice binds himself,
and that where there is no right of demand in another, there is
still an obligation on him, which he cannot depart from without
being unjust: for supposing the general welfare to be secured
through the Redeemer, for sinners to be pardoned, without the
whole penalty being inflicted on themselves or any other person;
if God be still bound to execute vengeance to the utlermost, the
inevitable consequence is, that he must give up the prerogative of
exercising clemency, (a prerogative which is possessed even by
an earthly ruler,) in order to secure his great and eternal justice.

3. If God is bound under obligation, when there is no other per-
son's right involved, it follows that justice binds him, where every
other being is left free: for who will presume to say that any man
or angel is bound in justice, in any single case, but where there is
a right of demand in another.^ And if men and angels are not
thus bound, and yet their Eternal Maker is, does it not follow
that justice binds the Almighty, and denies him the liberty and
authority which it allows to the meanest of his creatures?

268 AN ESSAY ON THE

4. If it be granted, that God is not bound to punish sinners, ex-
cepting where tlie omission of it would affect tlie rights of others,
it is undeniable thai, excepting such cases, he has a right to par-
don sinners, and never to inflict the penalty which they had incurred.
And if we call this leaving his justice unsatisfied, or departing
from it, we say God departs from his justice, and leaves it unsa-
tisfied, by doing what he has a right to do.

5. Justice is fully displayed, and entirely satisfied, the moment
universal right is secured: This was done by our Lord Jesus
Christ, in consequence of which a gracious pardon is granted to
sinners. But God, you say, had a right to punish them, and this
right must be satisfied. The answer is easy: the moment divine
goodness grants pardon, God's individual right to punish is satis-
fied by his benevolence, the very essence of which consists in
voluntarily giving up a right in favour of another. Deny this, and
you say at once, that benevolence has uo place in the divine na-
ture, and that justice is never satisfied for God to bestow a favour
until he is bound to do it, and then it is no favour, but the mere
discharge of an obligation.

6. If we deny that benevolence is meritorious to the satisfac-
tion of justice, we must suppose that punishment is the only thing
which satisfies it; but 1 hope it can be made appear, that the only
thing in punishment which satisfies justice, is its tendency to se-
cure the rights of others, aud when it has no such tendency, jus-
tice is not satisfied with it.

Suppose, for example, that the devil and his angels had been
punished in heaven as much as they are punished in hell, but had
been continued in their native region, witb.full power to disturb
the innocent and injure them, or violate their rights through eter-
nity; would justice be satisfied merely with their being punished
when that punishment was not inflicted in a manner that should
secure the rights of others.^ No: if they were made to endure the
full degree of torment which their iniquities deserved, justice
would not be satisfied with it a tittle farther than it had a tenden-
cy to secure the general welfare; and if it had no such tendency^
justice would remain as unsatisfied as if the governor had not
punished the criminals at all: because if he punished them in a
way that answered no good end, he had no regard to the rights or
the welfare of others, and therefore there would be neither jus-
tice nor benevolence in the matter. Consequently the security of
general happiness and universal right, is the only thing which
satisfies justice, and it is never satisfied with punishment, but so

PLAN OF SALVATION. 26jb

£ar as it has a tendency to promote this end. To deny this, is to say
justice is satisfied that the rights of the innocent should not be se-
cured, and that mere punishment satisfies it, without any regard to
the tendency or end of that punishments

7. If you admit that benevolence, or a benevolent regard to the
general welfare, which leads to every proper step to secure it, is
that which satisfies justice, the conclusion is secured, that as soon
as those ends are accomplished by the goodness of God, divine
justice is fully satisfied, even though there should be ten thousand
penalties which have never been inflicted, and never will be. But
if you deny this doctrine, you must of necessity maintain that mere
punishment, abstracted from its tendency to secure the public wel-
fare, is essential to the full display of divine justice.

If this attribute cannot appear to full advantage, by merely se-
curing universal right and happiness, but in addition to that, pun-
ishment is necessary in itself, to exhibit the full glory thereof, the
consequence is, that before sin entered into the creation this at-
tribute was not satisfied, or not fully displayed, seeing nothing
more was done than the seeul-ity of universal right, and no punish-
ment existed to display and exalt this great perfection. Therefore,
God must either punish the innocent, or force them into sin by his
decree, in order fully to satisfy and show forth his glorious justicel
Thus we see how the various parts of the predestinarian system
are connected together, and how naturally they rise out of the le-
gal atonement, which some inconsistent Arminians vainly attempt
to reconcile with the benevolent doctrines of Christianity.

If justice was fully exercised and exalted originally, by the se-
curity of universal right, it is still fully exercised and exalted in
securing the same end, otherwise we say a change has taken place
in its nature; if it was not, then justice required (he introduction
of misery, in order to display itself ettectually, and of course this
attribute demanded that the innocent shonld be punished, or that
they should become guilty, in order that they might deserve pun-
ishment, and thus aftbrd the Creator an opportunity to glorify his
justice, and unfold the secrets of his sovereign w ill!

If the angels had continued to persevere in righteousness, and to
refuse to subserve the divine perfections by plunging themselves
into sin, the Almighty, it should seem, to display his eternal jus-
tice, must secretly contrive their apostaey by an absolute decree,
while he is openly warning them against it, with every appear-
ance of truth and sincerity!
Mm

ii70 AN ESSAY ON THE

If a man should cruelly beat his children when innocent, or
drench them with intoxicating liquors, in order to punish them se-
verely for being drunkards, would not this be an admirable way
of showing his justice? And would it mend the matter for him to
warn them against intoxication, and make great professions of ab-
horrence against it, and at the same time to contrive some secret
way of leading them into drunkenness in order to punish them,
without letting them know the depth of his secret will or dissim-
ulation? or would his august perfection be fully unfolded by impu-
ting drunkenness to them, when they had never been guilty of it?

It is certainly right at all times for justice to display itself ful-
ly and perfectly, the contrary of which is an evident contradiction:
if, therefore, the infliction of penalties be essential to its full man-
ifestation, it was right for them to be inflicted while all creatures
remained in a state of innocence, or for the creatures to be led in-
to sin, or have sin imputed to them, that they might be proper sub-
jects of punishment.

This reminds one of the wonderful display of justice manifested
by the popish inquisitors: "When those who stood mute are call-
ed for re-examination, if they continue silent, such tortures are
ordered as will either make them speak, or kill them; a string of
accusations is brought against them, to which they are obliged to
answer extempore, no time being given even to put their answer
into proper method.

"After they have verbally answered, pen, ink and paper are
given them, in order to produce a written answer, which it is re-
quired shall in every degree coincide with the verbal answer. If
the verbal and the written answer difler, the prisoners are charged
with prevarication, if one contains more than the other, with wish-
ing to conceal certain circumstances; if they both agree, they are
accused with premeditated artifice.

"i.\nother artifice used by the inquisitors is this: If a prisoner
has too much resolution to accuse himself, and too much sense to
be ensnared by their sophistry, they proceed thus: a copy of an
indictment against the prisoner is given him, in which, among ma-
ny trivial accusations, he is charged with the most enormous crimes,
of which human nature is capable. This, of course, rouses his
temper, and he exclaims against such falsities. He is then asked
which of the crimes he can deny? He naturally singles out the
most atrocious, and begins to express his abhorrence of them,
when the indi^-tment being snatched out of his hand, the president
says, 'By your denying only those crimes which you mention, you

PLAN OF SALVATION. 271

implicitly confess the rest, and we shall therefore proceed accord-
Migly.'

"The inquisitors made a ridiculous affectation of equity, by pre-
tending that the prisoner may be indulged with a counsellor, if he
chooses to demand one. Such a request is sometimes made, and a
counsellor appointed, but upon these occasions as the trial itself
is a mockery of justice, so the counsellor is a mere cypher; for he
is not permitted to say any thing that might offend the inquisitor,
or to advance a syllable that might benefit the prisoner."*

Now if the perfect display of justice consists in punishing those
as criminals who are innocent; if it consists in forcing or enticing
them into wrong conduct in order to punish them; or in falsely
imputing crimes to them which they never committed; the Ro-
man inquisitors exhibited the most perfect display of justice that
tlie world has ever yet beheld. But if none of those things are es-
sential to its operations, it is obvious as the beams of day-light,
that God could display his righteousness without the help of ei-
ther sin or misery; and that penal torments were never necessary
till the voluntary wickedness of angels broke in upon the harmony
of heaven and called forth the arm of justice to defend the injured
rights of the innocent, by executing the righteous sentence of the
law upon those malevolent and cruel invaders.

It is very evident that all creatures, while they continue just,
•will continue happy; and misery had no place in the creation
while justice was universally maintained. But no sooner is injus-
tice introduced than it produces misery, as its natural offspring.
The rights of the innocent are violated, and divine justice, ever
watchful to guard and secure them, is now under the necessity of
doing it by inflicting misery on the rebels. Not that it is essential
to this attribute to inflict punishments ; for it never did inflict them
before, and never would have done it, had not the introduction of
injustice made it indispensably necessary for the vindication of
the Divine character and the defence of the public welfare.

It is for the sake of maintaining happiness, and for nothing else,
that misery is ever inflicted by the influence of any righteous
principle. To say justice inflicts punishment because it essentially
delights in the infliction of it, is to say that justice and unrelenting
malice are precisely the same thing.

What is malice but a diabolical passion which disposes a per-
son without any regard to the security of general l^appiness to in-

* See the Biographieal and Martyrolo^ical Dictionary, paa;e
391 and 393.

srs AN ESSAY ON THE

fiict torment for its own sake, and to feast upon the groans of the
miserable? Tliis odious venom arises from the profoundest depths
of hell, and it is only to obstruct the influence of such destructive
principles, and to prevent others from falling into them, that the
loving Parent of all creatures ever inflicted punishments ©neither
angels or men.

Though it be granted then, that justice is an eternal attribute
of God, yet we can never be persuaded that the existence of misery
was essential to the satisfaction or perfect exercise of this princi-
ple, because it is so far from being in league with misery, that they
are at perpetual opposition with each other; and it is to prevent
the enlargement of wretchedness that justice is executed by the
great Ruler of the heavens, or by any righteous and good governor
in this world.

Let us look back to the blooming period of universal harmony,
when all creatures in existence were both innocent and holy; let
us consider the scenes of undisturbed tranquillity which gladden-
ed the regions of the blessed, prior to the ravages of sin. Did not
justice demand of all creatures to continue in the way of perfect
obedience.'' and did it not demand of their Maker not to punish
them as rebels while they were perfectly innocent.'' If we say no
we say it does not demand obedience to God, and that it does not
protect the innoecnt: if we say yes, it follows that justice, far from
being the original author of misery, absolutely demanded that mis-
ery should never be introduced. And had justice been maintained
by all creatpres, as it was by their Creator, it is evident that mis-
ery the native offspring of moral evil, would never to this moment
have existed in the creation of God. Consequently the moment
misery was introduced, by one creature injuring another, justice
was violated; and therefore misery is so far frpm beingessential to
the exercise of this righteous attribute, that it is essential to the
exercise of injustice, which is a sworn enemy to every perfection of
the Deity.

But these principles, I fear, have sometimes been jumbled to-
gether in dreadful confusion. Have vve indulged a confused notion,
that no misery >vas ever produced till it was inflicted by the hand
of God on account of sin? But what is sin then? Is jt a perfectly
harmless thing that injures no being in any part of the creation?
Did God give his creatures a code of moral laws >vhich had no re-
lation to their happiness or misery? so that, had he let them alone,
thty would all have been as happy in breaking as in keeping
them? If so, there was no benevolence in giving the law, because

PLAN OF SALVATION. 273

the operation of it was not essential to the happiness of a single
individual, which it could not be, if they could be as happy with-
out keeping the law as with it. And how were the rights and pri-
vileges of others violated by sin, if they were in no degree affected
hy it? If the first wickedness produced no misery, it did no harm to
any one, and how then can it be denominated a very dreadful
evil?

Perhaps it will be said God has a right to command his crea-
tures as he pleases, and the dreadful evil of sin consisted merely
and solely in its being opposed to the divine authority. But if it
was a matter purely indifferent what kind of laws God gave to his
creatures, it was equally indifferent whether he gave them any
laws or no; because, if one kind had no more tendency to promote
their happiness and guard them against misery than another, it
h evident that all kinds were equally frivolous. But if so, there
was no wisdom in the law-giver, unless wisdom consists in pre-
feringone set of means to anotker when they are all alike indif-
ferent to the end. In such indifferent matters the most egregious
folly could choose as well as wisdom.

If it be granted that God had a wise end in view, when he first
gave laws to his moral creatures, I would be glad to know what
end he had in view.'' Was it to promote their happiness? If not,
there was no benevolence in the matter, whatever his end might
be: and if it was to promote their happiness, then there was a pos-
sibility for it to be destroyed by their own conduct, otherwise you
say he gave a law to promote their happiness which had no ten-
dency to that end; which it could not have if a breach of it had no
more effect upon their enjoyments than the most cordial obedi-
ence.

Did he give a law to secure all right and prevent his creatures
from injuring each other? If not, he had no regard to moral jus-
tice in giving it, whatever else he had in view; if he did, then it
was possible for his creatures to injure each other, or else you say
he gave a law to prevent that which was impossible.

For what were the devils "cast into hell, and reserved in chain*
of darkness unto the judgment of the great day," if they never
didauy harm? If misery was never produced till it was inflicted
by the hand of God, it is certain their sin never injured them-
selves or others, and never would have hindered any creature
from being as happy as it would if eiu had never entered iuto the
universe.

ay* AN ESSAY ON THE

If we admit this hypothesis, we must believe that right and
wrong Iiave no relation to happiness and misery; because it
supposes, had God withheld his hand, and not inflicted misery on
his creatures, they might have broken his laws through all heaven
and earth to the present hour, without ever injuring themselves or
others, or diminishing their happiness in the least degree. And
moreover, if right and wrong have no relation to misery, then it
very evidently follows that when God inflicted punishment on the
fallen angels, he did neither right nor wrong: thus all moral dis-
tinctions are confounded, all kinds of conduct are made alike
indifferent, and we leap into the profound regions of atheism.

If we say misery did not originally result from that conduct
which was perfectly indifferent, it must of necessity have arisen ei-
ther from doing wrong or from doing right; if the former, the point
is gained for which I contend: if the latter, then it demonstrably
follows that if all creatures, and the Creator with, them, had per-
petually done wrong, misery would never have originated, and
perfect felicity would have been universal to the present hour.

Did I not fear that any farther pursuit of this point Mould in-
sult the reader's understanding, additional arguments should be
produced; but presuming what has been already said will be deem-
ed sufficient, I proceed only to mention the conclusions which fol-
low.

The first is, that when all creatures were innocent and upright,
no one deserved to be punished, and justice was so far from re-
quiring it, that it required the contrary: of course while moral
principles prevailed, misery was excluded from God's universal
dominion.

Secondly, it follows that misery was introduced by injustice, and
unless we say God is unjust, we are constrained to admit the con-
clusion, that rebellious creatures brought misery on themselves,
and injured others, not by any special appointment of God, but as
the natural consequence of moral evil.

Thirdly, by thus unjustly introducing misery, they forfeited
their native right to happiness, and could no longer appeal to jus-
tice for an exemption from penal torments, as innocent creatures
can, because they deserved to suffer for violating the rights of
others, and flying in the face of that goodness and justice which
were harmoniously exercised to maintain the happiness of all.

Fourthly, the righteous Governor of his creatures, who hitherto
guarded their happiness by presenting his truth to their understand-
ing, and thus morally drawing them to obedience, was now con-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 275

strained to do it by arresting these invaders, and manifesting his
abhorrence of their crimes. His justice now demands that punish*
ments be inflicted on the rebels, not for the sake of punishing, but
for the sake of his creatures in general who have not transgressed,
and whose native liberty and happiness must and ought to be de-
fended.

Fifthly, as justice delights, not in the infliction of misery, but
in the security of good government and general happiness, if these
ends can be by any means accomplished without delivering the re-
bels over to the punishment they deserve, justice will be satisfied
for them to receive a gracious pardon, and enjoy the blessings of
their Maker's government again.

Sixthly, the Lord Jesus, in his heavenly plan of redemption,
satisfied justice, not by becoming a criminal and suffering as such,
for nothing but injustice could be satisfied with this; not by giving
the criminals an absolute deliverance from the penalty whether
they repented or not; nor yet by suffering all that was due to sinj
but by exhibiting the great evil of sin, and demonstrating God's
abhorrence of it, as stated in the foregoing chapters.

SECTION XL

The supposed necessity of sin to make redemption necessary.

<' If sin had never entered into the world, it may be said, the
goodness of God in redemption would never have appeared, and
neither his justice against sin, nor his mercy to sinners could have
possibly been manifested: therefore the nature of God essentially
demanded the introduction of moral evil." Answer:

1. It is true, before sin- entered into the creation, it was impos-
sible for either justice or goodness to be manifested to sinners, be-
cause there were no such creatures in being; but if those attributes
were exercised in behalf of the upright, and afforded them all the
happiness of which their natures were capable, what more was ne-
cessai-y.'' Must God make sinners, that he may have the opportu-
nity of showing his mercy to them.'' If a physician should break
his neighbour's arm, in order to show his skill in curing it; or
drench his children M-ith strong drink to display his goodness in

sre AN ESSAY ON THE

pardoning them for the crime of drunkenness, there would be nei-
ther justice nor mercy in such an action. It would result from a
combination of cruelty and pride: for it could not arise from a re-
gard to another's happiness, but merely to make a selfish and hy-
pocritical display of his benevolence at their expense. If he was
good, why did he not rejoice to maintain their happiness instead
of obstructing it? and if he was just, why did he inflict misery on
others which they did not deserve? or charge them with the crim-
inality of his own wrong conduct? There cannot be a more palpa-
ble contradiction in nature than to say it was good and just for God
to forbid sin, and yet that his goodness and justice required it, in
order to display themselves! that his attributes required of his
creatures, not to sin, and at the same time required that they
should sin!

2. The objection supposes that it is merely for his own sake,
and not for the sake of his creatures, that God displays his £rttri-
butes. For if goodness and justice supported and guarded innocent
creatures in a state of perfect happiness, before the introduction
of moral evil, then nothing more was necessary to be done for their
sake, because they were already in possession of perfect and un-
obstructed happiness. For whose sake then did the Creator wish
to display his attributes in any other way? Not for the sake of
sinners, for there were none in being. Not for the sake of enlarg-
ing the happiness of his creatures, for I presume, had they con-
tinued upriglit, their obedience would, through divine beneficence,
have regularly enlarged it, without the help of wickedness. To
deny this is to say that sin can furnish the creatures of God with
greater degrees of felicity than his goodness could possibly do
without its assistance. And if it was really so necessary for the
well being of the creation, what principle in the Deity influenced
him to forbid it, and to guard his creatures against the commis-
sion of it, by every moral motive that his truth could communi-
cate to their understandings? Did this proceed from either justice
or benevolence? if so, it is just and good to discourage moral crea-
tures in the pursuit of that which is essential to the perfection of
their happiness, or to hinder them from being so happy as they
might be. And besides, if sin was essential to the display of God's
glory, when he forbid it, was this done to prevent the display of
his glory? or did he really wish them to violate his laws, and only
pretended to be pure and holy, while he secretly decreed and delight-
ed in their rebellion and apostacy? 1 hope the reader will reject
such absurdities, and will acknowledge that sin was never ncee«-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 277

sary to the production of happiness, but that it is the parent of
misery, hateful to God and to all his holy angels.

"What havoc hast thou made, foul monster, sin!

(Breatest and first of ills! the fruitful parent

Of woes of all dimensions! but for thee

Sorrow had never been.

Accursed thing! O where shall fancy find

A proper name to call thee by expressive

Of all thy horrors? pregnant womb of ills!

Of temper so transcendently malign.

That toads and serpents of most deadly kind

Compared to thee are harmless. Sickness

Of every size and symptom, racking pains,

And bluest plagues are thine! See how the fiend

Profusely scatters the contagion round!

Whilst deep-mouth'd slaughter bellowing at her heels,

Wades deep in blood new spilt; yet for to-morrow

Shapes out new work of great uncommon daring

And inly pines till the dread blow is struck."

Blair.

If it be granted that the divine attributes were sufficiently dis-
played, before the introduction of evil, for the support and enlarge-
ment of the creature's capacity and happiness, what other or bet-
ter ends could be accomplished by manifesting them in any other
way? And even supposing the utmost extent of them were not then
fully known, there was no need of any more while all creatures
continued holy and happy, because while this state of things re-
mained the ends were accomplished for which they ever were dis-
played at all.

Has God ever made known his wisdom and power to creatures
in all their extent, so that he knows nothing and can do nothing
but what he has fully and.entirely manifested? I presume none will
be disposed to affirm this: and if he be not ambitious to display the
whole extent of his wisdom and power, but only manifests them so
far as is necessary for the benefit of his creatures, what ground is
there for the vain presumption that he was not satisfied with that
manifestation of his glory which innocent creatures in heaven be-
held, but was ambitious to display himself in some other way, when
it was not necessary to the felicity of any creature in being? If he
were disposed to do more than was necessary for the perfect feli-
N n

378 AN ESSAY ON THE

city of his creatures, and the security of their rights^ what benig-
nity or justice would appear in such a disposition? Alas! it is re-
presenting our great Creator as being governed by a selfish princi-
ple, and delighting to make some wonderful display of himself,
merely for his own gratification, as if God, like fallen man, had a
disposition to do certain things for no other end but to gain ap-
plause!

Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that we are righteous?
or did he bring us into being because he needed us, and M'as con-
cerned merely to let others see how glorious he is in himself?
Surely his essential goodness was the cause of our existence, and
had it not been for this attribute, which delights in the communi-
cation of happiness, I presume that men and angels would have
never been. His other attributes are exercised in subserviency to
this, and he displays himself to his intelligent creatures, so far on-
ly as is necessary to the felicity and perfection oftheir nature.
But what evidence have we that he ever has fully ihauifested the
whole extent of his perfections to any creature? "Hell is naked
before him, and destruction hath no covering. He stretcheth out
the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon no-
thing. He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his
cloud upon it. The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished
at his reproof. He divideth the sea by his power, and by his spirit
he hath garnished the heavens. Lo, these are parts of his waysj
but how little a portion is heard of him?" — Job xxvi. 6, &c.

If then he has made known but a little portion of his nature to
tjs, it must be because he is perfectly free from a selfish ambition,
and manifests his perfections so far only as the general good re-
quires. Upon this principle it is evident, had moral evil never been
introduced, goodness would not have manifested itself in redemp-
tion, because such a manifestation would not be necessary; but af-
ter there were sinners exposed to hopeless misery, the Almighty
Father was pleased to make a new display of his benevolence,
and to evince before all worlds that even rebels themselves should
not finally perish, while goodness could prevent it. "For God so loved
the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever be-
lievethinhimshouldnotperishbuthaveeverlastinglife."Joliniiil6^

I suspect it will be said, that God certainly made all things for
his own glory, that he worketh all things after the counsel of his
own will, and that creation, providence, redemption, salvation and
damnation are to be resolved into nothing else but his sovereign
pleasure. Answer:

PLAN OF SALVATION. 279

1. All things were indeed created for his own §lory, because
as has been before proved, his glory consists in the exercise of hi»
attributes, to promote the general welfare of all creatures capable
of moral happiness.

2. It is true likewise that every thing he does, is done accord-
ing to his sovereign pleasure, because the pleasure of his un-
changeable nature is to do good, and to make all creatures happy>
who consent to be so without injuring the innocent.

But (3.) if it be affirmed that he ever does any thing among
his creatures, without having a regard to their general felicity,
or the security of their rights, there is neither goodness nor jus-
tice in those actions: and I would be glad to know what glory he
would display by departing from the moral attributes of his na-
ture, or what pleasure it could aflurd him, unless we suppose he is
governed by a selfish principle, which is pleased to depart from
goodness and righteousness. This is the very principle that now
predominates in the devil and his angels, and is the foundation of
all the wickedness that is practised in either earth or hell. I leave
the reader to make the application.

SECTION III.

The supposed violation of truth.

It may be objected, «If any sinner is pardoned without an inflic-
tion of the whole penalty, divine truth is violated, seeing all the
punishment is not endured, which was threatened against the dis-
obedient: the soul that sinneth it shall die."

However great this difficulty may appear, it bears as hard upon
the other system as upon that which we defend; and therefore
our opponents are no less concerned in the removal of it than our-
selves.

Did God threaten that every sinner should absolutely be pun-
ished in proportion to his crimes? How then was this fulfilled, if
any sinner was not thus punished.' It alters not the case that his
surety suffered for him; because the threatening was, not if you sin
an innocent person shall suffer in your place, but "the soul that
sinneth it shall die." No matter what the means were through

S80 AN ESSAY ON THE

which the sinner is rescued from punishment; for there is no way
for the threatening to be literally fulfilled, but for him in his own
person to suffer according to what his iniquities deserve.

If our opponents could prove two things, they would, it is true,
have an advantage of us in this particular: if they could prove (1.)
that the original threatening was, not "the soul that sinneth it shall
die," but every degree of torment that sinners will deserve shall
absolutely be suffered by some person: and (3.) that the Redeemer
actually did endure the whole torment, that the elect ever would
have suffered in hell, if he had not died for them; — let these points
be established, I say, and they will be able to make appear that
their system secures the attribute of truth, by evincing a literal
accomplishment of what was denounced against sin.

But as they cannot prove those points, and do not even profess
to believe them, the present objection is nugatory, when urged as a
difficulty peculiar to the doctrine advanced in the preceding pages;
because it equally affects every system that includes the dili-
verance of any sinner from the sentence denounced against him,
whatever the means might be through which his salvation should
be accomplished.

This answer, however, does not satisfy the serious inquirer;
because, though it retorts the objection, yet it does not remove it.

The proper answer must be founded upon this principle: that
although it is impossible for God to lie, yet it is not so for him to
withhold the communication of his truth from creatures who are not
capable of receiving it without being injured instead of being bene-
fitted thereby.

It is manifest through all the scriptures that a condition is of-
ten implied without being expressed; or in other words, a punish-
ment is threatened, without any mention of the condition on which
it may be suspended. We might produce the case of Nineveh, and
many other instances, where the penal consequences of sin hare
been denounced without any mention of the possibility of pardon,
or any intimation that mercy would devise a method to prevent
the execution of the sentence on those who should offend.

While Adam stood upright God only made known to him the
wages of sin, "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die," without revealing the designs of his mercy in case of disobe-
dience, until such a revelation was necessary to support his des-
pairing mind after the transgression: then, and not before, God
promised that "the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's
head."

PLAN OF SALVATION. 281

The same goodness which discouraged sin by the threatening,
concealed the designs of mercy to sinners: because a revelation of
intended mercy could answer no end at that time, but to weaken
the penal sanctions of Ihe law, and prevent their influence on the
mind.

The Almighty Father doubtless pledged his truth, that his ab-
horrence of sin should be manifested, and that the rights and hap-
piness of his innocent creatures should be secured: one way by
which this was to be done, he made known; namely, by the con-
demnation of offenders: but though the infinite mind conceived an-
other method through which those ends could be accomplished, in
a manner that should accord with the salvation of penitent sinners,
yet he was under no obligation to communicate this knowledge to
innocent Adam in Paradise: nor would there be any benevolence
in such a revelation, before sin entered into the Morld, for the rea-
son above advanced.

Now if we charge our Maker with a violation of truth, for re-
vealing to Adam the penalty of the law, without making known the
whole extent of his own mercy, this is to say, the withholding of
truth is falsehood, and if so, there is no way for God to avoid be-
ing a liar but by making known to us all that he knows himself.

The threatening of the divine law, absolutely and definitely ex-
pressed, would stand thus: all sinners, who finally reject the terms
of mercy, shall suffer ihe penalty. This will most certainly be ac-
complished. But withhold the clause which includes the revela-
tion of pardon, and it will be, if you become sinners you shall suf-
fer the penalty, or the soul that sinneth it shall die, without an
intimation of any method of salvation or deliverance.

The sentence against Adam has been by Paine, turned into re-
proach and ridicule: "The Christian system," says he, "represents
the Almighty as coming off, or revoking the sentence, by a quib-
ble upon the word death:" and perhaps others may say, if part of
the truth in such a case, were withheld, it would in effect be a
falsehood; because it would convey a false idea to the mind: name-
ly, that the sentence was absolute and unconditional. We answer:

1. God did not declare the sentence was unconditional, and
that every sinner should absolutely be excluded from the possibil-
ity of pardon; but only withheld the knowledge of his mercy till
it was necessary to reveal it.

2. This afforded no evidence to Adam that sin could be for-
given, or that it could not: this indeed left him in a state of entire
ignorance, but could not lead hira into error, unless he should be»

282 AN ESSAY ON THE

lieve things without evidence; and in that case he, not his Maker,
would be the author of the delusion. Must God be charged with
deceiving his creatures, because they believe what they please,
upon their own voluntary imaginations, when he has given them
no grounds to believe any thing concerning the matter?

3. When Adam believed the testimony of God, that sinners
should die, he believed the truth; and though he had no idea that
any should ever be made alive again, yet the withholding of this
truth from him was no contradiction of the other, and therefore
was no falsehood. Apd if the nature of death was left in some de-
gree unknown or indefinite, to leave him in a state of ignorance,
whereby he was guarded against dangerous presumptions, this
surely was the result of perfect goodness.

4. I take it for granted that God was not bound to reveal the
whole extent of his mercy to Adam before the fall, but that it was
right for him to withhold this knowledge from him: also that it
was just and good for him to make known to Adam the penal
consequences of sin, in a manner best adapted to his present state,
and best calculated to deter him from disobedience. To accomplish
this, the threatening must of necessity be given in such a way as
would convey no idea of salvation for the sinner. And how could
this be done but by exhibiting the penalty by itself, and leaving
room for the display of mercy, without any expression of it, by
concealing the conditionality of the threatening in silence, er un-
der cover of metaphorical or indefinite expressions?

Now if God had a right to withhold part of the truth from Adam,
it was just for him to do so: if a revelation of part only was at
that time best calculated to promote the creature's happiness, it
was also a display of benevolence: therefore to call this a false-
hood, is to say a lie consists in the exercise of justice and loving
kindness.

This would charge with falsehood all legislators whose laws
threaten murderers with death, without at the same time declaring
that they may possibly obtain forgiveness.

It will charge with falsehood the God of nature, who gives sin-
ners a consciousness that they are guilty, and exposed to punish-
ment, without, at the same time, giving them any natural convic-
tion that their sins may be forgiven. This interesting knowledge
has been hid for ages from many nations, and is only brought to
light by the gospel, or divine revelation.

Add to this, that God's promising to Israel in Egypt, that they
should inherit the land of Canaan, withaut at that time express-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 283

ing any possibility of a forfeiture: — his promising them an illustri*
ous Messiah, who should sit upon the throne of David forever
without revealing the spirituality of his kingdom: — his threatening
to destroy Nineveh in forty days, without giving a hint that tlie
threat was conditional: — his commanding Abraham to slay his
beloved son, without mentioning that the execution should be pre-
vented in the last moment: — these, and many other instances might
be produced to prove our Creator false and deceitful, if falsehood
consists in leaving persons in a state of ignorance, when certain
branches of knowledge are not suitable to their present state, and
would tend to their disadvantage and misery.

Without consuming time upon this theme, we may just observe:
(1.) That the immoral principle of falsehood consists in an inten-
tion to deceive another to his injury. (2.) That the expression of it
consists in oxhibiting/aZse evidence to another, by words or actions,
with a design that he should receive it as evidence of truth. (3.)
That a part of the truth withheld, when the divulging of it would
do no good, but would be injurious, is so far from being a false-
hood: that it results from a principle of loving kindness. (4.) Lastly
that the truth of God can never contradict his other attributes,
that he never pledged his veracity to do any thing in opposition to
them, and consequently, if the death of Christ perfectly displayed
his justice and goodness, it secured every thing that ever his
truth was engaged to accomplish or perform. If we say he ever
promised or threatened to do any thing contrary to his moral attri-
butes, we say he engaged to do wrong; and if he did not, then the
utmost he ever engaged to do was to exercise his attributes for
the defence of his government and the security of general happi-
ness: consequently, a redemption which accomplishes those pur-
poses, does every thing that divine ir-Mf/i requires, and therefore
this attribute is fully displayed by a vindication of the rest.

SECTION IV.

Moral principles in the Deity are not different from those which are
to govern his creatures.

We come now to consider another plausible evasion. "Al-
though the preceding arguments may be conclusive, as they relate
to justice and goodness between man and man, yet it may be sup-

284 AN ESSAY ON THE

posed unreasonable and presumptuous to apply them to God, be-
cause his attributes are beyond our comprehension, and may be to-
tally difterent in their operations from such principles in finite
creatures. What God may or may not do, we know not, and it is
blasphemy for us to inquire; because he has a right to do every
thing according to the counsel of his own will. He has made right
and wrong to be what they are; he could have made them entire-
ly different had he so pleased; and whatever he wills to do is right,
for no other reason but because he wills it."

Some such view as this many appear to have indulged, concern-
ing the authority or sovereignly of God; He is the fountain of
justice, they conclude, and may make one standard of it for his
creatures, and another for himself, because he is under the con-
troul of no superior authority, and has no other rule of his actions
but his own sovereign pleasure. This maxim appears to have pre-
vailed very generally, in the beginning of the l7th century, when
Calvinian predestination was at the height of its splendour, ag
we may learn from a declaration of king James I. of England.
When addressing his parliament in defence of his own kingly pre-
rogative, he expressed himself in these terms: « I conclude, then,
the point touching the power of kings, with this axiom of divini-
ty, that as to dispute what God may do, is blasphemy, but what
God wills, that divines may lawfully, and do ordinarily dispute
and discuss; so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king
may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever b6 will-
ing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse
of God. I will not be content that my pow er be disputed upon;
but 1 shall ever be w illing to make the reason appear of my doings,
and rule my actions according to my laws."*

Thus we perceive his majesty assumed the fancied prerogative
of Deity; and maintained that justice in kings consists in "declar-
ing what they will do," and in "ruling their actions according t»
their laws:" that is, that they have a right to make their laws of
action in any manner they may choose, and then their justice con-
sists in conforming to these laws till they shall will to alter them^
and establish another kind of justice, by which to regulate their
conduct. This august sovereignty he defends by an appeal to the
well known "axiom in divinity, that it is blasphemy to dispute
what God may do," because there is no other right and wrong
with him, but such as he wills to establish, and may alter as he
will. This, as far as I am able to conceive, is the meaning of the

*Hume's History of England, vol. iv. page 236.

FLAN OP SALVATION. 283

axiom: for if God may not do any thing contrary to justice, and if
it is right for us to reason upon this subject, then it is no "blas-
phemy to dispute what God may do," and no "sedition in subjects
to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power."

1 feel inclined to indulge my opposition to this "'axiom in divini-
ty," by attempting to prove, first, that moral principles in the
Deity are the same that are to regulate the conduct of his crea-
tures; and, secondly, that they are eternal, were never made, and
can never be altered or destroyed.

First, The principles of righteousness in the great Creator are
nothing different from those principles in men and angels.

We freely acknowledge that God possesses them in infinitely
higher degrees of perfection or extent, than any finite creature can;
but higher degrees of the same thing, can never be different from
its lowest degrees, unless we absurdly imagine, that righteousness,
carried to the utmost height of perfection, may become totally al-
tered in its nature, and may degenerate info an opposite tendency.
Goodness in creatures disposes them to communicate happiness; but
this principle in the Deity is infinitely higher and more extensiv«i
than in them; therefore God is infinitely more disposed to commu-
nicate happiness than men or angels are. A just being will never
inflict punishments where they are not deserved, or where no end
of goodness can be promoted by them: but God is infinitely just,
and therefore he has a stronger opposition to all acts of cruelty
than any other being in the universe. How ridiculous, therefore, must
it be, to infer from the superlative excellence of the divine perfec*
tions, that they may be entirely different in their operations from
those principles of morality as they are conceived by the human
understanding!

It is granted that the creatures of God have not the same na-
tive right of demand upon him, that they have upon each other:
each person in relation to his fellow creatures, has a right to his
existence, and to the means necessary for the support and happi-
ness of his life; and hence there is a corresponding obligation in
them not to violate these rights; but he has no right to demand
existence at the hand of God, but holds his life and all the bless-
ings of it, up»n the grant of benevolence.

As God was not bound injustice to create the universe, so nei-
ther is he bound injustice to continue it in being; and he is under
no obligation to continue the existence of any man or angel only as
he has condescended to bind himself by promise: had he not gra-
O o

286 AN ESSAY ON THE

ciously pledged his veracity, he might this moment annihilate eve-
ry creature in existence, without violating the right of any one.

Hence we are under obligations of gratitude to God for our crea-
tion, preservation, redemption, forgiveness, sanctification and
eternal happiness: because all these things are derived from his
benevolence, which is the only cause of gratitude. Had God been
bound in justice to do any of those things, upon our inherent right
of demand, we should have been under no obligation of gratitude
for them, because we should only receive our right, which could
not be withheld without injustice. For the same reason God is not
under obligations of gratitude to any creature, because it is impos-
sible for any creature to do him a favour, which is the only ground
of it.

But all thisaflbrds no shadow of evidence that moral princi-
ples in the Deity arc any thing diftereut from those principles in
his creatures.

His benevolence essentially includes the right of option, to
grant favours or withhold them: the same thing holds in creatures,
so far as they can be benevolent, which is limited to their fel-
low-creatures alone, because it is impossible for them to bestow a
favour upon their Maker; but have, ou the contrary, derived their
being and all their good things from his benelicence, and are there-
fore bound in duty to God, to do every thing that is right and
good.

The attribute of truth is also the same in God that it is in his
creatures. He is not bound to give his promise, or to confirm it
by an oath; but when he does so, he graciously binds himself, and
lias no more right to be false and deceitful than any other being.

His justice is also the same. Though no creature has an inher-
ent right to demand a perpetual preservation in existence, yet
every creature, while innocent, has an inherent right to demand
exemption from the everlasting damnation that is due to the devil
and his angels, and hence there is a corresponding obligation iu
the Almighty, as in every other being, not to violate the character
of the innocent, by false accusations, or to make them endure the
penalties due only to the guilty. To deny this, is to say God has a
right to be wicked, or that he has a right to do wrong, which is an
absolute contradiction, and therefore impossible.

These principles are so clear, that 1 think no man can deny
them without doing violence to his reason and conscience, as well
as to the whole tenor of the gospel; but as a great stand has been
made against them, I shall probably find it necessaRy to defend
them more particularly iu another place.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 287

It is unjust to inflict pain, where there is no guilt, unless it be
necessary, and be done with a kind intention, to prevent a greater
eril or to promote the happiness of the subject afterwards: there-
fore, in all cases of this kind where it is inflicted by a just and good
Creator, it is done to subserve such benevolent intentions, perhaps
not discoverable by us in the present state, but which may clearly
be made known when God shall have perfected the dispensations
of his providence and grace. There is no other inference possible,
if moral principles in the Deity are the same that regulate the
conduct of his creatures, and that they are so, I hope to prove by
the following arguments.

1. If they be not the same, the moral law affords no evidence of
the nature of its author. This law we have considered as a copy
of the divine perfections; but if his justice and goodness be any
thing different from that kind which his law enjoins, the study of
those principles will give us no certain evidence of his moral na-
ture. His law is holy, just and good; but his own justice and good-
ness are supposed to be of another kind, and how different they
may be from the principles we are acquainted with, what creature
is able to determine?

2. This hypothesis would leave no rational grounds for hope,
or faith, or confidence in God: Shall I trust in his goodness? Alas,
I know not what it is! his attributes are so profound a mystery, I
am told, that I am not to apply my narrow conceptions, to draw
inferences concerning what God may do, but only what he wills
to do! And this I can never discover, because a thousand promises
will afford me no consolation, seeing his truth may be as different
from ours as any of his other attributes.

3. It would be impossible for any creature to imitate the great
Maker of the world, as our Saviour exhorts us to do; because our
exercising justice and mercy among men is no imitation of God, if
his justice and mercy be of another kind.

4. Christians are sajd to be partakers of the divine nature, and
are transformed into the image of God, which is said to consist in
righteousness and true holiness: but if God is governed in his ac-
tions by a righteousness and holiness of another kind, how are they
partakers of his nature or image? And why should we worship or
love a God whose nature and attributes are unknown, and some-
thing different from what has ever entered into our hearts to con-
ceive? Would not this be to worship an unknown God with a wit-
ness? and might it not be said to every one of us, as our Saviour
said to the Samaritans, "ye worship, ye know not what"? Leaving

sea AN ESSAY ON THE

our opponents to answer these plain questions, we proceed to
prove,

Secondly, that moral principles are eternal, were never created,
and can never be destroyed.

1. To say they are not eternal, but were made by the Almighty,
is to suppose that with God there is no distinction between right
and wrong, between moral good and evil, but that all he does is
perfectly indifterent; there being nothing moral in any of his ac-
tions. He might alter his principles of action in any way that can
he imagined, and they would be equally righteous, because he made
right and wrong according to his own good pleasure, and has an
equal right to alter and change them till that which is now just
shall become unjust, and that which is now kind shall become cru-
el! If so, we say God's justice consists in doing any thing, every
thing, or nothing: or, in other words, that there is no principle of
justice in his nature.

2. If the principles of righteousness are not eternal, but were
formed by the divine will, it plainly follows that God made his
own attributes and that they are not eternal. Is not justice an
eternal attribute of God? and does not this consist in having a re-
gard to that which is right, and an aversion to that which is
wrong? If so, the distinction between right and wrong is eternal,
and those principles of moral goodness brought to light by the law
jand the gospel, are everlasting and unchangeable as the divine na-
ture.

3. According to "the axiom," or rather the hypothesis undercon-
sideration, the Almighty could, had he been so minded, have made
benevolence consist in the infliction of eternal torments on the
innocent, and have made barbarous cruelty consist in the regular
promotion of felicity. Had he created all men and angels in hell,
in order to torment them forever and ever, it would have been as
perfectly just and good as any thing he has ever done, because
with him every thing is righteous and he has no rule for his ac-
tions but his own sovereign and independent will.

If we find ourselves unable to digest these shocking opinions, we
must of necessity admit that the principle of right is the same yes-
terday, to-day and forever. It was never produced as the effect of
will or volition, but being as essential to God as his omnipotence,
it is as eternal, as necessary, as indestruetable and unchangeable
as the divine nature itself.

But though the nature of justice and goodness is eternal and
eannot be altered, yet the exercise of those attributes for our be-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 284

nefit is a voluntary act of the divine will. God was never bound to
bring us into being, because it was an effect of his goodness, which
essentially includes the right of option, to grant favours or to
withhold them; and if he were to let us drop into our original
nothingness, he would do us no wrong; because we have no right
to demand existence at his hands. But though he is free to bestow
his favours or to withhold them, yet he is not free to violate jus-
tice and torment innocent creatures in hell forever, because this
would be contrary to tbe principle of right, which is essential to
his nature and coeval with his eternal existence.

1 conclude, therefore, that it is so far from being blasphemy to
reason concerning what God may do, that it is evidently blasphe*
mous to insinuate, ^ that it is a matter of indifference with hinx
whether he does one thing or another, and that his sovereign will
may choose to do any thing that ever was done, because any thing
is righteous that he pleases to make so." Is not this plainly
saying there are no moral principles in his nature, and that he has
no regard to them in his actions? Did the prophets or apostles in-
dulge the voluntary humility of modern times, and modestly adore
the sovereign pleasure, without presuming to mention what God
might do, or what he might not? Just the contrary.

" I will publish the name of the Lord," says Moses, " he is
the rock, his work his perfect; for all his ways are judgment; a
God of truth, and without iniquity; just and right is he." — Deut.
xxxii. 3, 4.

" Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy
and truth shall go before thy face." — Psalm Ixxxix. 14.

^^ Shall mortal man be more just than GodP shall a man be
more pure than his Maker?" — Job iv. 17.

" Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert
justice? Far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and
from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity. For the work
of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find
according to his ways. Yea, surely God will not do wickedly,
neither will the Almighty pervert judgment." — Job viii.3. — xxxiv.
12, &c.

Does the Lord require us to believe that he might do wrong
without being evil, while his word declares that "Wickedness
proceedeth from the wicked, and he that sayeth unto the wicked,
thou art righteous, him shall the people curse; nations shall abhpr
tim?" 1 Sam. xxiv. 13. Prov. xxiv. 34.

290 AN ESSAY ON THE

Faitlif'ul Abraham, we are told, had the assurance to violate
king James's "axiom in divinity," and yet was never charged with
blasphemy: "And Abraham drew near and said, wilt thou also
destroy the righteous with the wicked? That be far from thee to
do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked; and
that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee.
Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Gen. xviii. 23, 25.

SECTION. V.

TJie infinity of Chrisfs atonement considered.

It may be objected, that the doctrine defended in the preceding
pages, supposes it not necessary for Christ to render infinite satis-
faction for sin; of course, that sin is not an infinite evil, — that the
divine law is not an infinite law, — that sinners do not deserve infi-
nite punishment, — and consequently, that the doctrine of universal
salvation is true.

Much use, indeed, has been made of this argument, both by uni-
versalists and by their opposers. The former argue, "that ^nife
creatures cannot commit an infinite offence, and therefore cannot
deserve hfinite punishment;" whilst the latter urge with equal
confidence, "that God being infinite, his law must be equally so;
a breach of it must therefore be an infinite offence, and conse-
qnently, deserve infinite punishment." The one is considered a
principal argument in defence of everlasting punisliment, the.
other, a principal argument against it: audit is not a little re-
markable, that the same point [infinity] is the main pillar of
both arguments, and seems to make them appear equally plausi-
ble.

I cannot help being of opinion, that <he conclusion of the latter
argument is false, and does not follow from the premises, and that
the conclusion of the former, thougli admitted, serves nothing to
the purpose for which it has been so often brought forward.

The word infinite, Mr. Walker tells us, signifies "unbounded,
unlimited, immense. It is hyperbolically used for large, great."

Thus it appears, the word is used in two senses, the one literal,
ihe other hyperbolical. AVhen used as a hyperbole, the Mord sig-

\

PLAN OF SALVATION. 291

uifies any thing large or great; and in this sense it will be admit-
ted on all sides to apply to the atonement, to the divine law, to sin,
and to future punishments. Universalists will very readily ac-
knowledge, that future punishment will be infinite, if we explain
ourselves to mean simply that it will be very great; because this
may be admitted, and the everlasting duration of it be denied not-
withstanding.

The argument then, to support the conclusion intended, must
take the word in its literal signification, namely, "unbounded, un-
limited,-' &c. And in this sense I presume it cannot in truth be
applied to any of the forementioned subjects, but to God alone. —
To clear this point and obviate the present objection, let us consi-
der the following particulars:

1. It is very evident that God is infinite, or unbounded in his
essence, and no quality or attribute essential to his Being, can be
justly considered as finite, because it would suppose the same Be-
ing is essentially finite and infinite at the same time, which is a
contradiction; but if we attribute infinity to any thing else but
God, or that which is essential to his nature, do we not at once
suppose there are more infinite beings than one in existence.^* and
what is this but to acknowledge several infinite Gods, or, which
is the same thing, to attribute to other objects the grand preroga-
tive which distinguishes the Almighty from every other being.^

2. What reason have we to believe the divine law is infinite.^
Because God is the author of it.'' If this alone be a sufficient rea-
son, it will follow that every man and every animal in the creation
is infinite, because God is the author of them. Is it because the
law is founded upon the divine attributes, or is formed according
to them, and is made in the image of God.'* AVe are expressly toid
that man was made in the image of God: does it therefore follow
that man was made infinite.' If we say the Almighty has ever
made any infinite things, is not this to affirm that he has created
Gods like himself, completely infinite as their Maker.'

Where is there a single passage in the Bible that declares,
either directly or indirectly, that the law of God is infinite.' And
if there be no such passage, whence comes it (o pass that many
receive this hypothesis with so much confidence, and Ihose too,
who profess to regulate their opinions by the authority of the Bi-
ble alone.'

3. If it be affirmed that sin is infinite, it is desirable for us to be
instructed whether each and every sin be infinite, or whether a
number of sins added together is necessary to bring it up to infini-

S9d AN ESSAY ON THE

ty. If the first be true, the plain consequence is, that there are no
degrees in sin, either from its quality or number: for we may se-
lect any particular sin that ever was committed, and affirm w ith-
out fear of contradiction, that if it be infinite, it is equal to all the
other sins that ever were perpetrated in the universe; for none
surely will affirm that the whole put together will be greater than
infinity. This were to suppose there are several infinites of dif-
ferent magnitudes, or, which is the same thing, that a subject may
be infinite and finite at the same time.

If we suppose the second, that single sins are finite, but that a
sufficient number put together will become infinite, then it follow^
that the addition of finite things together will produce infinity,
than which nothing can be more absurd. And besides, if a certain
number of sins become infinite, then we must suppose that all sin-
ners come up to this precise standard, and no farther, or that they
do not; if they do, then, to say nothing of this flagrant contradiction
of universal experience, the inevitable consequence is, that the
guilt of all sinners is exactly equal; if they do not, then some sin-
ners may rise above the standard, and their sins may become more
than infinite, whilst others may fall below the standard, and then
their sins are but finite, and consequently, according to the argu-
ment, they do not deserve infinite punishment.

4. 1 readily admit the conclusion, and believe if indubitably true,
that no sinner ever did or ever will deserve infinite punishment;
and, I must repeat it, this conclusion, when admitted, serves no-
thing to the purpose for which it has been so often brought forward
by universalists. This I hope to make appear, after first attempt-
ing to convince all christians that they are forced to admit this
conclusion, or deny their other established doctrines,
. All christians, as far as I know, believe that some sinners de-
serve more punishment than others, that none will be punished
more than they deserve, and consequently that there will be dif-
ferent degrees of punishment in a future state: but if punishment
is necessarily infinite because it is everlasting, and if all who go
to hell will be punished everlastingly, then it demonstrably fol-
lows, either that there are no different degrees in their punishment
or that some of them will suffer more or less than infinite, or that
one infinite is greater or less than another infinite.

Suppose the punishment to be everlasting: this does not prove
it infinite. For no creature has an infinite capacity to suffer; and
to say tbe punishment is infinite while the capacity is finite, is to
tay a creature may suffer more than he is capable of suffering,

PLAN OF SALVATION. Sas

VVliIch is a contrddictioii. I am aware of the evasion, that what is
finite in degree may be infinite in duration. This supposes the pun*
ishment to be both finite and infinite, which is also a contradiction.
The duration of a sinner's punishment is as far from being infinite
as its degree; and yet that duration may be everlasting.

Was there not a precise point of time when his punishment be-
gan.'' And suppose we take our stand at any conceivable point of
future duration, and look back at the point where any particular
person's duration began: is it not completely finite, limited and
measurable, as any thing that can be imagined.? And will it not
always be finite, limited and measurable, which infinity cannot beP
Will it be said it is infinite, because it is always enlarging? Nay,
this is the very thing that proves the duration to be finite; because
infinity cannot be enlarged. If we say a creature's duration is infi-
nite because it is perpetually enlarging, then the duration of a day
or an hour is infinite; for our time was as regularly enlarging du-
ring the first hour of our lives, as it ever will be.

Suppose a person in an immense or boundless plain, to commence
at any given point, and travel as regularly as our time has elapsed
from the moment we were born: how far must he travel before
his journey would become infinite? It is evident that after mil-
lions of ages, the extent of his progress, though great, would be
as completely finite, and subject to mensuration, as it was when
he had advanced but a single mile. And no argument can be ofl:er-
«d to prove that his journey will ever be infinite, but what would
equally prove it was so during the first mile, or even the sixtieth
part of that distance. Nothing ever will be infinite but what al-
ways was so; and it is very obvious that boundless or infinite dura-
tion belongs to God alone, who is the only being whose existence
never had a beginning, and therefore the only one who properly
inhabiteth eternity.

Hence it appears, that neither the happiness or misery of any
finite creature can ever be infinite either in degree or duration.—
Not in degree, because no creature has an infinite capacity; not in
duration, because the existence of every creature had a beginning,
and therefore can no more be enlarged into infinity, than a mau
ean be changed into a God.

It is far from my purpose to enter into the controversy respect-
ing eternal punishments, a controversy replete with presumptuous
conjectures, seldom productive of any good eftects upon the hu-
man mind, and too often pernicious in its tendency: but it ap-
peared necessary to give a brief statement of these arguments, to

294 AN ESSAY ON THE

show that we are under no necessity of assuming the hypothesis,
that sin is infinite, to avoid admitting the doctrine of a restoration
from hell. And as to an infinite atonement, of which so much has
been said, it is a position not derived from any part of the oracles
of God; and I know not what good has been obtained for man-
kind by this gratuitous addition to the scripture doctrine of our re-
demption.

That the atonement made by our Lord Jesus Christ was abun-
dantly sufficient to accomplish every end intended, is very clear;
but whether it be called infinite or not, is a matter, 1 apprehend,
which affects not the doctrine of the presejit essay, as might easi-
ly be evinced were it necessary. That our Hedeemer is God over
all, blessed forever; and that aone but God could possibly ransom
the guilty, has been already stated, and the reasons advanced,
which need not be repeated; but whatever denomination we give
to this atonement, it is sufficient for us to know, that it displayed
the full glory of God, and secured the dignity and perfect influ-
ence of his government, in the grant of pardon to penitent sinners.

SECTION VI.

A statement of the doctrine of original sin, in reply to the charge,
that our system denies it.

It may be said, "The plan of redemption defended in these
pages, by denying the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his
righteousness to us, implies that Adam's sin was not imputed to
his posterity, and thus the doctrine of original sin is contradict-
ed, and we find ourselves in the heart oi' Arianism, making rapid
strides to infidelity."

This objection deserves a full and particular answer, that we
may avoid the alarming charge of Arianism. We ought to avoid
the doctrine of Arians and Socinians, so far as they are erroneous;
if they should happen to be right in any thing, it is to be hoped
we will not reject any part of the truth, and run into delusion, for
fear of being called by such a frightful name.

As to the doctrine of the fall, we believe, (1.) That Adam was
the general representative of his posterity. (3.) That we derive

PLAN OF SALVATION. 295

from him a nature that is depraved, and prone to evil contiBually.
(3.) That all mankind are subject to sufferings and death, in conse-
quence of the original apostacy.

1. He was the general representative of his posterity. By this
W€ mean that the blessings of Paradise were given to him and his
posterity, on condition of his obedience to the command of God.
Had he stood upright, every man born of a woman would have
been a native heir to the blessing of that happy state; but by dis-
obedience the whole was forfeited, and his posterity are involved
in the conset^uences of that forfeiture: hence, "man that is born of
a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like
a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and conti-
nueth not." — Job. xiv. 1, 2.

When the actions or decisions of one man are not confined to
himself, but thousands will be affected by his good or bad conduct,
he is said to be the representative of those whose interests and
welfare depend upon his decisions. Thus we call the members of
congress and of the state legislatures our representatives, because
we and our posterity will be affected by their otHcial acts, whether
they be good or bad. But if our nation should be involved in mise-
ry and ruin, by the bad conduct of our representatives, as we all
have been by the bad conduct of our first representative, I hope
no one would conclude that our children would really be to blame
for what was done by the national authority before they were born.
Shall we infer, that because they have to share in the consequen-
ces of their rulers' actions, they equally share in the guilt thereof?
If so, how do we prove a representative to be a highly responsible
character.'^ If posterity bear the responsibility in the same propor-
tion that they are involved in the consequences, it is very evident
that the individual representative is no more culpable for the
wrong direction of his public actions, than he would be if he
acted for himself alone.

We say, for example, that Adam was highly responsible, and
there was a great degree- of guilt in his disobedience, because so
many millions are affected by it. Then we turn about and say
these millions are affected by it because they themselves are guilty.
It would be unjust, we conclude, for them to suffer, being innocent,
or to suffer more than their guilt deserves; therefore so far as
they are involved in misery, so far they are guilty. Now who does
not see that we suppose them involved in no consequences, but
those in which their own guilt has involved them.!* and consequent-
ly that their supposed federal head is no more culpable for his

296 AN ESSAY ON THE

public actions, than he would be if he acted only as a private indi«
vidual. It is true, that the acts of representatives are, by a tigurej
transferred to the nation, and are called the acts of the Ameri-
cans, or the conduct of the French or British nation; but every
man of common judgment understands such expressions, not in a.
literal, but in a figurative sense, and knows that no man is really
culpable for the obnoxious acts of any government, but those whose
will was employed in the matter, or who approved of the conduct
of the rulers.

The sin of Adam, is. by a like figure, called the sin of the world,
or the original apostacy of the human race; because the whole race
were represented by Adam, derive inherent propensities to evil
from him, and feel the temporary consequences of his fall. If our
opponents mean nothing more than this, when they say Adam's sin
is imputed to his posterity, we are agreed. If when they say all
men are born sinners, or that we are a Micked race, they Mould be
understood in the same sense as those who say the English or
French are an unjust and a haughty nation, there is no cause of
dispute between us. Weallknow that the infants of Europe are not
really to blame for the present acts of their councils, or for the
wrong conduct of any unrighteous king or emperor. In like man-
ner, we know that Ave and our children are not really guilty of any
crime that was committed in Paradise.

2. We all derive from Mama nature prone to evil contimialli/.
This melancholy truth is confirmed by universal experience.
Many good men have established it by arguments drawn from the
operations of human nature, and the man must be a great stranger
to himself, who is under the necessity of going out of his own soul
for evidence of this internal and native degeneracy. We are na-
turally inclined to do wrong, and to become enemies of all right-
eousness. This truth has been so often proved, and indeed it is so
evident from the experience and history of all mankind, that it is
almost incredible that any person should seriously call it in ques-
tion for a moment. Taking the fact for granted, let us inquire, as
others have done before us, how is this fact to be accounted for?

Is this original inclination or propensity to do wrong a natural
or a.penal consequence of Adam's transgression.'^ That it is a na-
tural eftect of sin, appears evident from the three foUoMing con-
siderations: First, it M as not contained in the original threateniugj
and therefore was no part of the penalty: God never said "In the
day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely" have strong propen-
sities to sin, but "thou shalt surely die." This, we grant, may imply

PLAN OF SALVATION. 2^

the loss of spiritual life as well as natural; but is there no medium
between the loss of spiritual life, and the acquiring of innate pro-
pensities to sin? Spiritual life, I am apt to think, consists in a cou-
seiousuess of the presence and the love of God. None Avill deny
that it was possible for this to have been withdrawn from Adam
before he fell, and whatever is possible may be supposed for the
sake of argument: let us suppose then, that God had for certain
purposes taken away (or withdrawn) Adam's spiritual life, while
he stood in a state of iunocenee; will any one say he would imme-
diately, and of necessity have felt strong propensities to sin? I
rather think he would have felt a strong inclination to pray, and
to seek that life again, which was the suppoi't of his happiness,
and the principal source of his tranquillity.

Secondly, to say such propensities are not natural effects of sin,
is to suppose that Adam, after his rebellion, had no evil propen-
sity in his nature, till God executed the penalty upon him: and
moreover, that he might have continued multiplying his crimes to
the present day, without contracting any evil bias, provided God
had suffered him to pass, without executing the sentence of the law
upon him; because sin, of itself, is supposed to do no manner of
harm to the sinner, but to leave him in quiet possession of all his
internal rectitude and felicity, till the hand of God implants evil
dispositions in him, as a punishment of his crimes! Shall we repre-
sent wickedness as a perfectly harmless thing, that we may have
the pleasure of charging God with all the disorder and misery
there is in the universe? It is evident from the word of God, that
Adam had strong propensities to evil, to run away and hide him-
self from his Maker — to excuse and justify himself — to cast the
blame on his partner — and to insinuate that God ought not to have
given her to him: — and all this happened immediately after his
transgression, before God had pronounced any curse against him,
much less executed it: a clear proof that the moral disorders of his
nature were produced by himself, as the natural and necessary
consequence of his voluntary wickedness and apostacy.

Thirdly, the truth I defend is confirmed by universal experience:
every sinner in the world knows, or may know, that his actual
sins regularly tend to increase the strength of his evil habits and
propensities. As we know this to be the nature of sin in our days,
and in all parts of the world, why suppose it had another nature
in the days of Adam? Why contradict the bible, which so clearly
exhibits the state of his mind, before any curse or penalty was ex-
deuted upon him? 1 know it may be said, God executed the sen-

398 AN ESSAY ON THE

tence on him, the very moment after he sinned, by taking away his
spiritual life; but there is not a shadow of proof of it in the bible
or any where else. It is an easy thing to form an hypothesis; but
there is no evidence whatever, of any act of God to manifest his
displeasure against the first sin, till after Adam and Eve attempted
to hide themselves among the trees of the garden. If the loss of
spiritual life was a natural effect of the apostacy, it is true that
it immediately followed the transgression; but if it was a penal
consequence, we demand proof that any penalty was executed till
after God pronounced the curse upon Adam, before which time he
had surely manifested strong propensities to sin.

As we know by experience, that actual sin produces an evil bias
in the mind, and tends to confirm and strengthen our native prone-
ness to do wrong; we have all the evidence that the nature of the
subject can admit or require, that Adam contracted similar dispo-
sitions, as the immediate effects of his transgression: and as the
goodness of God spared him to multiply his kind, we are all born
in a disordered state, because it was impossible for him to propa-
gate any other nature than his own.

It remains for us to inquire, m hether this natural propensity to
evil is in itself a sin.^ That it is the effect of sin, and inclines the
mind to the practice of it, is too evident to admit of controversy;
but whether it be proper to denominate that to be sin, which exists
in us, prior to all moral or voluntary actions, is not so evident. St.
Paul's definition of sin is, that it is the transgression of the law.
Mr. Wesley puts in two explanatory words, and defines sin to be
«a voluntary transgression of a knoivn law." By comparing this
with the state of infants, we shall find they are not sinners in the
sense of those definitions: but the term, sin, is sometimes applied
to the effects of it, according to the following statements of Mr.
Cruden; speaking of sin, he says, "It is taken (1.) for original
corruption, or the depravity and naughtiness of our corrupt na-
ture, which is prone to all evil. Psal. li. 5. (2.) For actual sin,
which flows from the corruption of nature. Jam. i. 15. (3.) It is
taken for the guilt and defilement of sin. Psal. li. 2. (4.) For
the punishment of sin. Gen. iv. 7. (5.) Sin is taken both for the
guilt and punishment of sin. Psal. xxxii. 1. (6.) The name of sin
is often given to the sacrifice of expiation, or to the sacrifice for
sin. Lev. iv. 3, 25, 29. What is there rendered sin-offering, is in
Hebrew, sin. 2 Cor. v. 21."

Taking the word in this latitude of meaning, it is certain that
it may in one sense, namely, the first mentioned by Mr. Cruden,

PLAN OF SALVATION. 299

be applied to all infants. We may very confidently say, they are
all born in sin, and have sin in them, provided we carefully dis-
tinguish the different senses in which the word is taken, and apply
it to infants, only as signifying "original corruption, or the de-
pravity and naughtiness of our corrupt nature, which is prone to
all evil." If we confound those different meanings of the word,
and speak of all men being born sinners, leaving the world to un-
derstand us as speaking of sin, projierly so called, we shall inad-
vertently countenance the old merciless hypothesis, "that there
are infants in hell not a span long." A sentiment this, which
some bold professors have had the eflTrontery to avow, but which
our opponents generally either disbelieve, or are ashamed openly
to acknowledge.

Let us inquire, in the next place, whether we have proper au-
thority to consider infants as guilty creatures. Dr. J. defines
guilt to be ^^an obligation to suffer punishment for sin.^^*

If by an obligation t» sutler, he means deserving to suffer, or
tha.i justice requires it of them, the definition, I think, is perfectly
correct, provided he takes the word sin according to St. Paul's ac-
count of it when he says sin is a transgression of the law. A guilty
person deserves to suffer a certain penalty: why? because he has vo-
luntarily transgressed a known law, that was given him by just au-
thority. To say a person is guilty who never committed a crime, is
to say he is gmliy of nothing, a.iid iha.t criminality a.ut\ guilt have no
necessary relation to each other. After a jury have investigated a
charge presented to them, they bring in their verdict, guilty or not
guilty: when they decide that the prisoner is guilty, every man of
common sense understands them to mean, that he has perpetrated
some act, which is criminal, and deserves punishment. If they de-
termine that he is not guilty, we understand them to mean that he
did not commit the unlauful act, and therefore is no criminal, and
deserves no punishment.

There are many degrees of guilt, it is true, and one person may
be more guilty than another; but guilt, in every degree of it, is in-
separable from some criminal action, knowingly and willingly
performed by the guilty person. Did any jury ever find a medium
between being guilty and not guilty.^ Did they ever decide that the
prisoner is neither guilty not innocent, or that he is guilty and not
guilty at the same time.? If they were to say that the prisoner is
clear of having done the action charged upon him, but is neverthe-

See Mr. Wesley's Vindication of the Doctrine of Original Sin.

800 AN ESSAY ON THE

less guilty of the charge, would we admire the wisdom and equi-
ty of their decision, or hiss their verdict out of the world, as a con-
tradiction, shocking to the common judgment and conscience of
all mankind?

The thing we mean by a person's being guilty is, that he has
''knowingly and willingly broken a law which he had power ta
keep, and the observance of which he knew to be enjoined on him
by proper authority: and that he therefore deserves punishment.''
If there be any other kind of guilt, I would gladly be informed of
its nature; for I have never yet been able to conceive any other
kind. I have somewhere seen a definition given in these words:
"Being liable to suffer on account of sin." The word liable, in thi»
sentence, is subject to some ambiguity: it may mean a person's de-
serving to suffer on account of his own sin, and then it is the same
with the definition above given; or it may signify the being expo-
sed to punishment on account of the sin of others. If guilt consist
in being liable to suffer on account of another's sin, it will indeed
follow inevitably that infants are guilty, or else that their suffer-
ings do not come upon them on account of Adam's sin. The latter
is not pretended, and therefore we must admit the conclusion, or
refute the definition from which it follows. This leads us to our
third proposition.

3. All mankind are subject (or liable) to sufferings and tempo-
ral death in consequence of the original apostacy.

This fact is undeniable, and is admitted by christians almost
universally. Our opponents think it impossible for us to believe it,
without admitting the consequence, that infants are guilty. Why?
because guilt consists in being in any way liable to suflfer on ac-
count of sin. This is taken for granted; and we demand of I hem to
produce evidence of its truth from reason or revelation. Admitting
it to be true, for the sake of argument, we must take these conse-
quences along with us: (1.) that when the heathen emperor caused
hundreds of the primitive christians to be murdered, under pre-
tence that they set fire to the city of Rome, a crime which he him-
self is said to have perpetrated; those christians were really guil-
ty, because they suftered on account of sin. (2.) When sin was first
introduced in God's creation, it injured innocent creatures, and
made them suffer, or it did not; if it did not, it follows that this
enormous evilwhich deserves everlasting damnation, was perfectly
inoffensive in its nature and tendency, and did no harm to any
living creature; if it did, then those innocent creatures wer«
guilty, because they suffered on account of sin. (3.) AH the beasts

PLAN OF SALVATION. 301

ef the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea,
are guilty creatures unless it can be proved that their sufterings are
not on account of sin. (l.) Lastly, Tlie Lord Jesus Christ liimself
was a guilty creature, according to this definition, and it seems
that nothing saves the very trees of the forest, or the rocks of the
mountains from being guilty, but their incapacity to suft'er.

The last consequence is admitted by our opponents, that the
Lord Jesus was in some sort guilty, by imputation, and Luther
called him the greatest sinner in the world; but I never heard
that x\dam's sin was imputed to the quadrupeds and the fowls,
though it is almost universally acknowledged that they suffer and
die in consequence of the original apostaey. The imputation must
be kept up in three particular cases, it seems, however others may
be spared. (1.) The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity.
(2.) The imputation of all our sins to Christ. (;3.) The imputatioa
of Christ's righteojisness to us.

We are perfectly willing and desirous to understand this doc^
trine, and to examine whatever evidence may be advanced in its
support. I, for one, am greatly at a loss to comprehend the mean-
ing of this doctrine of imputation. I often find it stated, that
Adam's sin was in some sort imputed to his posterity; that our sins
were in some sense imputed to Christ, and the like. In what sense
they mean, is hard to determine. The word occurs sometimes
in scripture; but I fiud it applied to faith, more than to Adam or to
Christ; and it commonly means nothing more than forgiving our
sins, and accepting us in Christ in consequence of our believing.
"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is cover-
ed. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity,

and in whose spirit there is no guile." Psal. xxxii. 1, 2.—

"For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteous-
ness. Now, it was not written for his sake alone, that it was
imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if
we believe on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."
Rom. iv. 9, 23. Thus it .appears that faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ is accepted instead of spotless righteousness; that is, when
we believe, our sins are forgiven, and we are accepted as though
we had never sinned, because the goodness of God in Jesus Christ
is such, that he no longer demands the spotless and uninterrupt-
ed righteousness which the old covenant demanded, but gracious-
ly imputes or reckons faith unto us for righteousness.
. Tlie bible no where says that Adam's sin was imputed to his
posterity; and we would gladly kn^w how the matter is to be un-
derstood.

Q q

30;3 AN ESSAY ON THE

Is the act of breaking God's law in paradise imputed to the
men of this generation? We were guilty of that act, or we were
not; if we were, we acted, and broke the laws of God, some thou-
sands of years before we were born; if we were not, to impute it

Will it be granted that we are clear of the criminal act, and
yet be maintained that the guilt of it is imputed to us? Does tkis
mean that we are not guilty of the crime, but are guilty of the
guilt? If so, we are as fiir out at sea as ever, and the subject is
truly a profound mystery^ almost equal to that of transubstantia-
tion.

That Adam's sin may be figuratively imputed to us, as the acts
of the English Parliament are imputed to the British nation, is
readily admitted, because Adam was our representative, and we
are involved in the eS'eetsof his had conduct; but this does not con-
stitute us guilty, in any intelligible sense of the expression.

I am apt to think our opponents themselves, when they come to
explain themselves, mean no more by the imputation of Adam's sin,
but that we are involved in the natural consequences of it: at least,
if they mean any thing else, they seem unable to tell us what they
mean.

Mr. Wesley gives extracts from Dr. Watt's and Mr. Hebdeu
upon this subject, in which we find the following explanation of
the doctrine in question.

" When a man has broken the law of his country, and is pun-
ished for so doing, it is plain, that sin is imputed to him; his wick-
edness is upon him; he bears his iniquity; that is, he is reputed or
accounted guilty: He is condemned and dealt with as an offen-
der.

"On the other hand, if an innocent man, who is falsely accused,
is acquitted by the court, sin is not imputed to him, but right-
eousness is imputed to him; or, to use another phrase, his right-
eousness is upon liim.

"Farther, if a man has committed a crime, but (he prince par-
dons him, then he is justified from it; and his fault is not imputed
to him.

"But if a man hating committed treason his estate is taken
from him and his children, then they bear the iniquity of their
father, and his sin is imputed to them also.

"But it may be asked, how can the acts of the parent's treason
be imputed to his little child? since those acts were quite out of

PLAN OF SALVATION. S03

the reach of an infant, nor was it possible for him to commit
them.

« I answer, (1.) Those acts of treason or acts of service, are by
a common figure, said to be imputed to the children, when they
suffer or enjoy the consequences of their father's treason or emi-
nent service: though the particular actions of treason or service
could not be practised hy the children. This would easily be un-
derstood, should it occur in an human history. And why not, when
it occurs in the sacred writings?"

Thus far our author's account of the matter is clear and intelli-
gible: It is only "by a common figure" that "those acts of treason
or acts of service are said to be imputed to the children: And
why not, when it occurs in the sacred writings?" But he pro-
ceeds:

"I answer, (3.) Bin is taken either for an act of disobedience to
a law, or for the legal result of such an act; that is, the guilt, or
liableness to punishment. Now when we say the sin of a traitor
is imputed to his children, we do not mean, that the act of the
father is charged upon the child: but that the guilt or liableness
to punishment is so transferred to him, that he sulfers banishment
or poverty on account of it."*

It is true, " If a man having committed treason, his estate is
taken froi» him and his children," the children suffer privation or
" poverty on account of it;" but no man in his right mind believes
they are really guilty of treason, because they are liable to suffer on
account of their father's crimes. If his fault is "said to be imputed
to the children," it is only "by a common figure," and is not lite-
rally understood, as though the children Mere really involved in
the father's guilt, because from their peculiar relation to him they
have to endure the consequences. Were children ever made res-
ponsible to any government for their fathers treason? Were they
ever accused of his crime, and pronounced guilty, by the judicial
authority of the nation? I presume not: and neither are the chil-
dren of Adam pronounced guilty of his crime, in any part of the
oracles of God.

But "guilt," and a "liableness to punishment," are by our
author considered as synonymous: if he really mean that all the
beasts of the creation are guilty of Adam's sin, because they are
liable to punishment, let him openly declare it; and we will pa-
tiently attend to the arguments or scriptures by which such a
curious opinion is to be supported.

See "The doctrine of original sin," 8cc. page 38i, &c.

30* AN ESSAY ON THE

The guilt of Adam's children is inferred from two passages of
gcrjptiire, one is, that "we were all Ijy ii:it ^e children of wrath,"
and the other, ''that judgment has come upon all men unto con.
demnafion."

That ivraih, or God's displeasure against sin, has come upon
human nature, and even upon animal nature universally, is most
evident; the very ground has been cursed for Adam's sake; but this
is no proof fhat the ground is g-uiUj/: because though the words
curse, wrath and condemnation commonly signify an execution of
the Sfiiteuee which iuslice requires, yet the words are sometimes
applied, not to the guilty person only, but to other creatures or
objeefs, which in some way stand related to him, and which are
cursed for his sake, and not for their own. '^Cursed is the ground
for thy sake. Gen. iii. 17. Therefore is your land a desolation and
a curse, at this day. Jer. xliv. 22. 1 Mill curse your blessings; yea,
I have cursed them already. Mai. ii. 2. Master, behold the fig-
tree which thou cursedst is witliered away. Mark. xi. 21. At his
wrath the earth shall tremble Jer. x. 10. I saw the tents of Cushan
in affliction: and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.
■^Vas tlie Lord displeased against the rivers.^ was thine anger
against the rivers.^ was thy wrath against the sea, that thou didst
ride upon thine horses, and thy chariots of salvation.^" Hab. iii.
7, 8.

" By one man's offence, judgment came upon all men to con-
demnation." Rom. v. 18. This alludes to the condemnation which
came upon Adam when he was driven out of the garden, and sub-
jected to labour, misery and death. Human nature was thus con-
demned, and this judgment has certainly come upon all men, on
account of their relation to their original representative. But
■when the judgments of God come upon a people, do they fall on
none but those who are guilty of the crime for which the judg-
ments were sent.^ When the judgment of God sent fire and brim-
stone upon Sodom for the abominations of that people, will any one
say that the infants of that city were guilty of the crimes which
brought down fire from heaven, and consumed them.^' 1 presume no
person will be disposed to say so: and yet it is evident the judg-
ment came upon them, and they '^were children of this wrath eveii
as others."

What shall we say of those days of wretchedness, at the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, such as have not been before and shall not be
again?"For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which
are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are witfe

PLAN OF SALVATION. 305

child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be
great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people." Luke. xxi.
22. When the Lord Jesus pronounced this woe, a word which fre-
quently signifies a sentence of condemnation, did he mean that the
mothers or their infant children were cursed in a peculiar sense,
as being uncommonly guilty? Were the infants of the Jewish na-
tion guilty of "crucifying the Lord of glory," or of tlie other crimes
^vhich brought misery and destruction upon them.^ The Jews said,
"His blood be on us and on our children;" and it is evident the pe-
culiar judgments which were sent on account of this crime, fell on
their children, as well as themselves. Were the children there-
fore guilty.^ or shall we say the beasts and fowls which shared in
the general misery, had the crimes of the high-priest, and of the
pharisees, imputed to them.^ Thousands who knew not their right
hand from their left were involved in the scene of wretchedness,
which was brought on by the wickedness of the Jews, and which
cur Saviour calls vengeance, and wrath upon this people. The in-
fants in Jerusalem, therefore, though they never crucified the Sa-
viour, nor gave their consent to it, uor had it imputed to them,
were nevertheless subjected to the general ''judgment unto con-
demnation, and were (by birth, or nature) children of wrath even
as others."

But arguments, as well as scriptures, are urged against us in
this controversy. Some writers, who have thought it their duty,
and a very important one, to exert their talents in defence of im-
puted righteousness, and original or imputed sin, though not in
general friendly to metaphysical distinctions, have ventured to fa-
vour the world with some rational arguments in defence of these
mysteries. Their arguments arc plausible: and are, for the most
part, drawn from the principle, "that the miseries and death which
come upon all the children of x\dam, can never be reconciled with
justice, unless they are all in some sort guilty " This subject shall
be examined, and due attention be paid to their reasonings, iu
ihe following section.

AN ESSAY ON THE

SECTION VII.

Ji view of the principal arguments by ,which infant guilt is rfg-
fended.

Mr. Taylor, the great opposer of the original corruption of our
nature, laid down the axiom, that "no just constitution can punish
the innocent." Hence he concluded that infants are not punished
for Adam's sin; but only suiter as a punishment to their parents,
who are actual sinners. His opponents admitted the same axiom,
but maintained that our sufferings are on account of sin, and there-
fore that they are properly considered as legal punishments: hence
they concluded all infants are guilty.

Dr. Watts is of the same opinion. After describing the suffer-
ings of children, he says,* "are these treated as innocent creatures.''
Or rather as under some general curse, involved in some general
punishment."

"But may not these sufferings of children be for the punishment
of the sins of the parents,?"

"Not with any justice or equity, unless the sins of the parent*
are imputed to tiieir children."

Mr. Hebden corroborates the declaration of Dr. Watts: "It is
incompatible with the justice and mercy of God," says he, "to ap-
point afflictions of any kind for the innocent. If Christ suffered, it
was because the sins of others were imputed to him." Again, he
says, "How are many dead, or made sinners, through the disobe-
dience of Adam.? liis first sin so far affects all his descendants, as
to constitute them guilty, or liable to all that death, which was
contained in the original threatening." Again: "By man, in the
twenty -first verse, is n»eant Adam. The all spokf n of are all Isis
natural descendants. These all die; that is, as his descendants., are
liable to death, yea, to death everlasting."

These are respectable authorities; and it would be an easy thing
to produce the testimony of many others, to the same effect. This
doctrine concerning original guilt has long been considered of
great importance with all the defenders of imputed righteousness,
finished salvation, and eternal election and reprobation. They
perceive if this should be given up, reprobation will be despoiled
of a very plausible covering, and the general system of fatality or
predestination will be in imminent danger.

* Paere 69 and 71.

PLAN OF SALVATION S07

Accordingly, the last quoted author says, "A denial of original
sin," (by which he means "guilt"that deserves "death everlasting")
contradicts the main design of the gospel, which is to humble vaia
man, and to ascribe to God's free grace, not man's free will, the
whole of his salvation. Nor indeed can we let this doctrine go,
without giving up at the same time the greatest part, if not all, of
the essential articles of the christian faith."

This statement. I think, is correct, if by "the essential articles
of the christian faith," we are to understand the distinguishing te-
nets of Mr. Calvin and his followers. Their principles have a close
connexion with the doctrine of original guilt, and therefore to
them the doctrine is very important. Their conviction of its im-
portance, may possibly cause them to be satisfied with very slight
evidence of its truth.

Some honest Arminians, I fear, have been carried away by the
general outcry against the danger of giving up this most essential
and interesting principle. We have been cautioned against Socin-
ianisin, and veryjuslly, if Socinians deny the deep depravity of hu-
man nature; this we aeknow ledge in all its extent; but this is not
thought suJ'Hcient: to avoid the snares of the philosophical Soein-
ians, it seems, we must espouse the doctrine in all its sacred mvste-
ry, and maintain that infants are in some sort guilty. Are we per-
mitted to inquire in what sort they are guilty.?

Are they guilty of having a nature prone to sin? or guilty of be-
ing conceived and born of such sinful parents.? And was x'idaai
guilty likewise for being made capable of sinning, and for being
liable to the devil's temptation?.? Are the South Sea savages, who
never heard of Christ, guilty for their want of faith in him.? or
brutes and cliildren for their ignorance of God.?

And besides, if the guilt of infants arises from their native de-
pravity, w hy recur to the doctrine of imputation to account for it?
Their depravity is real, and not merely imputed; but ouropponcnts
tell us the doctrine of original guilt, and that of imputation must
stand or fall together. They argue, that infants are guilty because
they sufter; and they cannot suffer on account of the parents' sin
"with any justice or equity," says Dr. Watts, "unless the sins of
the parents are imputed to their children." It is therefore plain
that a denial of the imputation of sin, is a denial of their guilt,
and consequently their guilt arises not from their depravity,
which is real and not merely imputed.

It remains then that they are guilty of Adam's sin, by impuf a-
fion. The apostle tells us condemnation came by one ({[fence. We

308 AN ESSAY OX THE

would be glad to know whether this crime were divided, half be-
ing imputed to us, and halt'to Adam, or whether the whole were
imputed to his descendants? If half were imputed, we deserve
half the penalty; if the whole, then all infants are as guilty as
Adam, and our author is right when he says, "His descendants
are liable to death, yea, to death everlasting.^^

Thus, the secret is out. There is supposed to be no medium
between believing infants are guilty, and being Soeinians: that
there is no medium between believing infivuts guilty, and acknow-
ledging that they deserve dealh everlasting: therefore, Mr.
Whitefield's conclusion stands firm wilh all its train, " that
election and reprobation are highly just and reasonable."

Is it any longer wonderful that our opponents should be fond of
this doctrine, and should think that they cannot '« let it go, with-
out giving up at the same time the greatest part, if not all, of the
essential articles of the Christian faith.?"

I suspect we must follow them in all their conclusions, or, deny-
ing the principle from whence they set out, (that is, the guilt of
infants,) maintain that infants are not guilty in any sort or sense
whatever.

Here then we are fairly at issue. What are the arguments by
which infant guilt is to be supported?

The main argument is drawn from the axiom above mentioned,
and is produced by different authors in various forms of expres-
sion. It is stated by Mr. Hebden, in as clear and intelligible a
manner, as by any I have seen: his words are these:

« Since Adam's posterity are born liable to death, which is the
due wages of sin, it follows, that they are born sinners. No art can
set aside the consequence." Again:

" If original sin is not, either deatli is not the wages of sin, or
there is punishment without guilt: God punishes innocent, guilt-
less creatures. To suppose which, is to impute iniquity to the
Mr.st Holy."

I rejoice to see a man thus come out, clear and open as the snu,
and CTchibit his opinions and arguments in the concise and in-
telligible style of manly reasoning, without confusing or covering
the question, and without attempting to conceal himself in the
shades of mystery.

It is necessary first, to notice one or two of the terms of his ar-
gument, that we may not dispute where veboiii agree.

If, by being "born sinner-," his meaning be. thai we. are born in
a disordered state, with a nature prone to sin, this conclusion is

PLAN OP SALVATION, Sba

admitted without delay or hesitation. But if it be, that we are
born guilty, the question remains yet to be decided.

When he says "death is the due wages of sin," if his meaning
be "death everlasting," 1 acknowledge it is always the wages of
sin. But if it be temporal death, and if by the wages of sin we are
to understand, a. penalty which justice requires, although this is the
wages of sin originally, yet it is not so in all cases, otherwise the
beasts and the fowls of heaven are sinners, which has not yet been
pretended.

Having premised thus much, we come to the argiiment, the
whole force of which may be expressed in these words: It is unjust
to inflict misery and death on those who are not guilty; but misery
and death are inflicted on infants; therefore those who say infants
are not guilty, charge God with injustice.

I purpose now to show, first, that this argument, if solid, would
involve our opponents in as great a dilemma as ourselves; and se-
condly, that it has no strength to support their conclusion.

First, the argument, if true, would involve them as much as
ourselves. This will appear from the three following reflections.

1. They must prove that the inferior animals are guilty, or that
they do not suffer on account of siu, neither of which has yet been
attempted, or their system militates against the justice of God as
much as ours.

2. If the guilt of infants consists in their being born with a fal-
len nature, it follows that they ought not to have been thus born,
otherwise you say they ought to be guilty: to say a person ought
to be guilty, is to say, it is right to be guilty, whieh is a contradic-
tion, and at the same time supposes, that a guilty person deserves
no punishment, unless we say he deserves punishment for doing
right. And if infants ought not to have been born with a fallen
nature, then it was their duty to overturn the laws of nature, and
defeat the dispensations of God in peopling the earth with the
descendants of Adam. To deny this, is to say it is not a person's
duty to keep himself clear of guilt, which at once makes it right
to do wrong and saps the foundation of all moral principles.
Our opponents must therefore embrace all these consequences, or
admit that infants are not guilty, on account of being born with a
fallen and depraved nature. It remains,

3. That if they are guilty at all, it must be by virtue of the
act of imputation, and by nothing else. This seems to be the
view of their writers on the subject, though they frequently speak
in a confused way, and it is hard to discover whether they mean

Rr

310 AN ESSAY ON THE

that our original guilt arises solely from the imputation of Adam's
sin, or entirely from our degenerate nature, or partly from one
and partly from the other.

Dr. Watts clearly puts the question, "may not these sufferings
of children be for the punishment of the sins of their parents?"
or, (we might with equal propriety say,) for the sin of our first
parents?

"Not with any justice or equity," says he, "unless the sins of
the parents are imputed to the children."

Now they believe we actually suft'er for the sin of our first pa-
rent, and at the same time maintain that this could not be inflicted
"with any justice or equity, unless the sins of the parents are
imputed to their children." It therefore follows, that if the pa-
rents' sin had not been thus imputed, all the children of Adam
would have been clear of guilt, and could not have suffered "with
any justice or equity." This imputation, they tell us, is the act of
God: consequently we were never guilty till God made us so, by
the act of imputation.

Supposing that God had not imputed Adam's sin to us: we should
then have been free from misery, it seems, and it would have been
unjust for infants either to softer or die. And why so? Because they
would have been clear of guilt, and "no just constitution can
punish the innocent." It is acknowledged then that infants of
themselves, abstracted from the imputation, are not guilty: there-
fore when God imputed guilt to them, he charged them with be-
ing guilty, when they were not so. And is this the way we are
to reconcile infant sufferings with the justice of God?

The maxim is thought to be incontrovertible, that no just con-
stitution can punish the innocent: and is it not equally evident,
that no just constitution can impute guilt to the innocent, in order
to punish them as guilty creatures when they are not so? The in-
quisitors of Spain, we are told, burnt men to death for crimes
of which they were not guilty; but those crimes were imputed to
them by the "holy inquisition," and this was thought sufficient to
account for the justice of the sentence! In li^e manner it appears
that our opponents, being pressed with Dr. Taylor's axiom, and
fondly supposing it involves the Arminians in an "inextricable
dilemma," leap out of the difficulty themselves, by gravely recur-
ring to the doctrine of imputation, and thus avoid the " conse-
quence which no art can set aside," by supposing one unjust ac-
tion is excused by another. Will they say God has a right to im-
pute sin to whom he pleases? And why not an equal right to pun-
ish whom he pleases, without imputing sin to them?

PLAN OF SALVATION. 311

Szcondlt/f The argument has no strength to support their conclu-
sion.

The attack which I mean to make must of course be levelled
against the major proposition; for that infants do in fact suffer
and die, an idiot would acknowledge. Let us then examine this
formidable principle, that it is unjust for those to sufterand die
who are not guilty, or in the words of Dr. Taylor, that «no just
constitution can punish the innocent."

That justice does not require that the innocent should suffer, is
indeed self-evident: but that justice admits of it, whenever it re-
sults from the attribute of goodness, I hope may be established
beyond all reasonable doubt.

Ev€ry violation of what justice requires, is unjust; whatever
accords with what justice admits, but does not require, is benevo-
lent. (I speak of moral actions.)

To say justice does not admit of any thing but what it requires,
is to say justice required of God to bestow all the favours he has
ever bestowed upon mankind, or else that it did not admit of it: if
it required it, God would have been unjust had he Avithheld his
favours; and if it did not admit of it, he was unjust in bestowing
them.

Benevolence has aright to do any thing which justice admits;
there is no benevolence in merely doing what justice requires;
therefore if justice admits nothing but what it requires, there is no
such thing as benevolence in the universe.

A present evil inflicted, when necessary, to prevent a greater
€vil, or to promote a lasting good to come, is not only just, hut
truly benevolent, whether inflicted on the guilty or the innocent.
I grant the innocent do not deserve any degree of misery; that is,
justice does not require it; but justice admits of it, for the best
reason in the world, and that is, that it is required by goodness.

We will suppose a little child is seized with some disorder
which threatens to keep it in lingering misery to the end of life: a
physician proposes by a.short but severe operation, to effect a per-
fect cure: perhaps a leg or an arm must be amputated, or some
other operation must be endured equally painful: every groan and
shriek of the innocent little creature cries in the ears of reason
and humanity that it does not deserve this misery: but it is the
physician who inflicts it: is he therefore an unjust man? not at all;
because the present pain will promote an excellent end in future,
and it is inflicted with a benevolent intention.

9i2 AN ESSAY ON THE

Let us suppose the physician afterwards takes hold of another
child of the same family, who is in perfect health, and cuts off its
arm, or performs the same operation that was performed on the
other, knowing that there was no necessity for it, and that it would
injure the child through life: would not every ones' indignation
be raised against him, as an unjust and a cruel monster of barbar->
ity? And why? Because the misery inflicted did not arise from a
benevolent intention, nor promote a benevolent end: the child did
not deserve it, and there was no necessity for it; therefore justice
was so far from requiring it, that it required the contrary. How
then could justice admit of the operation, in the former case?
Was the former child more guilty than the latter? This cannot be
pretended, unless we are disposed to conclude, very gravely, that
it was guilty of having the disease. As they were therefore both
alike as to innocence or guilt, justice did not require that either of
them should be punished by the physician; but it admitted of it in
one case, and forbid it in the other, for this reason only, that the
former ease was benevolent, and therefore consistent with justice,
the latter unjust and cruel, and therefore contrary to it.

If it can be proved that justice requires that all infants should
guffer and die, we will acknowledge at once that they are guilty.
But if this dispensation was the result of goodness, it remains that
their sufferings are consistent with justice, but that it does not
demand them. That it was the result of benevolence may be made
evident, 1 think, by the following arguments.

1. It will be readily granted that Adam himself, after he sin*
ned, was guilty: that he by disobedience forfeited all the blessings
of Paradise, and justly deserved to die. Whence then was he per-
mitted to enjoy his forfeited life, and the blessings of it, for near-
ly a thousand years? Was it not through mere grace or favour?
None surely will presume to deny it. Had not the stroke of justice
been thus through mercy suspended, we should have never been
born to suffer and die, unless our opponents will insist that Adam
would have actually propagated his species after he was dead*
Therefore our being born as we now are is the result of benevo-
lence, sparing our first parents after their transgression.

2. It is supposed that because infants do in fact suffer and die,
justice therefore requires it of them: but why is it that good men,
after being pardoned and fully sanctified, have still to suffer and
die? Our objectors insist, that all the suffering justice required of
them was entirely satisfied when the Saviour undertook to die in
their place. And though we believe this was intended only to sa-

PLAN OF SALVATION. gig

tisfy justice for them to be spared; to Be placed in a state of proba*
tion; and to receive the free offers of salvation through Jesus
Christ; yet we also acknowledge that when the goodness of God
pardons their sins, and renews them in the spirit of their minds,
full satisfaction is rendered, and justice requires no more. But
still thev have to die. Is it because they are still guilty, after all
that God has done for them in redemption, pardon and sanctifica-
tion? or merely because they were so before? If men, after their
sins have all been blotted out, are still under condemnation, mere-
ly because they were once guilty, they are justified and condemned
at the same time, and may be so eternally; because it will be for-
ever true that they were once guilty. We might as well say that
a man who was once convicted of a crime, but who has received a
full pardon from the governor, is still guilty and ought to bo
executed. If so, it is plain the governor had no just authority
to pardon him, otherwise justice would not afterwards re-
quire his execution. If we say, therefore, that pardoned and sancti-
fied christians (I mean those who are fully sanctified and sealed
before death) still deserve death as a penalty, our conclusion is
founded on the principle, that God has not forgiven all their sins^
or that he had no just authority to do so.

3. If it be granted that such christians are now clear of guilt,
and nevertheless have to die, the argument against infants is de-
molished, and their sufferings and death are no proof of their crim-
inality: and if we conclude, on the contrary, that all christians re-v
main guilty, and therefore that justice requires their death, its re-
quirements were evidently violated in the case of Enoch, for the
apostle tells us "Enoch was translated that he should not see
death." Heb. xi. 5. He moreover tells ns, when speaking of the
general resurrection, that "we which are alive and remain shall
be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord
in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thess.
ir. 17. Those Christians who shall be alive at that happy period,
will be so far from enduring the lingering pains of death, that
they shall "be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at
the last trump." 1 Cor. xv. 51.

4. We would be glad to know whether infants are so guilty,
that justice requires that they should suffer "death temporal, spir*
itual and eternal," or w hether it requires temporal death only.

Suppose the last to be true, that they do not deserve damnation,
but that justice requires their present sufferings and their disso-
lution. This being granted, these two consequences are unavoida-

31^ AN ESSAY ON THE

ble: first, that God shows mercy to actual sinners, but to many in-
fants he exercises jiiclgnient without mercy: for it is no uncommon
thing for infants to die as soon as they are born; and therefore no
mercy is exercised towards them; they are not permitted to enjoy
good in the land of the living; but the whole penalty which they
deserve is executed upon them the moment they come into the
world. Secondly, Those who say infants need no Saviour, on sup-
position that they are innocent, do not avoid the same consequence,
by supposing them guilty in the degree now under consideration:
for the argument must rest upon the principle, that the only office
of a Saviour is to "remove guilt, by bearing the penalty:" and
that of consequence those who have no guilt, need no Saviour.
Now if infants are only so far guilty as to deserve temporal death,
when they actually die, the penalty is discharged by their own
sufferings, and of course, according to the present argument, they
need no Saviour, because the whole penalty they deserved has
been actually endured by them, and justice requires no more.

5. It remains then, that the only ground on which infant guilt
can prove they need a Saviour, is the supposition that they are so
guilty as to deserve everlasting damnation. And indeed this ap-
pears to be the ground generally taken by our adversaries. They
suppose all infants deserve to be damned, and therefore it is a mer-
cy that any of them are permitted to pass with no greater punish-
ments than those which are temporal, or of short duration.

Dr. Watts introduces this query, in form of an objection: "But
how are such miseries reigning among his Creatures consistent
with the goodness of God?" "Perfectly well," says he, "if we*
consider mankind as a sinful, degenerate part of God's crea-
tion. It is most abundant goodness that they have any com-
forts left, and that their miseries are not doubled."

Now if infants die as soon as they are born, what "comforts'*
have they "left?" And if their present sufferings and death are
all that they deserve, how is it "abundant goodness that their mis-
eries are not doubled?" Is God abundantly good merely because
he does not condemn his creatures, and punish them over again,
after they have suffered all that they deserve? The doctor's mean-
ing evidently was, though he had too much modesty and humani-
ty to express it openly, that all infants "deserve death, yea, death
everlasting." This was expressed openly by one author above
quoted, and it is evident that we must, if we would be consistent,

• Page 78.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 3ig

adopt the same conclusion, or maintain that infants are not ffuilty
and that they deserve no penalty.

Let us then suppose for the sake, of argument, however gloomy
and dismal the supposition may be to the feelings of justice and
humanity, that all infants deserve to be sent into hell forever. 1
suppose our opponents will readily admit that they are not more
guilty than Adam was.

Did Adam deserve death temporal and eternal the moment af-
ter his transgression? or had he a right in justice to live and en-
joy the blessings of life for almost a thousand years afterwards?
If he deserved immediate death, it was pure mercy that spared
him, and had the sentence been instantly executed, the temporal
sufferings of his posterity would have been thereby prevented, un-
less it can be proved that the earth would have been peopled by
his dead body in the grave: and so would their eternal sufferings
have been prevented, by the same means, unless it can be proved
that his soul would have propagated his species in hell. Thus
it appears, the execution of justice on Adam would have saved
his posterity from all guilt, or from all the consequences of it; and
if mercy spared him, to impute sin to his posterity, they were
mercifully made guilty, and mercifully exposed to « death ever-
lasting."

If any should attempt to evade this conclusion, by saying it
was not through mercy that Adam was spared to enjoy the bless-
ings of life, but through justice; then he had a right injustice to
live and enjoy them before the sentence of death, either temporal
or eternal, should be executed upon him: consequently his posteri-
ty have an equal right, unless they are more guilty than Adam.
If they are not more guilty, we would thank our opponents to ex-
plain how it can accord with justice for the sentence to be execut-
ed on them as soon as they are born, whereby they are deprived
of those temporal blessings which they have a right in justice to
enjoy? If they are more guilty than Adam, we would gladly be
instructed, whether imputed sin makes a person more guilty than
actual sin, or whether the crimes of Satan were imputed to'us, as
well as the sin of our first parent. Adam deserved death tempo-
ral and eternal, but is supposed to have had a right first to enjoy
thegood things of this life; his posterity, we say, deserved the
.same death, but had no such right to the blessings of this life:
consequently infants are more guilty, and deserve a more instant
destruction from the presence of the Lord, than ever justice re-
quired of Adam and Eve, who were the first and most responsi-
ble sinners of the human race.

di6 AN EASY ON THE

6. Lastly, if Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity, whereby
they were constituted guilty, and were exposed to the whole pe*
nalty of justice which Adam himself deserved, then the sin was
transferred to his posterity, and he became innocent. It was just
for his guilt and punishment to be transferred to them, otherwise
they are not guilty and cannot be justly exposed to the penalty:
and if they deserve "death everlasting" as merited by his sin, and
should accordingly suffer it, then surely Adam is free; unless some
extraordinary disputant will undertake to demonstrate that aftef
the full demands of justice are accomplished, its demands are ab-
solutely in full force as they were before; and that the same sin,
after being justly imputed, and punished according to its demerit,
deserves to be punished over again, after receiving all that was
deserved. This is an absolute contradiction; but it must be spared^
I suppose, because it is the grand pillar on which the whole sys-
tem of Antinomian divinity is built.

This, by the way, aftbrds a new argument against the legal no-
tion of atonement} for if redemption consists in having our sins im-
puted or transferred to Jesus Christ, whereby he becomes guilty
and suffers the penalty in our place; then it very evidently fol-
lows that if Adam's sin is imputed or transferred to his posterity,
whereby they become guilty, and if they should actually sutter th»
whole penalty which that sin deserves, Adam would thus be re-
deemed by his posterity in the very way our objectors suppose the
elect have all been redeemed by our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ
could not have redeemed us, Ave are told, without first becoming
guilty by having our sins imputed to him. "It is incompatible with
the justice and mercy of God," says Mr Hebden, "to appoint
afflictions of any kind for the innocent. If Christ suffered, it was
because the sins of others were imputed to him:" Had Christ re-
mained innocent then, he could not have suffered consistently
with the justice and mercy of God, and therefore could not have
redeemed the world: consequently the only thing which enabled
him to do it, was his becoming guilty by imputation, without which
his dignity of person would have been of no avail. If then the on-
ly thing which rendered redemption effectual was his suffering
the penalty, in consequence of having our sin and guilt imputed to
him, it is evident as day -light that had Adam's posterity suffered
the penalty, in consequence of having his sin and guilt imputed to
them, they would have done the very thing for their original
Father which redeemed the elect, and without which their redemp-

PLAN OP SALVATION. 317

tion could never be made "compatible with the justice and mercy
of God."*

These are the noble fruits of the Antinomian doctrine of chime'
jrical imputation! Adam is made innocent by having his guilt con-
veyed to posterity; — the Israelites, by having their's conveyed to
the scape goat; — the elect in general, by having their's conveyed
to Christ: — The Saviour is made guilty by having their sins im-
puted to him, and then, in suffering exactly what his guilt de-
serves, he acquires a certain kind of righteousness, which he im-
mediately transfers to them by another act of imputation, whereby
they are made righteous in the midst of all their sins! These pro-
found mysteries have long passed in the world for pure gospel; and
I suspect it will be my lot to pass for a dreadful heretic, if not for
a notorious blasphemer, for attempting to remove the veil, and to
bring some rays of evidence into the enormous temple of obscure

*The only exception that can be made to this argument is, "that
Christ's becoming guilty by imputation, though essential to the
atonement, was not the only qualification which enabled him to
redeem his people: he possessed a dignity of person \\\\i<i\\ Adam's
posterity did not, and this also was essential to his work of re-
demption." Answer:

This objection supposes that dignity of person renders the mere
payment of a debt meritorious. As if a prince or sovereign, was
more praise-worthy or meritorious than any other person, in mere-
ly paying his debts or discharging an obligation of justice. What
is the difference with an insolvent debtor, whether his creditor re-
ceive payment by a mechanic who acts as his surety, or by an em-
peror? The payment of the debt is the single thing that satisfies
the creditor, and all the dignity of person required, is an ability
to pay it; and whether this be done by the interposition of a prince
or a Hottentot, is the same thing, provided only that the debt be
paid.

Now if Adam's posterity had his sin imputed to them, and it
they had suffered the whole penalty which in justice it deserv-
ed, the obligation would be as effectually discharged, as if the
penalty had been suffered by any other person upon a like imputa-
tion. If God imputed sin to Christ, whereby he became guilty,
there was no more merit in his suffering in proportion to his guilt,
than in Adam's posterity suffering in like manner: because whea
a criminal stands before the bar of justice, dignity of person goe«
for nothing, and a king's son, suffering according to his crimes, is
no more meritorious than a beggar. Therefore the only ground oii
which we can appeal to the dignity of Christ, as our meritorious
Saviour, is the ground of his sufferings resulting from pure henevo-
lence: but if so, he never wnsguiliy, otherwise we say, benevolenct
consists in a person's suffering according to his guilt, and couae-
queutly according to what he d«serves.

S s

318 AN ESSAY ON THE

divinity, where "lady Wanton" and «Free->vrath" have kept
quiet possession, and have long concealed their native and incon-
ceivable deformity.

Not wishing to stand alone, under such a formidable charge, I
must close this section by showing that Mr. Fletcher bears an
equal share of the reproach.

'' As sure then as Christ was not made sin [that is, a sin-offer-
ing]/or us, by a speculative imputation of our personal sins; but
by being actually made flesh, clothed with our mortality, and
'sent in the likeness of sinful flesh,' so sure are 'we made the
righteousness of God in him;' not by a speculative imputation of
his personal good works, but by being 'made partakers of the di-
vine nature,' begotten of God, and clothed with essential right-
eousness, which is the case, w hen we 'put on the new man, who
after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.'

"Once more: If these branches do not believingly abide in Christ
the vine, they become such branches in him, as bear not fruit. Nay,
they bear the poison of unrighteousness; iniquity, therefore, is
again imputed to them; and so long as they continue in their sin
and unbelief, they are every moment liable to be 'taken away, cast
into the fire and burned.' John xv.*

" This, honoured sir, is the holy imputation of righteousness,
which we read of in the oracles of God: it hath truth for its found-
ation; but your imputation stands upon a preposterous supposi-
tion, that Christ, the righteous, was an execrable sinner, and that
an elect is pei-fectly righteous, while he commits execrable ini-
quity.

" We firmly believe, that God's imputation, whether of sin or
righteousness, is not founded upon sovereign caprice, but upon in-
dubitable truth."!

Now if God's imputation is founded upon indubitable truth,
then he never imputed sin to Christ, unless it is indubitably-
true that Christ was a sinner: he never imputed righteousness to
any man, who in reality and truth was not righteous: he never im-
puted guilt to any creature, but to those who in reality, and indu-
bitable truth, were guilty: consequently, he never imputed guilt to
Christ, or to infants,, unless they were positively guilty, indepen-
dent of that imputation.

It is true, when we repent and believe the gospel, our sins are
forgiven, and faith is reckoned to us for righteousness; but Mr,

Vol. 2. page 1G7, 168. f page 165.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 319

Fletclier observes, very justly, (page 165) "As we are partakers
by generation of Adam's original pollution, before God imputes it
to us, that is, before he accounts us really polluted; so are we par-
takers by regeneration of Christ's original righteousness, before
God imputes righteousness to us, that is, before he accounts us
really righteous." Thus is Mr. Fletcher involved in my suppos-
ed heresy, and I take new courage upon finding myself supported
by so respectable an author.

SECTION vm.

Infants are not guilty on account of tJieir natural passions, or pro-
pensities to evil.

Having examined the supposed guilt of infants, arising from
the imputation of Adam's sin, let us now inquire whether they be
guilty, and deserve to die, together with all christians, on account
of their original corruption, or internal propensities to sin. It is
true, that too many christians, after being received into divine fa-
vour, neglect to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all
things; and it appears from the words of two apostles, that tem-
poral death, to some, becomes a penalty which justice requires, on
account of their sins after justification. Whether the following
passages do not evidently apply to the present question, I leave
the reader to judge.

" Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. And the prayer of
faith shall save the sick; and if he have committed sins, they shall
be forgiven him." Jam. v. 13, 15. "If any man see his brother sin
a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him
life for them that sin notuuto death. There is a sin unto death:
I do not say he should pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and
there is a sin not unto death." 1 John v. 16.

As to their remaining propensities to evil, though they may
cause death to be necessary, yet they do not cause any person to
deserve it as a penalty, unless it can be proved that they constitute
him guilty. The contrary of this has been already proved; and it is
evident to any man of reason and candour, that while a christian
lives without committing sin, he lives without contracting guilt..

93(r AN K8SAY ON THE

whatever his temptations or propensities may be. The ^istinetion
between actual and inward sin I cannot understand, unless it be
meant to distinguish between the acts of the body, and the acta
of the mind without the bodyw It is evident that all sin which
brings guilt is actual: though there may be no action of the body,
yet it is a voluntary act of the will, going contrary to a known law
of God, otherwise it brings no condemnation, seeing «gin is a vo-
luntary transgression of a known law."

That evil propensities are sometimes figuratively called sin,
because they are the original effects of it, has been already grant-
ed and explained; (section V. of the present chapter,) but every
argument to prove that they constitute a person guilty, will equally
prove temptations to do so, because they themselves are proper-
ly nothing else, and will be comprehended under every intelligible
definition that can be given of temptation.

Does temptation consist in presenting some forbidden object to
the mind, and exciting certain thoughts or feelings which tend to
lead us to do wrong? Let any man consult his consciousness, and
say if all bis temptations be not of this nature, and if his pro-
pensities be not exactly of the same tendency. Does temptation
operate in such a way, that it demands an effort, of which we are
conscious, to keep from yielding to its influence-^* So do these evil
propensities. Is temptation an occasion of, or an enticement to sin.'*
So are these propensities. Is a man clear of guilt, however strong
liis temptations fliay be, till he consents to do what he knows is
'wrong? So he is when \\e feels these propensities. But is not a
jnan morally defiled and guilty for having evil tempers and dis,
positions in his nature? Answer:

If by evil tempers, we are to understand pride or malice, and
the like, that soul in which they predominate is certainly guilty;
but if we only mean that he feels ^ propensity to pride or malice,
lie is not guilty on this account.

A man is praised and flattered by another: he yields to the in-
fluence of this adulation, until he habitually thinks more highly
of himself than he ought to think. This is an evil temper, and ia
this he is guilty: why so? because he was so far from resisting the
temptation, that he entered into it, by a voluntary act of his will;
indulging the vain thoughts, ^nd snftering them to lodge withia
him.

The same may be said of malice: a man is insulted, and feels a
propensity to seek revenge: he yields to this temptation, rumi-
nates upon the provocation, till it is greatly magnified iq hie vm-'

PLAN OF SALVATION. ^21

gination, and thus sinful anger, or perhaps settled malice, takes the
ascendency in his heart. Such a man is guilty before God, for this
plain reason, that his will, instead of resisting the temptation,
voluntarily yielded and consented to its influence. He indulged
malice, which implies an evil intention, or a desire of injury to
his neighbour, in which consists the essence of criminality.

But suppose, when the man felt a propensity to pride or maliee,
he had resisted it with laborious diligence till he had gained the
victory, and the temptation was no longer felt: to pronounce him
guilty in this, is to say that guilt consists, not in an evil wish or
intention, but either in being tempted, or in resisting temptation,
in order to maintain a good intention, and to prevent an evil one
from entering into the soul.

Habitual malice is indeed criminal in a high degree, not because
a man has a propensity to it, but because it carries in its bosom a
habitual or perpetual consent of the will to that which the under*
standing knows, or may know, to be wrong.

But suppose the propensity leads the person into a malicious
temper, because he does not know such a temper to be wrong, and
therefore does not try to resist it: is this person guilty? If his igno-
rance of duty in this case, arose from a voluntary neglect of the
means of knowledge, he is guilty; because it included an intention
not to pursue the knowledge of duty, when God had put that know°
ledge within his power. But if his ignorance was invincible, the
indulgence of passion, though voluntary, was no crime; otherwise
the beasts of the earth are criminals, for the voluntary indulgence
of their passions, and any person may be sentenced to death for the
violation of a precept which he knows not, and cannot know.

"No person is accountable for what is not in his power." This
is a first principle of morals, which governs the laws of all nations
under heaven; and the contrary of it is shocking to the common
sense of a savage. To deny this principle, is to demolish the found-
ation of all moral distinctions, and to open a wide door of athe-
ism to the world. Tyrants may make what laws they please for
mankind, and no person could prove it unjust for them to burn
their subjects to death for not flying to the moon, if it be true that
men are accountable for that which is not in their power.

Infants are supposed guilty because they have been born the de-
scendants of Adam, or because they have evil propensities or pas-
sions: but they are not guilty for these things if it be true, that no
person is culpable for what is not in his power. To make them
f^ilty Tve must deny this principle; and if we deny it, the conse-

323 AN ESSAY ON THE

quence will indeed follow that infants may be guilty. But it would
equally follow, that angels may deserve damnation for not creat-
ing worlds, men and women for not visiting the planet Jupiter, and
beasts, birds and fishes, for not understanding the elements of
Eiiolid, or the profound speculations of sir Isaac Newton. Deny
the first principle above stated, and we may safely defy the world
to disprove these conclusions. Acknowledge it, and we may in
vain muster up arguments to prove infants guilty, till we first
prove they have done some criminal action which they had power
to leave undone.

But it may be said, suppose a sinner should increase his evil
habits, till he has no more power to resist them, will it not follow,
if thei-e can be no guilt where there is no power, that such a per-
son continued to multiply his crimes, till he had sinned himself

innocent? This argument is urged by Dr. J * and it deserves

our deliberate attention. His words are:

"If a corrupt bias makes sin to be necessary, and consequently
to be no sin, then the more any man is inclined to sin, the less sin
he can commit: and as that corrupt bias grows stronger, his actual
sinning becomes more necessary: and so the man instead of grow-
ing more wicked grows more innocent."

This metaphysical argument is very plausible; but a little at-
tention, I presume, will enable us to unravel it.

We will suppose A and B began their career with evil propen-
sities exactly equal, and with an equal degree of knowledge and
power. They were then alike responsible for their conduct, be-
cause they stood on equal ground. At the end of ten years A
has sinned twice as much as B, and of course has contracted pro-
pensities twice as strong as the other, and thereby diminished his
power, and retains only half as much as his fellow. Is he there-
fore less guilty than B.^ He is not. He is more guilty in every
respect. First, his acts of wickedness are double, and the whole
guilt of them are upon him. Secondly, he is a greater sinner in his
disposition, because he has had a greater degree of evil intention,
or resolution to sin, otherwise his companion would have gone as

far as himself. Mr. J will certainly agree with me in this

conclusion: wherein do we then differ from each other.? The dif-
ference consists in this: he concludes this man's wickedness and
guilt arise partly from his sinful acts, partly from his evil inten-
tion or resolution to sin, and partly from his present evil propen-

* Vindication, p. 68, &c. — See Mr. Wesley on original sin, p. 155.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 3^3

sities contracted thereby: 1 conclude, his guilt consists, not in his
enfeebled and disordered state, but in that evil disposition and
conduct which brought him into it.

Suppose they now commit a certain crime; the act with both is
the same, and we will suppose they both have the same degree of
evil intention or purpose of mind to do wrong: now admitting
their guilt to be equal in this particular crime, it follows that
there was no sin in the strength of propensity, abstract from the
evil intention, because this propensity is twice as strong in one as
in the other, when their crime is exactly equal. Will any one
say the propensity and the evil intention are inseparable.?

Suppose A begins to yield to the reproofs of the spirit, and re-
solves, like the prodigal,, to return to his father's house. Now a
struggle arises: his propensity leads him to do wrong, and his re-
solution opposes it. His intention now is to do right, and this leads
him to oppose that "evil bias" which is drawing in a contrary di-
rection. Is it right for him to resist this corrupt bias? If so, while
resisting it he is doing what he ought to do, and therefore there is
no sin in this action, otherwise you say it is a sin for a man to do
i'ight. But he felt the propensity at the same time, because he was
resisting it: consequently the evil bias does not constitute a person
guilty, however strong it may be, when unaccompanied with any
voluntary consent of the mind.

In the progress of reformation A is suddenly beset with a temp-
tation to drunkenness: his propensity arises in all its strength and
violence: he struggles manfully against it for a little time, but his
resolution fails; he yields, and commits the crime. Meantime B
comes along, seeking an occasion to get drunk, with '-a regular and
fixed purpose of soul" to do it the first opportunity: he finds an
opportunity and immediately enters into the extravagancies of in-
toxication. Now tell me who was the greater criminal in this par-
ticular ease. If the former, the consequence is, that the man who
is overtaken in a fault is a greater sinner than he who with a fixed
purpose of evil, deliberately seeks an occasion to commit it: if the
latter, it follows that criminality does not consist in the strength of
our corrupt bias, but in the degree of our wicked intention.

As to the supposition that a sinner may continue his wicked
course till he has no power, so that it is impossible for him to sus-
.pend his sinful actions for a moment, it remains to be proved that
there are any such sinners in the universe.

If there were such an one, 1 should not hesitate to conclude
that he is no longer a moral agent, and is uo more accountable for

324 AN ESSAY ON THE

his present actions than any man in bedlam. According to
Dr. J— — 's argument, this man has become innocent; but accord-
ing to truth, he is guilty of all the enormous crimes which hav«
ruined his moral faculties. "He has filled up the measure of his
iniquities," and if his soul is so full of sin that it can hold no more,
does it follow that he is less guilty than he was before? It does not.
This sophistical conclusion has nothing to rest upon, but the sup-
position that a sinner does not carry the gu^It of his old sins along
with him. Let Mr. J prove that some sinners (devils if you

please) have lost all power to suspend their evil acts, and are dri-
ven forward by the same necessity that a deserted vessel is car-
ried by wind and tide: he may then conclude, and we will instant-
ly yield to the conclusion, that those persons have become so guil-
ty, that it is impossible for their guilt to be enlarged. This conse-
quence we readily adopt, because it is supported by th« plain dic-
tates of common sense.

Let us suppose that your servant, to avoid the trouble of exe-
cuting your commands, takes a sledge-hammer and breaks both
his legs: we all agree that the crime is enormous, and he is
guilty in a high degree; but you insist that he is not only guilty oa
account of the action he has done, but is very much to blame be-
cause he does not walk with broken legs. Common sense
decides, that though he is really guilty of defrauding you of all
the service due you to the end of life, yet the whole of that gnilt
arises from the voluntary action which unqualified him for your
service, and that he is in no degree guilty for not mending his
broken legs, when it is not in his power.

It has been often said, " if we destroy our power to obey, this
does not destroy God's right to demand obedience." I answeV,
your right to your servant's obedience, is the ground of justice for
you to punish him in proportion to his guilt in depriving you of
that obedience. If the breaking of his legs destroyed your right to
demand obedience, you would have no right to punish him for it.
If your servant owed you obedience for ten years, the act of break-
ing his legs has as cfl'ectually deprived you of it, as if he had regu-
larly neglected your commands for ten years: this proves the enor-
mity of his offence, and you have a right to punish him according-
ly. Now if you execute the penalty upon him, according to his de-
merit, what other demand have you for the obedience required? If
you have a right to'receive the obedience, for the neglect of which
you have inflicted punishments to the full demand of justice^ it fol-'
lows that your original right was double; and if you could demand

PLAN OF SALVATION. 32S

the obedience, after requiring the whole penalty which justice
could demand for the neglect of it, with equal truth it might be
^aid, that you had a right to inflict the whole penalty, after re-
ceiving the full obedience which justice allowed you, and en*
joined on your servant to perform.

If any men or devils have sinned till their moral faculties are
entirely ruined, and their power of self-government is totally de-
stroyed, the enormous guilt lies upon them, of utterly unqualify-
ing themselves for God's service forever! He had a right to their
service forever, of which they have deprived him, by totally ru-
ining the moral power of their souls; hence the deep enormity of
their offences; and hence the justice of that sentence which de-
nounces everlasting destruction Jrom the presence of the. Lord, and
from the glory of his power.

But will any one say, that God, besides punishing them in pro-
portion to their guilt, has a right to blame them, and augment
their torment, for not breaking the gates of hell, and coming back
to his service, when it is not in their power? No: such an absurdi-
ty is shocking to conscience, an insult to every principle of justice
and equity, and we may safely defy our opponents to produce any
proof of it, from the oracles of God, or from any other source of
evidence. Let the rubbish be removed, and it still remains true
and clear as the meridian sun, that no being in the universe is cut"
pable for what is not in his power.

Some have attempted to evade the conclusion, by distinguishing
between a natural and a moral inability: those devils, they would
say, are still augmenting their guilt, because they do not choose to
reform, if they had the power. I answer, they have power to
c/ioose differently from what they do, or they have not: if they ftare,
I grant they are continuing to augment their gUilt; if they have
not, the moral necessity by which they are driven, is as absolute as
natural necessity: and it is as much out of their power to choose that
which is right, as to perform it.

Suppose all the horrors of hell, and the glories of heaven, were
presented to my view at once; and that God should demand of me
to choose this eternal torment,in preferenceto everlasting happiness:
I feel that it would be as impossible for me to do it, as to pull the
moon from her orbit. There is not a man upon earth, or a devil
in hell, that absolutely chooses misery for its own sake, and would
rather be miserable than happy. Though they choose sin in pre-
ference to holiness, it is not because they are unwilling to be hap-
py, for our Saviour tells us, that unclean spirits are continually
Tt

326 AN ESSAY ON THE

going about seeking rest, though they are not seeking holiness:
and we know the same is true with respect to all sinners in the
world; a plain proof surely, that they do not choose sin becaasg
they love misery, which is absolutely impossible, but because they
hate the difficulty of reformation, and are under a delusive notion,
that sin is better than righteousness. Milton represents the devil
as saying, "Evil be thou my good:" and it is evident, that his
ohoice of moral evil is founded upon some delusive notion of goodf
otherwise he would not be seeking rest in the constant practice of
unrighteousness.

Whether any being, has lost, or ever will so lose all power of
volition, as to be totally unable to alter the direction of his choice,
or to suspend his evil acts for a moment, I do not take upon my-
self to determine: 1 know of no evidence for or against it, in any
part of the creation.

What I contend for is, that if there be such a creature any
where, there is no more power of action, or of optional choice in
him, than there is in a stone that is rolling down a hill: they both
move on, in a certain way, but it is by the same fatality, and it is
very evident that the stone is in itself as completely passive when
rolling down the hill, as when lying still upon the ground. So is
the devil, if his power of volition be totally abolished, and if he be
passive as a vessel that is carried by wind and tide.

It is as unjust to demand a person to choose when it is not in his
power, as to demand of him to act when it is not in his power. If
you command your servant to take a journey to the moon, the act
is not in his power, and you cannot punish him for disobedience
without being a tyrant. If you command him to love coals of fire
better than bread, and to eat them in the place of it, in this case,
though there would be no natural impossibility in his doing the out-
ward action, yet the choice, as it related to the regulation of his af-
fection, would be impossible, and the demand as tyrannical as the
former. He might, through fear of a greater evil, choose to eat
coals of fire, but to love them better than bread, would be absolute-
ly impossible.

For me to blame or punish my child for not setting his affection
on things above, when he could have no conception of such things,
would be as ridiculous as lo blame him for not flying to the clouds.
The latter implies a natural impossibility, the former a moral im-
possibility, both of which are equally absolute and irresistible.

We should regard with a just sense of indignation, the wretch
that would burn his cattle to death, for not voluntarily assembling

PLAN OF SALVATION. ^27

three times a week for the purpose of public worship: yet they
have a natural power to assemble themselves together; but their
obedience to the injunction would be morally impossible, because
they have no conception of divine worship, nor consequently of
their master's commandment.

If the devil has lost all power, so that it is impossible for him
to have the least controul over any of his thoughts or actions, his
case is most deplorable: and though he alone is to blame for the
whole, yet his guilt consists, not in the condition in which he now
is, but in the voluntary acts of wickedness which brought him
there. The whole of his guilt consists in running into the dismal
gulf; and eternal justice will never blama him for not coming
out, when it is not in his power. It is enough for him to endure
the punishment due to his voluntary crimes: heaven will never
augment his misery by an unjust and unmerciful imputation of
crimes, in which he was as perfectly passive and involuntary as a
stone, and therefore as incapable of moral responsibility for his
present actions.

SECTION IX.

Of man's natural inability to do good.

It will be said, if man be utterly unable to recover himself,
then all sinners, while in a natural state, (if the above doctrine be
true,) remain innocent and excusable in the midst of all their
crimes, because they have no power do any thing that is good.
Answer:

First, that man, since the fall, has no natural power to recover
himself, and change his own heart, is readily granted: but that
either men or devils are totally destitute of all power to suspend
any of their wicked actions, remains yet to be proved. When a
man tells a lie, blasphemes his Maker, or steals his neighbour's
goods, will any one say he had not a natural power to tell the
truth, to keep his tongue from blasphemy, or his hands from in-
truding upon his neighbour's property at midnight.'^ True, say
you, he had a natural power to avoid these things, if he would;
fcut he had no power to choose otherwise than he did; therefore it

B2S AN ESSAY ON THE

was morally impossible for him to do so, and yet he was guilty,
and punishable by the magistrate, because he was under no natu-
ral necessity of perpetrating those crimes. This is the sophistry
that has too long imposed upon the world, and deluded thousands
into the metaphysical refinements of predestination.

Suppose two men, of equal bodily powers, go together and kill
an innocent neighbour; one is in possession of his rational and
moral faculties, and the other is totally delirious: now I presume
any court of justice in the world would condemn one as a murder-
er, and decide that the other is no criminal, and deserves not to be
punished as such. But they both had a natural povrer to stay at
home, and their natural power was the same in degree: consequent-
ly the judicial decision would be founded on the principle, that
the delirious person, being morally incapable of self-government,
was no longer an accountable agent, though he was as free from
the controul of natural necessity, as the man who is pronounced a
murderer.

If natural power alone renders a being morally accountable,
then surely the beasts of the field are proper subjects of moral
government; for they all possess natural power, and in many in-
stances a higher degree of it than man. Does not a lion or atyger
possess far more natural power than an infant.'* And is natural
power alone the ground of moral responsibility.^ Then if an in»
fant deserves damnation, it is certain those beasts of the wilderness
deserve it in a tenfold degree. If natural power alone is not the
ground of moral responsibility, then it follow s inevitably that sin-
ners possess something more, that is, the moral power of choice,
or self-government, otherwise they are not responsible for their
actions. "-No art can set aside the consequence."

By the distinction between natural and moral power, we com-
monly mean the power to act and the power to choose; but we
ought carefully to observe that the former word is ambiguous: it ig
sometimes limited to the natural actions of the body; at other
times every choice, or volition, is called an action of the mind.
A less equivocal distinction would be, to say a natural power con-
sists in being able lo perform natural actions; amoral power, in be-
ing able to perform moral actions. The latter is inseparable from a
conception of the rules of moral obligation, the foundation of
which is, that ''no being is responsible for what is not in his power,
and that all beings capable of understanding the rules of duty are
bound to conform to them so far as their power extends." To
clear this matter a little farther, let us weigh the following par-
ticulars.

PLAN OF SALVATION. ^9

1. A power to do any thing, essentially includes a power to
leave it undone, otherwise it is done by necessity, which is no
power at all. To say a necessary action of any being is perform-
ed by the power of that being, is to say a stone possesses power
when rolling down a hill, or that the action of a man's blood, or
the regular and involuntary beating of his heart, is performed by
the power of that man.

2. The proper notion of power, tlierefore, is the liberty of op-
tion, to perform an action, or to omit the performance of it. If he
cannot omit it, he has no power over it, but acts by uncontrollable
necessity. Consequently any being who has power, has liberty in
exact proportion; and he who has no liberty has no power.

3. Of course it is impossible for any being to have power to do
an action, without having power to choose to do it. Have I power
to rise from this seat, and walk across the room? If I have, I pos-
sess power at the same time to omit it, and continue where I am:
but it is impossible for me to walk and sit still at the same time;
it is equally so, for me to determine and at the same time not de-
termine to rise and walk: the volition or determination must neces-
sarily precede the action, unless it be said I walk against my will,
and then surely I am compelled by some other power, or else I
will to do a thing, and at the same time will not to do it, which is
a palpable contradiction. You command your servant, saying,
come here immediately: he answers, sir, I will come immediately;
but I will not come. You look at him w ith astonishment, and can-
not conceive what he means. Does he mean that he will come to
you, and stay where he is at the same time? If he stay away, you
conclude he spoke a falsehood in saying "I will come immediately;"
and if he come to you immediately, he spoke false in saying "I
will not come." But neither of these would be a falsehood, what-
ever his action might be, if it be really true that a man can will to
do an action, and at the same time will not to do it. A man may do
many things against his desire, propensity or inclination; but to
do any thing voluntarily against his will, is absolutely impossible,
and involves a plain contradiction

But if a man cannot act against his will, then he must willhe-
fore he can act: consequently if he has no power, or liberty of op-
tion, to choose or determine, he has no power over the action which
depends upon that determination.

4. Suppose sinners have a natural poMcr to act right, or to
avoid acting wrong, but at the same time have no power to alter
their choice or determlQation: and suppose also, for the sake of ar-

S30 AN ESSAY ON THE

gument, that a person may perform an action, without being able
to choose to perform it: these persons, we say, have no power to
choose otherwise than they do; but they have power to act other-
wise, and this is the ground ol their condemnation: if so, they are
condemned for not acting against their will; and if they should al-
ter their actions, while their will and determination is the same,
the whole ground of their guilt, as to their present actions, would
be entirely removed. Thus our opponents are forced to say the
true service of God consists in a man's acting according to the
commandments, while his will and determination are against them,
or to acknowledge that their argument founded on the distinction
between natural and moral power, at once falls to the ground.

5. As to devils, or disembodied spirits, there can be no distinc-
tion between their power to choose and their power to act: because
all their actions are intellectual, and consist in the operations of
the will, controlling and directing the thoughts, judgments and
rational operations of the understanding, as also tlie management
of the affections in loving, hating, hoping, fearing, and the like.
Their power to choose and to act cannot therefore be separated,
even in thought, unless we suppose them to be corporeal, or to
have power to influence the elements; of course their power con-
sists solely in their liberty of will; and if they have no liberty they
have no power, and their thoughts run on in an invariable chan-
nel, as a river runs into the sea.

6. If sinners have no power by nature to do good, it is neverthe-
less possible for them to be less wicked than they are; and so far
as men or devils have power to omit their wicked actions, so far
they are accountable; aud every avoidable act of evil, proportion-
ably increases their guilt. Brutes are clear of guilt, not because
they have no power of choice, for they evidently have a degree of
natural or animal liberty, but because they have no conception of
moral principles, and no power to acquire such a conception. If
they understood tlie rules of morality, and choose to violate them,
when they had power to do otherwise, they would be guilty as
well as we; but having no conception of this kind, they are desti-
tute of moral liberty, properly so called, and are not accountable
for their actions.

7. So far as any being chooses by necessity so far his liberty is
abridged, and if his choice be thus controlled in all things, he is
destitute of power, and has no more agency than a stone or a clod
of earth: every thought rises in his mind as necessarily as matter
gravitates or tends to the centre, and he is as unable to alter the

PLAN OF SALVATION. 331

direction of a single desire, judgment, idea or conception, as I am
now unable to direct the sun, or invert the order of the stars of
heaven. Whether there be any creature in this state, or whe-
ther it do not imply a total destruction of an intellectual nature, is
beyond my comprehension, and I must let it rest undecided, as a
matter which is too wonderful for me.

Several other questions would rise out of this metaphysical sub-
ject, into which my objector has led mej but this is not the proper
place to consider them, and I must at present omit them and return
to the objection.*

Secondly, man, in the present objection, is considered as being
left in the ruins of the fall, abstracted from all interpositions of
grace, and then it is concluded that he is totally unable to do any
thing that is good. But supposing grace had not interposed in his
favour, Adam would have been immediately condemned before
any mortal descended fromf his loins. Therefore, as our personal
existence was the effect of divine goodness in redemption, we are
not left absolutely in a state of nature; but "the grace of God which
bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men, teaching us, that,
denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly,
and righteously, and godly, in this present world." Admitting
then that man has no power to do good in a state of nature, unas-
sisted by the grace of God; yet the power to do good is restored to
all men through Jesus Christ, and therefore those who abuse this
gracious liberty are guilty and justly condemned: "for this is the
condemnation that light is come into the world, and men loved
darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil."

But it does not hence follow that those are now guilty for not
doing good, who have lost the power, and never had it restored to
them. Did God ever require of men to change their hearts and

*The doctrine of necessity is advocated by president Edwards,
who dwells largely upon tlie argument which Dr. Reid tells us
was first invented by Mr. Hobbes, and who oft'ers several other ar-
guments, with no inconsiderable degree of ingenuity, in opposition
to the power of optional choice, and in defe.ice of universal fatali-
ty. I omit a particular examination of his arguments at present,
for these two reasons: 1. It would lead into too great a digression
from the chief design of the present essay. 3. The objections he
urges against moral agency, hiue been fully examined, and re-
futed in a masterly manner 'by Dr. Reid. See his fourth essay on
the active powers «of the Iibeity of moral agents." American edi-
. tion,vol. 2. page 399.

t See section VI. of this chapter.

332 AN ESSAY ON THE

prepare themselves for heaven, without the assistance of his grace?
Did he ever blame them for rejecting eternal life before it was of-
fered to them? Did he ever tantalize any with the oft'er who he
knew had no power to receive it? Or condemn them for burying
a talent which they never had?

It may be objected again, "that infants, being clear of guilt,
need no salvation through Christ: as all their moral defilement is
consistent with perfect innocence, they are naturally tit for hea-
ven, and therefore have nothing to do with the Redeemer, seeing
his errand upon earth was to seek and save that which was lost.'*
The answer is easy: '

1. Though infants themselves are not guilty, yet the guilt of
their original father would have prevented their personal exis-
tence, and consequently all the blessings of life and eternal salva-
tion, had it not been for the redemption which is in Jesus Christ.
Therefore though Adam stood in need of a Saviour to remove
guilt from his soul, which infants do not, yet they are, to counter-
balance it, beholden to redemption for their very breath and being,
which Adam originally was not.

2. Had not Adam been redeemed, his posterity, though not lost
with him in everlasting misery, would nevertheless have been for-
ever lost from that conscious existence and eternal felicity which
was originally intended for them. And are they under no obliga-
tion to Jesus Christ, for saving them from such a loss, and bring-
ing them into a happy existence? If not, Adam was under no
obligation to God for his creation. To dwell forever in the regions
of despair, is doubtless the greatest loss that can be imagined;
but the gloomy silence of non-existence would also be such a loss,
that men or angels would shudder at the prospect. As to the no-
tion, that all mankind had some mysterious existence in Adam's
loins, and were after the fall exposed to some kind of unconscious
damnation in him, which they must have suffered for their part of
the guilt, if a Saviour had not interposed, I confess I cannot un-
derstand it. Is it any thing different from an absolute privation of
life, oris it another method of expressing the same thing? I sup-
pose nobody w^ill say we were really alive in Adam, or that we
were conscious and u7iconscioiis at the same time. Many have
adopted tbis inexpliciible chimera, 1 suspect, to accommodate them-
selves to the hypothesis of reprobation, that all mankind were real-
ly guilty of Adam's siu: but they wish at the same time to avoid
the conseqiicuce of it, that infants deserve to dwell with ever-
lasting burnings. Those who ar« guilty, surely deserve punish-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 333

mentf therefore after taking for granted that millions of creatures
ill Adam's loins were in some sort guilty, they conclude they ought
in some sort to be damned: but as they cannot adopt the horrors
of Antinomian free-wrath, they seem to be under the necessity of
inventing some kind of fantastical damnation, unsupported by
scripture, and inconceivable by the human understanding. Had
Adam been condemned and executed according to the sentence, his
posterity would have never lived either in heaven or in hell: they
would not have been lost in conscious misery, but they would have
been lost to all life and conscious happiness, and therefore the ex-
istence and subsequent enjoyments of Adam's posterity, which
were forfeited, are restored "through the redemption that is itt
Jesus Christ."

8. We do not affirm that infants are naturally fit for heaven; but
we affirm that as nothing but positive guilt can tit a person for hell,
infants will never be fit for it while justice has any place in the
creation. Is there no medium between being fit for heaven, and fit
for hell! I hope no man will say the beasts and the fowls of the
firmament are exactly fit for hell; or that they are naturally fit for
heaven.

It is evident the children of Adam all come into the world na=
turally fit for this state of probation which God has appointed for
us; and that some change must take place to fit us for any other re-
gion. Though it would be unjust for iufants to be punished as
criminals, yet they have no natural right to eternal happiness, but
a gracious right through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. And
they are naturally unfit for heaven, not because they are guilty,
but because heaven is intended as a place of unobstructed enjoy-
ment, where temptation shall never enter. If they were taken there
with natural propensities to evil, they would be placed in a state
of perpetual temptation, and would be in constant danger of fall-
ing into sin: therefore God prepares them for heaven before ho
takes them thither, not because justice had any charge of crimi-
nality against them, but because goodness delights to place them
in a state of complete enjoyment, far above the regions of evilj
where no trial or temptation shall ever disturb their tranquillity.

In what way God produces or works this change in those who
die in infancy, we may be unable to comprehend: nor is this won-*
derful, since we cannot comprehend the manner in which he ope-
rates upon the minds of men, or how he upholds and governs the
general system of the universe. A change produced in the infant
miad involves no contradiction, any more than a change wrought
X5 u

334, AN ESSAY ON THE

in any other mind: its possibility is conceivable, and the evidence
is clear, unless we have not clear evidence that heaven is intended
as a place of perfect enjoyment, free from every kind of evil.

Whatever be the way, in which this change may be produced,
it is evidently a great blessing, because it raises us above the
force of temptation, and secures us from the influence of sin and
misery: this blessing, therefore, as well as all the glories of heaven,
come upon infants in consequence of the mediation of the Saviour,
none of which they ever would have enjoyed, had not his inter-
position rescued Adam from that instant destruction which he had
incurred by his rebellion.

The millions who have left otir polluted region, before they
knew their right hand from their left, will therefore join with (he
innumerable company of heaven, to sing the song of praise and
thanksgiving "to Him that hath redeemed us by his own blood,
and hath made us kings and priests to God and his Father: to him
be glory and dominion forever and ever." Amen. '

SECTION X.

*3 consequence of the doctrine established in the foregoing sections,
that death is necessary in the case of infants, hut is not a penalty.

If the suffering and death of infants, and sanctified christians,
be the result of goodness, then it Mas necessary they should suf-
fer and die, to prevent a greater evil, or to promote a lasting good
to come.

This consequence is genuine, and we adopt it without hesita-
tion. To say punishment is inflicted on any creature through be-
nevolence, and yet that it is totally unnecessary, and tends not to
the creature's advantage, is quite absurd and contradictory.

That the afflictions of the righteous are intended for their good,
and answer gracious ends under the divine administration, is evi-
dent from innumerable texts of scripture, and especially from the
unequivocal declaration of St. Paul to the Corinthians: "Our light
afliiction, wbich is but for a moment, m orketh for us a far more
exceeding and eternal weight of glory.*' 2 Cor. iv. 17.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 333

God is not only represented as a kind father, who chastens his chil-
dren for their good, which implies a fault on their part; but the
Lord Jesus is frequently called our physician, whose office leads
him to give pain for a moment, because it is necessary; and this
may be done, and often is done by physicians, when there was no
previous fault in the subject, but merely because there was a dis-
order, which the affliction or momentary pain had a tendency to
remove.

A kind parent may subject his children to a degree of misery,
to promote three benevolent ends. (1.) For a correction of their
faults. (2.) For their trial and establishment in good principles.
(3.) For the removal of any disease or disorder in their constitu-
tion.

These are the ends of affliction, when the pain is produced from a
benevolent intention towards the suffering subjects. When punish-
ments are inflicted on criminals, without any regard to the crim-
inals themselves, but purely for the sake of others whom their
crimes have injured, this is the operation of justice. Where the
design is to defend the injured, and at the same time to reform the
offender, this is the joint operation of justice and compassion.

These things being premised, we have now several inquiries to
make:

1. Are infants and christians punished with death, and with
foregoing afflictions, merely ^and solely for the sake of defending
others from the influence of their crimes.^ If so, they are punish-
ed exactly for the same ends for which devils are punished in hell.

2. Are they punished to defend the rights of others, and at the
same time to produce in themselves a conviction of their guilt, that
they may be influenced to reform? If so, they are punished for the
same ends for which notorious offenders are sometimes loaded
with irons, or kept in confinement for a term of years. Or for the
same ends for which the special judgments of God sometimes fall
upon a wicked man, and sometimes upon a wicked nation.

3. Are their afflictions to be considered as the chastisements of
a kind father for the correction of their faults.'' That christians
are often thus punished, is evident both from scripture and expe-
rience; but there is no shadow of evidence that this will hold res-
pecting infants, unless it can be proved, first, that they have com-
mitted faults, and, secondly, that their sufterings are calculated to
bring them to a sense of them, that they may thereby be influenced
to repent and be more diligent in the ways of righteousness.

m AN ESSAY ON THE

If a parent should chastise his new-born infant, under pretence
of correcting its faults, we should justly consider him as an unna-^
^ural and barbarous tyrant. And our judgment would be perfectly
correct, because it would be founded upon these two obvious rea-
sons: (1.) that the said child was incapable of committing any
fault, and (3.) that it was equally incapable of conceiving for
what end the punishment was inflicted. After its understanding
is sufficiently opened, discipline may be exercised from a benevo-
lent intention, because it is now able to conceive the design of it,
and has in some degree the power of self-government; but to sup-
pose a parent may cohsistently and righteously chastise a new-born
infant for its faults, is highly absurd and ridiculous: how much
jnore so, to impute such conduct to the all-wise and Almighty Fa-
ther of universal being?

Neither can it be supposed that infants are punished for a trial
pf their virtue; because they have no conception of the thing in-
tended, and are incapable of a moral influence, until their under-
standings Si]t enlarged sufficiently to have some conception of an
obligation

God certainly has some end in view, in subjecting infants to
fhisery and death, otherwise he afflicts them for nothing, to sup-
pose which, is not only to contradict his moral attributes, but to
charge him with whimsical caprice and folly.

The dilemma is therefore unavoidable, that God has no more re-
gard to their benefit, in their afflictions, than he has to the benefit
of devils in their's, or that their sufferings are intended for their
advantage; and the only advantage we are able to conceive is that
their sufferings are designed to counteract the original consequen-
ces of Adam's transgression, sp far as they have descended to pos-
terity.

Nor let any take occasion to infer that this involves the doctrine
pf a death-purgatory, if the design of such a purgatory is under-
stood to be the removal or purging away of our guilt: for this lakes
for granted that infants are guilty, which has been abundantly re-
futed.

That death is intended to counteract the effects of sin, both in
^nfants and christians, must be admitted, or else it is utterly un-
^lecessary, is never advantageous, and therefore can never, in any
f ase, be considered as a blessing.

Will it be said that it is a blessing, because it puts an end to all
Qurmiseries.^ This is saying plainly that no part of the misery it-
geif is a blessing, but merely that the end of it is so: th{^t is, that

PLAN OF SALVATION. 837

the affliction in itself has no good effect, and was never so intend-
ed, but .nerely th it our deliverauce from it is a blessing. Was
not the light affliction, which is but for a moment, intended to re-
move the causes of misery, by removing those natural and invo-
luntary proj)ensities, ^vhich would otherwise continue still to be a
perpetual source of temptation.^ Or shall we say that all christians,
who are saved from tlieir sins, are at the same time delivered
from all natural propensities to evil? If they are, I would be glad
to know how the paius of death are still necessary, how (hey pro-
duce any good effect in our favour, — and why dying christians are
to receive the bitter cup as a blessing from the hand of their hea-
venly Father.? When a disorder and all the effects of it, arc remov-
ed fro n thp coastitiition of a patient, will he receive any pain as
a blessing from the physician's hand, which is utterly unneces-
sary, and has no tendi'uey to do him any good.*^

Nothing is more common, says Mr. Fletcher, than for men to
run into one extreme, under the plausible pretence of avoiding
another. Our Calvinist brethren have believed and taught that all
christians must necessarily commit sin as long as they live, and
that death is intended to remove all their iniquities from them. I
apprehend the mistake of many pious men among them, consists
in taking for granted that a man commits sin every time he feels a
propensity to it. They observe the signs of those propensities con-
tinue with good men, the very best not excepted, apparently to the
end of their pilgrimage: hence they conclude that no man in this
life can be saved from sin; but that the goodness of God has ap-
pointed death as the means of its final destruction.

Admitting the premises to be true, I, for one, would cordially
acquiesce in theirconciusion: and if they will confine it to sin, im-
properly so called, that is. to those natural propensities, the en-
tire removal of which does not at all depend upon our voluntary
exertions, the conclusion is supported by the clearest evidence. But
if they mean that all christians must really commit sin as long as
they live, and that death alone puts an end to our actual sinning;
this is contradicted by the joint testimony of the inspired writers,
who agree to declare, that "Jesus saves his people from their sins,
that they may walk before him in righteousness and holiness all
the days of their life." This has been sufficiently proved by Mr.
. Wesley and Mr. Fletcher, to whose excellent works I refer the
reader.

The consequences of the opposite opinion are alarming: for
good men are thereby discouraged in their pursuit of holiness, and

338 AN ESSAY ON THE

many luke-warm professors, it is to be feared, take encouragement
to indulge themselves in sin, under pretence that they must sin of
necessity, until death brings them a discharge.

It is therefore necessary for us to make a firm stand against
sueh a pernicious delusion. But let us beware at the same time that
we do not run inlo an opposite delusion equally pernicious. This
may be done in two ways: (1.) by believing that christians may in
this life be delivered from all propensities to evil, and (2.) by
maintaining, under pretence of opposing a death-purgatoi-y, that
death is totally unnecessary, and has no tendency to our advan-
tage.

1. Shall we say that sanctified christians are as perfectly clear
of evil propensities as an angel.^ If so, their warfare against such
propensities is accomplished, and though the devil still may
tempt them, yet they have nothing in their nature to oppose, any
more than those who are now in heaven. If they still feel any ex-
citement in their nature, which requires an effort of resistance,
this is what I mean by an evil propensity: and to suppose they are
entirely removed from sanctified christians, is a delusion, I appre-
hend, nearly as pernicious in its effects as the opposite one. Many
1 fear have long pursued christian holiness, under the delusive no-
tion that it consists in a deliverance from all propensities to evil,
and, finding their labour vain, have abandoned the pursuit, and
Lave settled themselves down with attainments in religion, far be-
low those which it was tlieir privilege to enjoy.

That we may guard against this danger, and at the same time
give no encouragement to sin, let us endeavour to obtain distinct
conceptions upon a matter in which we are so seriously and deep-
ly interested.

It is true, full sanctification includes a deliverance, not only
from all gross violations of the divine law, but also from all sinful
passions and temjiers.

But what is a sinful temper? It consists in an habitual attach-
ment or inordinate affection to something beside God. A sinful
passion is ^.momentary attachment of the same kind. A man loves
the world, or perhaps he loves himself more than he ought: this is
an evil temper, and while he makes no immediate efforts against
it, there is a perpetual consent of his will to love something more
than it ought to be loved. Many indulge such inordinate affections
for months or years, without noticing them, through mere care-
lessness, or want of self-examination. They know not what man-
ner of spirit they are of^ and may plead that they are not conviuc-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 339

ed of any wrong aftection, and their conscience does not condemn
them; but this excuse is vain, because they neglect to consult their
conscience, or do not consult it properly, and in consequence, re-
main ignorant of that which might be known by a proper exercise
of attention and reflection. After they received conviction of the
evil temper, they interrupt its settled course by a few feeble etforts,
seldom repeated; but in general there is an inordinate aftection ex-
isting with the consent of their will, and this is a sin, properly so
called, because it is a voluntary consent of the will to that which
the understanding knows, or may know, to be wrong.

They may indeed have a desire to be delivered from such tem-
pers, at the same time that they make no eftbrt against them; but
it is to be remembered that will and desire are not the same thing.
If I have a disordered tooth that is very troublesome, I may sit
for a long time with a desire to have it out; but the moment I ivill
or determine to have it immediately extracted, I make an eftbrt to
that effbet. An indolent person may have a strong desire to im-
prove his farm, while he does nothing; but when he determines
that he will improve it, you see him go to work. A timorous
traveller may sit for hours upon the bank of a stream that looks
dangerous, with a strong desire to be over; this desire alone will
produce no eftect; but when he determines that he will cross it, he
plunges into the water. In like manner when a man ivills to over-
come his evil tempers, he labours and uses the proper means
whereby he may obtain the victory.

It is true, a man may will or determine to do a thing at some fu-
ture period, without any present exertions; but in the mean time his
will consents that it shall remain undone till the period arrives
which he has appointed. A sinner appoints a time, perhaps five
years hence, when he shall have accomplished certain purposes,
and resolves that at that time he will seek the Lord, and call upon
him while he is near: the man is not the less guilty on account
of this resolution, because he determines that he will not seek
the Lord at present, but will postpone it for five years: there-
fore during the five years he willingly lives without God in the
world. So a christian with evil tempers may desire and wish
they were removed; he may determine that some time or other he
will oppose them with vigour: yet he remains a voluntary sinner
■ for the present, because his w ill is not immediately exerting itself
against them, but resolves to postpone it to some future period.
Such a man is an imperfect christian, and is not saved from sin.
He neglects that which he knows to be his immediate duty, that is,

340 AN ESSAY ON THE

he neglects to use or exert the power he now possesses, which is
properly a sin, because it is voluntary.

Perhaps he loves present e«sp too well, and hence refuses to pur-
sue the knowledge of duty with that vigilance which is within his
power; or, through an undue attachment to some other object or
party, he voluntarily indulges some prepossession or bias of mind,
which refuses to give truth a fair hearing. This is an evil tem-
per, and it prevails not in any man that is saved from sin. A pre-
possession arising from invincible ignorance is no crime; but so
far as its existence depends upon our neglecting to use the power
we possess, so far it is sinful, because it is a voluntary disaftection
to the truth. How innumerable are the prejudices indulged, even
by christians themselves, and what is most lamentable, thousands
seem not to suspect that there is any immorality in them! What
an object of pity must that man be, who imagines himself so per-
fect as to be free from all propensities to evil, and at the same
time has such inordinate attachment to some party or interest, as
influences him to shut his eyes against the light of evidence, and
refuse to give it an impartial hearing! he is resolved, if possible,
that nothing shall be proved or received as true, that differs from
his former opinions, or from those of his particular friends, whom
he is disposed to support in every thing they say, for no other rea-
son hut because they say it! The strmger your arguments are
against his favourite opinioii, the more he is offended; and he has
recourse to stratagem, if not to secret malevolence, to put you to
silence, and to hinder all he can from hearing you with that can-
dour of which he himself is destitute. Is this a perfect man? cer-
tainly he is not, unless we say the love of truth makes no part of
the christian character.

Now the word of God assures us we may, in this life, obtain sal-
vation from all such evil tempers, so as to love the Lord our God
with all our heart, and to love our neighbour as ourselves. He that
does this is saved from all pride, malice and prejudice; and he
loves nothing in the world with a higher degree of affection thaa
that which is perfectly just and good.

We will suppose a man stands here, who is thus saved from sin.
His affections are now rightly balanced, and he is resolved to keep
them so. By and bye he feels some excitemeat in his nature, which
he finds has a tendency to lead him to love some object more than
he ought, and he cannot maintain the present balance of his af-
fections, without resisting that excitement by a voluntary effort,
of which he is conscious.

PLAN OF SALTATION. 34*

This is what I mean by a propensity to evil, in contradistinctioii
ttt an evil temper, or inordinate affection. The propensity tends
to produce the inordinate affection, and if not resisted will pre-
sently lead the soUl into it; but if a firm stand be made against it,
if his will refuse to yield, even for a moment, to its influence, —
he has kept the balance of his affections with the magnanimity of
a christian, and he is so far from being a sinner merely on account
of the feeling which he manfully re&istedj that he fought a good
fight, and kept the faith, and if he continue thus to fight, until he
i,h?i\llia.ve finished his cowrse, there remaineth, henceforth, for
him, a crown of righteousness which the Lord the righteozis judge
will give him at that day:

Hence we easily avoid the flimsy objection, that if evil pro-
pensities be no sin, we need not oppose them: for if they be not
resisted, the soul yields to be carried by them into an evil affec-
tion, which is sin. We miglit as well say, if it be no sin for a mau
to be tempted, then there is no necessity for us to resist tempta-
tion. We ought (0 oppose our evil propensities with perpetual
diligence, and to use all means in our power to avoid every occa-
sion that would bring them into operation. And this should be
done, not because they in themselves are siii, but because it is a
sin for a man voluntarily to seek temptation, or to run into the oc-
casions of it, when duty does not call him there. Our Saviour
teaches us to pray that we may not be led into temptation; this is
one branch of the prayer which he taught his disciples; therefore
we are bound to avoid temptations as long as we can with a safe
Conscience, and to resist them when they are unavoidable.

My reasons for believing that christians have no grounds to ex-
pect deliverance from evil propensities in this life, and for op-
posing the contrary belief, are the following:

1. The highest perfection God has promised to his people in
this life, is to enable them to love him with all their heart, and to
love their neighbour as themselves: that is, to have their affections
balanced as they ought to be. But this state may be enjoyed not-
witfistaudiug those propensities, so long as they ace properly re-
sisted.

3. Such a deliverance (as here opposed) is contrary to univer-
sal experience. Many christians may have lived for a considerable
time without feeling any thing in their nature to need resistance: but
some unexpected insult, or ofher occasion, makes them feel that
their virtue cannot yet be maintained without a struggle. In proof
of this we may appeal to their own consciousness, and if that
* Xx »

343 AN ESSAY ON THE

avail nothing, we may next appeal to the observations of their
neighbours, who have often seen the signs of a painful warfare in
their bosom.

3. The sentiment I oppose, supercedes the necessity of con-
stant self-denial: for if there be nothing in a man's nature but what
is uniformly prone to goodness, and nothing prone to evil, then he
cannot deny himself, or any thing in himself, without resisting a
propensity to perfect goodness. If you command this man to deny
himself, you command him to resist and oppose his propensity to
do right, seeing there is no other propensity in his nature.

Our Lord Jesus Christ commands us, not only to resist the de-
vil, but to deny ourselves, and take up our cross daily, which
plainly implies that there is something in ourselves which must be
crossed and denied daily, because it has a tendency to lead us into
sin, and will certainly do it, unless it be resisted. Why are we to
cross and deny any of our natural appetites, but because there is
a propensity or tendency in them to rise too high, -and to produce
an evil temper, if not an evil action.'' If there be nothing in
them, or any other part of our nature, but what is regularly prone
to that which is right, and to nothing else, we cannot cross or deny
our appetites, or any other part of ourselves, without being actual
sinners, because we would actually oppose the influence of per-
fect goodness.

4. I oppose this doctrine, and wish it banished out of the world,
for the sake of many good men, the very best not excepted, who
through the influence of this pernicious delusion, have spent many
hours of fruitless grief and lamentation, merely because they felt
evil propensities in their nature. "A godly sorrow worketh repen-
tance to salvation;" but such sorrow as this is a fruitless waste of
that time which might be spent in rejoicing with the "blessed man
that endureth temptation: for when he is tried he shall receive the
crown of life which the Lord has promised to them that love
him."

5. I presume the apostles of Jesus Christ possessed as high a
state of perfection as we have aright to look for; but they were
not delivered from the warfare between the flesh and the spirit;
for 8t. Paul says, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjec-
tion; lest that by any means, when 1 have preached to others, I
myself should be a cast-awuy." 1 Cor.*ix. 27. Does not this plain-
ly suppose that there was still a tendency in his natural afiections,
or the appetites of his body, to lead him into excess.^ And there-
fore that he found it necessary to exercise temperance, and keep

PLAN OF SALVATION. ^43

his body in subjection, as it were with a bridle, lest the flesh should
prevail against the spirit? And how could this be, if there was
nothing in his flesh, or any other part of his nature, but what was
uniformly prone to goodness?

These excitements or tendencies in our nature which need re-
sistance, I have called propensities, because I know no better
name to give them. They differ from evil tempers and aftections
in this, that they are perfectly involuntary, and are no more under
the control of our will than the circulation of the blood: Nay,
they are s>o far from arising from a wrong direction of the will,
that we often feel them when the whole force of the will is exert-
ed in a contrary direction. They agree with other temptations in
every particular, excepting only that the occasion of the tempta-
tion is in our nature. Am 1 a sinner merely because certain /eeZ-
ings rise from my constitution which tend to lead me into sin.^ —
And suppose the temptation comes immediately from the devil,
does it not produce a. feeling of the same tendency, which must be
resisted by a painful exertion? I appeal to the consciousness of
every living christian. And if a man is a sinner on account of
the excitement or feeling which arises from his body or animal na-
ture, he is a sinner for the same reason, when resisting the pain-
ivA feelings of which he is conscious, when tempted by the devil.
Thus it appears, a man who expects deliverance from this war-
fare with the flesh in this life, expects to be above his Lord, who
was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

6. I oppose this doctrine because I conceive it to be of danger-
ous tendency. I fear some christians have been led to make false
and enthusiastic professions of those imaginary heights of holiness
which surpass the lot of humanity; and supposing there was no-
thing now remaining in their nature to resist, have abated in their
vigilance, and suspected no danger, till, like Peter, in an un-
guarded hour, they have fallen into sin, by not Avatching with a
jealous eye over those propensities which they vainly imagined
had no more existence. ,

Some, it may be, have held their profession of this high sancti-
fication in opposition to their own consciousness: have felt those
propensities time after time in their nature, and still refused to
believe it. At length, being weary of doing violence to themselves,
they have given up the belief of their freedom from natural ex-
citements to evil, and with it their confidence in christian holi-
ness. Others attempt for a while to go on to perfection; but ob-
serving that such a complete deliverance from natural propensi-

au AN ESSAY ON THE

ties is no where verified in any of their religious friends, they con-
clude the doctrine of christian perfection is a chimera that exists
po where but in the imaginations of men.

Thus it appears to me, if we were bent upon bringing men back
by degrees to the Calvinistic doctrine, that it is a vain thing to
seek for perfection, and that all men must continue sinners as long
as they live, we could scarcely devise a more successful method
of doing it, than by straining the doctrine of sanctification so far,
as to make it imply a deliverance from all natural propensities
to evil.

2. It is indeed a very dangerous error, to suppose death is ap-
pointed as the means of our deliverance from sin: the merits of
Christ, and the operations of his spirit are the cause of our de-
liverance, and repentance and faith are the means of it. If there-
fore we neglect the means appointed in the gospel, and live in our
sins till death, under the belief that death is the mean appointed
for its removal, when it is not, what mistake can be imagined to
he ipore dangerous.^

But is there no way to guard against this mistake, but to run
into another, and to explode all ideas of advantage from our last
affliction, in mere opposition to the frightful name of a death-pur-
gatory.^ If we had no other evidence against it, and had no other
■way to defend ourselves against the attacks pf our opponents, thaa
to cast upon them the odium of the name, purgatory, such a pitiful
argument would l?e truly beneath their attention. The popish
doctrine itself, concerning a place of purification after death,
pould never be proved false if we had no argument against it, but
the deformity of the name by which it is called. We reject it be-
cause it is contrary to the word of God, and is an error of very
dangerous tendency: remove these objections, and we can draw no
arguments frojn the name, because it is as perfectly innocent as
the name of paradise.

But though reason can derive no evidence from a mere name,
yet prejudice can accomplish wonders by its magical influence. —
How many have rnn head-long into various opinions, and adher-
ed to them for no other reason but their dread of suyh shocking
names as the following: Popery— Heretic— Calvinism— Armin-
ianism— Pelagianism — Socinianisni — Arianism- — Free-wilier--^
Perfectionist—Antiuomian— Legalist— Democracy— Federalism,

&,c. &c.

Prejudice, passion arjd party nonsense, appear to govern the be-
lief of thousands both in church and state. When a man is car^

PLAN OF SALVATION. 845

fied away in this mamier, the very name by Avhich the opposite
party is denoininatefl, acquires such dismal and fearful deformity,
that he can scarcely hear it mentioned, or think of it, with any
degree of patience. The farther he goes from every sentiment
held by his opponents, the more meritorious is his conduct. He
dreads the very suspicion of his agreeing with them in any thing;
and rather than be found in such detestable company, he will sup-
press the voice of reason, and renounce the plainest dictates of
common sense. To be true to his own party, he must follow them
in all their absurdities, and never suft'er his soul to call into ques-
tion a single sentiment which they hold, or deviate a moment from
any part of their practice. Their opinions must all be taken for
granted, and his business is, not to inquire what is truth, but to
defend his own sect or party in every particular, and to refute the
opposite by frequently repeating their name with indications of
Bcorn and detestation. He will not venture to examine any senti-
ment held by his party, or to admit the possibility of their being
mistaken, lest he should be thought not hearty in the cause: he is
equally afraid to examine the sentiments of the other party, with
*ny degree of candour, lest his own brethren should consider him
a disaffected character, and brand him with the frightful name of
his adversaries,from which he would shrinkback as from the open-
ing grave. In this manner has error often triumphed under the
fostering influence of party malevolence, while truth had to retire
among the lonely valleys, and reason to disappear, or to lie insult-
ed, prostrate on the ground.

AVithout pursuing this digression, though not an unimportant
one, we return to inquire what other objection can be alleged
against the gooduess of God making death an instrument of bene-
fit to his creatures.

Will it be said it robs Christ of his glory, by attributing to death
what his grace alone is able to accomplish? This argument of rob-
bing Christ of his glory, so often urged by the Calvinists, may, il
is true, be retorted uponthemselves; but it has no solidity against
either us or them. If we had no other argument but this against
their doctrine, that death is an instrument of our deliverance from
the power of sin, I apprehend it would prove just nothing, and
might be retorted upon ourselves with success. We disbelieve
their doctrine, not because it would of necessity rob Christ of his
glory, which is an hypothesis unsupported by scripture or reason,
but because the Mord of God assures us we may be saved from our
pins before death, and that repentance and faith, not the agonies of

S^ AN ESSAY ON THE

dissolution, are the means through which this salvation is to be
received.

]f Christ cannot make use of means and instruments, in the
work of our salvation, without diminishing his own glory, he must,
if he would secure the whole glory to himself, lay them all aside,
and do every thing by an invisible influence, without the interven-
tion of men or books, law or gospel, prayers or sacraments, or
any other means of grace. And permit me to ask, why is one in-
strument which he is pleased to make use of, more calculated to
rob hini of his glory than another? He doubtless uses the means
best calculated to promote the end intended; and when that end is
the production of a moral influence on the mind, our voluntary use
of them is demanded; but when they are designed to produce an
effect upon any part of our constitution, that is not under the im-
mediate control of our will, God himself applies the means with-
out our voluntary concurrence, and produces the effect intended:
hence I conclude, our salvation from all "voluntary transgressions
of a known law" is accomplished through the use of means that are
put in our power, and the use of which depends upon our choice.
For the same reason I conclude that involuntar}' propensities,
such as infants have, are removed from their nature when necessa-
ry, by means which depend not upon their choice. I believe death is
the instrument made use of, because 1 must believe that the death
of infants is designed for their advantage, or charge God with the
cruelty or folly of punishing them for nothing, or of imputing siil
to them that he may treat them as guilty rebels, upon the false
charge of a crime which they never committed.

Is this the way to avoid robbing Christ of his glory,^ And as our
lives are prolonged by the instrumentality of bread, and our health
restored by various kinds of medicine, does it follow from this that
the God of nature and providence is robbed of his glory? But at the
same time that we maintain that the death of infants is intended
for their own final benefit, we believe it equally true that their
suffering promotes other just andgracious purposes.

It affords an universal argument to prove the direful tendency
pf sin; and evinces that it not only violates the rights of men and
angels, and tends to ruin the moral faculties of the sinner; but its
pernicious effects descend to the latest posterity, and our helpless
infants come into the world with such disorderly prepensities of
nature, as are to be removed by remedies no less severe than the
lingering pains of dissolution. Thus all men who will exercise
their reason, may be benefitted by the state of infants, inasmuch

PLAN OF SALVATION. 347

as their condition affords evidence of an original apostacy, and
thereby establishes the truth of revelation, and at the same time
furnishes the most powerful motives to flee from sin, as the moral
poison which has contaminated the human race, and which, if not ar-
rested in its progress would establish an universal empire of misery.

The groans and tears of dying children are also used by provi-
dence as a just punishment and correction to their parents, who of-
ten feel nearly or quite as great pain in their souls, as the children
feel in tbeir dissolution.

In proof of this we will select one remarkable instance. Nathan,
when reproving David for his sin against Uriah, said, "Because
by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the
Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall
surely die. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife
hare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought
God for the child; and David fasted and went in, and lay all night
upon the ground. And the elders of his house arose, and went to
him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did
he eat bread with them." — 3 Sam. xii. 14<.

Thus it appears that David's soul endured such severe affliction
that he refused all consolation, and abandoned himself to fasting
and lamentations. And as seven days elapsed before the child was
dead, the parent's heart, during all that time, was oppressed with
a load of conscious misery and distress. After the child's depar-
ture, he took refreshment, and said, "While the child was yet
alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, who can tell w hether God will
be gracious to me, that the child may live. But now lie is dead,
wherefore should I fast.^ Can I bring him back again.'' I shall go
to him, but he shall not return to me." — Ver. 22, 23.

What abundant matter was here for humble and serious medita-
tion! I almost fancy I can see the royal psalmist watering the
ground with his briny tears, as thousands have done in all ages of
the world. He lies prostrate before God, weeping, and feebly offer-
ing his plaintive cries to heaven, in all the teaderuess of paternal
griefl Domestic comforts fail him; the siglit of his spouse and love-
ly offspring only serves to increase his agony, wliile his houses
and friends are forgotten, and the beauties of nature have lost all
their charms! Can silver and gold assuage his inquietude.'^ Can
.orchards, and gardens dissipate the gloom, and alleviate the bur-
den of his grief? x-^las! they are all neglected, his table abandoned,
and his servants expostulate in vain! He bt'hoids his little help-
less infant, groaning, sighing, and sinking into the arms of death:

348 AJv ESSAY ON THE

be shrinks back Irnm llie mournfiil spectacle, arid melts down with
conscious Avretchediiess, into all the tender sympathies of a par-
ent's heart! Mercifjil God! are these the eftects of sin? yes: the
seeds of evil are so deeply sown in human nature, that they have
made pain become necessary as an instrument of God's justice
and goodness: justice towards the actual offenders, and goodness
towards their helpless and unoffending offspring. And David
might say, "This child is cut down as a flower because of my sin:
had 1 walked uprightlv, he might have lived lo manhood, and be-
come tlie comfort and stay of my old age. But alas! my own ini-
quities have hastened the dying agonies of my child, and every
pain he feels is like a sword piercing through my soul!"

But upon the gloomy hypothesis I have been opposing, these
salutary reflections are all stifled in the birth.. For supposing Da-
vid had believed the doctrine invented in after ages; what would
have been his natural conclusions.^ "This child, he might have
said, lies suffering here, because he is guilty of Adam's sin: it is
most abundant goodness that his miseries are not doubled: he de-
serves everlasling damnation, and perhaps when this breath is
gone, he Avill be a companion of devils, suflering the vengeance of
eternal fire. If he is punished for my sin, this could not be done
with any justice or equity, unless the sins of parents are imputed
to their children: therefore he suffers nothing more than he de-
serves: and I will no longer lament under the delusive notion that
my guilt is the cause of his misery, because it is his own guilt, not
mine, for which justice now demands his death. And if indeed a
part of my guilt, be transferred to him, I am consequently less guil-
ty than I would be if it were all my own: I may therefore dry up
my tears, and leave the little guilly creature to his fate."

Such barbarous opinions, if I mistake not, have a native tenden=
cy to harden the heart of man, and to freeze every generous senti-
ment of our nature.

Many of the heathens, to imitate the malevolence of their im-
aginary gods, have suppressed the dearest feelings of humanity,
and burnt their own children in the lire! The merciless church of
Rome has exceeded the enormities of her Pagan motlier, as we
have seen: and the unparalleled tortures she invented for the pun-
ishment of those whom she considered heretics were inflicted un-
der pretence of religion and piety to God! They believe that all
infants are guilty, and deserve eternal destruction, especially the
children of heretics. Baptism is their Saviour, and all infants
who happen to die without being baptized, according to Bcllar-
roine, certainly go "to the hell o,f the reprobates."

PLAN OF SALVATION. 349

These are the sickeaning fruits of a superstitious theology,
which attributes to the benevolent Father of the spirits of all flesh,
the cruel principles of human and diabolical depravity.

It has been sometimes argued that God has no such feelings as
those which prevail in our nature; he is not to be melted down
with pity and sympathy as we are; therefore all appeals to hii-
-manity against any doctrine of religion, are altogether nugatory,
and prove nothing but the ignorance of him who makes the ap-
peal.

And who was it, let me ask, that planted those feelings of hu-
manity in our nature? Is not God the author of them? And did he
not plant them in us to supply the deficiency of our moral good-
ness? How many wretched creatures in this world, would be ne-
glected and left to perish, if it were not for the stimulating influ-
ence of pity and sympathy? How many are therein all countries
and ages, who, without any regard to the principle of benevolence
or justice, are influenced to preserve their offspring, and minister
to the wants of the miserable, by the mere operation of natural af-
fection, similar to that w hieh prevails in the inferior animals? If
those natural feelings were removed from the human race, and if
they were left to be influenced solely by their regard to justice and
goodness, I presume that in the course of a few centuries not a hu-
man creature would be found upon the face of the earth.

If we were under the perfect and uniform influence of moral
principles, if evil ones were confined to the regions of hell, and
had no place in this part of the creation, then we should be more
like God than we now are, and there would be no necessity for the
feelings of sympathy that are now so essential to the well-being
of human society.

Granting then that God has not the feelings which prevail in
human nature, what does this prove? Does it prove that God is less
disposed to promote the happiness of his creatures, and to prevent
their misery, than true pity inclines us to be? if so, it would seem,
that God is deficient in moral goodness as well as man, and needs
the feelings of humanity to bring him up to our standard.

It is true, that natural sympathies may be misapplied through
ignorance and partiality, as well as every other principle of our na-
ture: but then the end for which they were given is defeated; and
when so directed, they tend to the injury of mankind. So far as pi-
ty leads us to promote universal happiness, and to prevent misery,
80 far it answers the end for which divine goodness planted
it in our nature: and it is truly absurd to suppose that it ever
Yy

350 AN ESSAY ON THE

produces in us a greater regard to general happiness than
exists in that Mind whose paternal kindness implanted it in our
nature, for the very purpose of supporting and guarding the felici-
ty of human kind. God has no disposition to punish any creature
in earth or hell, from any other principle but his regard to the
rights of the innocent, and the general welfare of the creation:
and the scripture doctrine of everlasting punishments is to be re-
solved, not into his being destitute of our feelings of humanity, but
into the direful nature and tendency of moral evil. The very mo-
ment we suppose that he ever has punished any creature more
than is strictly necessary to the support of general happiness, or
that he ever will do it in any period of eternal duration, that mo-
ment we charge him with a departure from the principles of jus-
tice and benevolence.

The leason why devils and wicked men are to be punished ever-
lastingly, is because they will be everlastingly hostile to the go-
vernment of God, and could never be released from their dungeon
without becoming a general nuisance in the creation, exerting
themselves to diffuse the poison of iniquity, and to assail the tran-
quillity of the heavenly regions.

SECTION XI.

Second consequence.

The brute creatures were made subject to vanity, through a be-
nevolent intention in the Deity towards those creatures; they are
subjected to a speedy dissolution, not through caprice or cruelty,
but because it is rendered necessary by their connexion with a per-
verse and sinful race of men. This inference we may admit with-
out hesitation, because its truth is established by the following
evidence:

1. If we deny this conclusion, we must say God punishes the
beasts as criminals, accordiHg to the requirements of inflexible
justice: this supposes them to be guilty, which is a monstrous hy-
pothesis repugnant to every principle of morality and common
reason. If any one should be disposed to take this ground, to se-
cure the important doctrine of infant criminality, shall we receive

PLAN OP SALVATION. 35 1

it for a truth merely because he is pleased to tell us it is so? or
shall we wait for him to prove it by at least one passage of scrip-
ture, or by one argument that will bear examination?

2. Men are commanded to abstain "from things strangled, and
from blood." As strangling is a very painful kind of death, and as
we are to abstain from blood, because it is the life of the animal,
we are thereby plainly taught to regard the life of inferior crea-
tures, aud never expose them to unnecessary pain. This is a plain
dictate of conscience and humanity, as well as of revelation; and
as the voice of God thus commands us not to inflict pain on his
creatures, farther than is strictly necessary, it is a plain proof
that he is kind to his meanest creatures, and is unwilling that
they should suiTer more than is needful to subserve the ends of his
benevolence. Now if God does not punish the brute creatures as
criminals, and if there is nothing in his nature which influences
him to do it for no end but the mere pleasure of seeing them tor-
mented, it remains that it necessarily arises from their connexion
with the human race; and God has subjected them to a speedy dis^
solution, to prevent a greater evil, or to promote a lasting good in
future. This is an evident deduction from the nature of God, as
exhibited in the bible, and reason requires us to admit the conclu-
sion, even though we were unable to discover how those ends of
divine goodness will be accomplished.

3. It is not hard to understand how this dispensation of God is
calculated to prevent a "greater evil: for the inferior animals are
tortured Avith unrelenting cruelty by wicked men, and if they
were not released by death, their burden would be augmented and
protracted for thousands of years. The very animals that lived in
the days of Adam would yet be groaning under the hand of tyran-
Dj-; but the decree of heaven has fixed bounds beyond Avhich the
barbarity of sinners cannot pass: when the pain is brought to a
certain point, death gives the innocent creature a discharge from
the monster that takes pleasure in its agony, and who would per-
haps, if not thus prevented, increase its misery a thousand-fold.

"Not only the feebler creatures are continually destroyed by the
stronger;" says Mr. Wesley, "but both the one and the other are
exposed to the violence and cruelty of him that is now their com-
mon enemy, man. He pursues them over the widest plains, and
through the thickest forests. He overtakes them in the fields of
air, he finds them out in the depth of the sea. Nor are the mild
aud friendly creatures, who still own his sway, and arc duteous to
his commands, secured thereby from more than brutal violence,

353 AN ESSAY ON THE

from outrage and abuse of various kinds. What returns for their
long and faithful service, do many of these poor creatures find?
And what a dreadful difference is therebetween what they suffer
from their fellow-brutes, and what they suffer from the tyrant,
man! The Lion, the Tyger, and the Shark, give them pains from
mere necessity, in order to prolong their own life, and put them
out of their pain at once. But the human Shark, without any
such necessity, torments them of his free choice; and perhaps con-
tinues their lingering pain, till after months or years, death signs
their release."*

This just picture may be finished by the following beautiful lines
of Cowper;

So Eden Mas a scene of harmless sport,

Where kindness on his part, who ruled the whole,

Begat a tranquil confidence in all,

And fear as yet was not, nor cause for fear.

But sin marred all; and the revolt of man,

That source of evils not exhausted yet,

Was punished with revolt of his from him.

Garden of God, how terrible the change

Thy groves and lawns then witnessed! Every heart,

Each animal of every name, conceived

A jealousy and an instinctive fear,

And, conscious of some danger, either fled

Precipitate the loath'd abode of man,

Or growl'd defiance in such angry sort,

As taught him too to tremble in his turn.

Thus harmony and family accord

Were driven from Paradise; and in that hour

The seeds of cruelty, that since have swell'd

To such gigantic and enormous growth,

AVere sown in hnman nature's fruitful soil.

Hence date the persecution and the pain

That man inflicts on all inferior kinds,

Regardless of their plaints. To make him sport,

To gratify the frenzy of his wrath,

Or his base gluttony, are causes good

And just in his account, why bird and beast

Should suffer torture, and the streams be dy'd

* Sermons, vol. 5, p. 136.

PLAN OP SALVATION. ^gg

With blood of their inhabitants impal'd.
Earth groans beneath the burden of a war
Wa»ed with defenceless innocence, while he
Not satisfied to prey on all around,
Adds tenfold bitterness to death by pangs
Needless, and first torments ere he devours.

Witness at his foot

The spaniel dying for some venial fault

Under dissection of the knotted scourge;

Witness the patient ox, with stripes and yells

Driven to the slaughter, goaded, as he runs,

To madness; while the savage at his heels

Laughs at the frantic sufferer's fury, spent

Upon the guiltless passenger o'erthrown.

He too is witness, noblest of the train

That wait on man, the flight-performing horse:

With unsuspecting readiness he takes

His murderer on his back, and push'd all day

With bleeding sides and flanks, that heave for life^

To the far distant gaol, arrives and dies.

But many a crime, deem'd innocent on earth,
Is register'd in Heav'n; and these no doubt
Have each their record, with a curse annex'd.
Man may dismiss compassion from his heart.
But God will never. When he charg'd the Jew
To assist his foe's down-fallen beast to rise;
And when the bush-exploring boy, that seiz'd
The young, to let the parent bird go free;
Prov'd he not plainly that his meaner works
Are yet his care, and have an interest all,
All, in the universal Father's love.^

The Task.

Now supposing God had made no alteration in animal nature
after the fall of man; but had left the unoffending animals in a
state not naturally tending to dissolution: uould not men have in-
flicted greater and more lingering miseries upon them than they
now have power to do.^ Or will any one say that the flesh of beasts
was originally made of iron, and their bones of brass? So that the
lashes of the whip, or the operation of fire and sharpened steel
could not give them any pain.

They were free from misery in the original state of things, not
because they were incapable of suffering, but because there was

334 AN ESSAY ON THE

nothing in the creation to hurt them. But after moral evil was in-
troduced, man became a barbarian to inferior animals, as matter
of fact has proved in every age of the world, from that time to
the present. And it is evident the very animals that lived in the
days of Adam would have continued in a state of painful drudge-
ry to the present hour, had not their kind Creator terminated their
misery, by subjecting them to a speedy dissolution.

There is no way to set aside this conclusion, but by supposing tliey
were originally incapable of being made to suffer by any art that
sinners could invent. And does the bible tell us any thing about
such a pitiful hypothesis? If not, on what ground are we to re-
ceive it as a truth? Are we to take it for granted without any evi-
dence, merely because it is necessary to support the notion that
sin was originally a perfectly harmless thing that could not possi-
bly hurt any creature in existence, and that God, Avith liis own
hand, first brought misery into the creation?

What the first sin of angels was we are not informed; but what-
«?ver it might be, we must be very cautious (as those imagine who
maintain that suffering is always a proof of guilt,) how we admit
that it had any natural tendency to produce misery either in the
sinners themselves or their fellow-creatures: all misery must arise
from the execution of some penalty, otherwise there is no argu-
ment left to support the great doctrine that infants and brutes are
guilty. When Adam sinned, his crime is supposed to have been
equally harmless: it neither produced pain nor evil propensities,
as its natural effect, either in him or his posterity: and had God
withheld his hand from executing penalties, it seems, all mankind
might have multiplied their crimes to the present day, and yet
have remained as perfectly happy as they were in Paradise; and
with all their malice and fury it would be impossible for them to
give a moment's pain to any beast in the creation!

If this be so, it follows that M'hen God first inflicted penalties
on account of sin, it was not done to defend the happiness of any
living creature; for the tranquillity of all remained undisturbed,
and would have so continued to eternity, had not his own hand first
made a breach upon it by infiicting his penalties. And as God had
no regard to the welfare of any of his creatures, in punishing sin,
seeing it was a harmless tiling that made no inroads upon their
welfare; therefore he introduced misery merely to gratify some
private principle in himscH*, which could never i-est satisfied Avith-
out seeing some creature tormented. This is the secret principle
that runs through the whole scheme, and supports the enormous

PLAN OF SALVATION. S55

system of sovereign partiality and eternal Feprobation! Tins se-
cret, mysterious and amazing justice, arising out of the divine
sovereignty, is the Manicheau principle which produces all the
good and evil — all the happiness and misery to be found in hea-
ven, earth, or hell! Shall we take courage, and renounce this dis-
mal view of things? Or must we conclude that "we cannot let it
go without giving up at the same time the greatest part, if not all,
of the essential articles of the christian faith?"

4. As God is thus kind and good to his meanest creatures, and
proves that he has a perpetual regard for their well-being; who
will undertake to declare that he has no benevolent intention to
establish their happiness, when the Lord Jesus shall have destroy-
ed the works of the devil, "at the times of restitution of all things,
which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets
since the world began?"

"The creature," says Mr. Wesley, "every creature was subject-
ed to vanity, to sorrow, to pain of every kind, to all manner of
evils. Not indeed willingly; not by its own choice; nor by any act
or deed of its own; but by reason of him that subjected it; by
the wise permission of God, determining to draw eternal good out
of this temporary evil."*

"While his creatures travail together in pain, he knoweth all
their pain, and is bringing them nearer and nearer to the birth,
which shall be accomplished in its season. He seeth the earnest
expectation wherewith the whole animated creation waiteth for
that final manifestation of the sons of God, in which they them-
selves, also shall be delivered, (not by annihilation: annihilation
is not deliverance,) from the present bondage of corruption into
(a measure of,) the glorious liberty of the children of God,"t

Mr. Wesley goes on; "nothing can be more express, away with
vulgar prejudices, and let the plain word of God take place.
They shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into glo-
rious liberty: even a measure, according as they are capable, of
the liberty of the children of God.

" But what end does it answer, to dwell upon this subject which
we so imperfectly understand?" To consider so much as we do
understand,^ so much as God has been pleased to reveal to us,
may answer that excellent end, to illustrate tliat mercy of God,
•which is over all his works. And it may exceedingly confirm our
belief, that much more he is loving to every man. For how well

* Sermons, vol. v. page 12^. t Pas*^ i^r. t I'agc 130.

856 AN ESSAY ON THE

may we urge our hordes word, »dre not ye much betterthanthp.y?l{
then the Lord takes such care of the fowls of the air, and of the
beasts of the field, shall he not much more take care of you, crea-
tures of a nobler order?

« May it not answer another end, namely, furnish us with a full
answer to a plausible objection against the justice of God, in suf-
fering numberless creatures, that never had sinned, to be so se-
verely punished? They could not sin, for they were not moral
agents. Yet how severely do they suffer? Yea, many of them,
beasts of burden in particular, almost the whole time of their
abode on earth. So that they can have no retribution here below
But the objection vanishes away, if we consider that something
better remains after death, for these poor creatures also: that these
likewise shall one day be delivered from this bondage of corrup-
tion, and shall then receive an ample amends for all their present
sufferings.

" One more excellent end may undoubtedly be answered by the
preceding considerations. They may encourage us to imitate him,
whose mercy is over all his works. They may soften our hearts
towards the meaner creatures, knowing that the Lord careth for
them. It may enlarge our hearts towards those poor creatures, t»
reflect that as vile as they appear in our eyes, not one of them is
forgotten in the sight of our heavenly Father."

These are some of the arguments which fully convinced the
mind of Mr. Wesley, that the goodness of God will ultimately de-
liver the unsinning part of the creation from the ravages of sin, and
place them in a state of undisturbed enjoyment, as was originally
intended.

And shall we conclude that his opinion is a dreadful heresy,
subversive of the very fundamental principles of Christianity?
Shall we start aid draw back from it, as if the very heavens Mere
indangeroffalling,oras if all ourhopes of salvation were in danger
of being destroyed? Are we afraid God should be too kind to his
suffering creatures, which he created in order that they might be
happy, and which have never sinned against him? AVhat harm
would it be to any man or angel, if God should kindly take care of
sparrows, and restore them to that state of happiness, for M'hich
his goodness brought them into being, and of which they would
still have retained the quiet possession, had it not been for the
wickedness of another order of his creatures?

Are we afraid of consequences? What are they? One conse-
quence is, that if God has such a perpetual regard for his mean-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 857

est creatures, he will bring to just punishment the wretch that
takes pleasure in abusing them. Are we afraid of this conse-
quence? If so, we want the privilege, it seems, to abuse them with
impunity. Another is, that God delights to see those creatures
happy, and of course, they were not made solely for our accommo-
dation, without any regard to their own: They were not created
merely to serve us a little while, frequently groaning and bleed-
ing under our tyranny, and then to be cast by into the silent shades
of oblivion: hence we are deprived of the selhsh pleasure of think-
ing that God made them through mere partiality to us, without
any regard to their own enjoyments, which would be the case, if
he kept them in being only while we wanted their services,
and afterwards struck them out of existence, merely because we
have no more occasion to make them our drudges. Perhaps we
are afraid it will eclipse our glory, if brutes are permitted to live
forever, which, to be sure, ought to be the sole prerogative of man!
AVere they not originally made to live forever.^ And did it eclipse
the glory of Adam, or diminish his prerogative, that various orr
ders of living creatures were permitted to share with him in the
blessings of paradise. Would it have increased his dignity, had
he wished their existence might come to an end, or refused to be-
lieve that God intended they should enjoy everlasting happiness
as well as himself and his posterity.^

Bat we are afraid if men generally believed that beasts will be
restored to their original state of happiness, they would next be-
lieve that devils and sinners will be restored from hell; and hence
they would banish all their fears, and rest contented in their wick-
edness. They may believe this or any thing else, and it is impos-
sible for us to hinder them, if they are resolved to disregard all
evidence, and l>elieve whatever is most suitable to their taste; but
they will never espouse the latter opinion as a regular conse-
quence of the former, for there is not as much connexion between
them as there is between the two poles.

The sin of devils and men, we say, has involved the brute crea-
tion in a state of misery: but God will ultimately deliver them
from it and place them in their original state of happiness: why?
Because they were not involved by their own fault, but by the
fault of men and devils. And if God will support the happiness
of his innocent creatures, because they are innocent, you conclude
it is a clear consequence that he will also restore those guiliy re-
bels who are punished ou account of their abominations against
Zz

358 AN ESSAY ON THE

the innocent, and for the security of whom, the sentence of justice
was executed upon them!

It was God's regard to the welfare of the innocent that first in-
fluenced him to send devils and wicked men to hell: how then can
his regard to the innocent cause him to extend mercy to devils and
wicked spirits, unless you suppose they have become innocent,
since they went to hell?

The dreadful inference tve are so much afraid of, could be
drawn with more plausibility from the doctrine of divine mercy to
sinners in this world: If I go to hell, says one, God will deliver
me after a while, and take me to heaven: why? Because his nature
is to show mercy; for you say he pardons many sinners in this world,
and sanctifies their nature, and why not in the world to comer
The inference would have more appearance of reason, when
drawn from this doctrine than the other; because beasts are inno-
cent, and therefore God's regard to them aftbrds no inference in fa-
vour of the guilty; but if guilty men are restored from their wretch-
ed state, and taken to heaven, sinners may with some appearance
of plausibility presume, that a similar dispensation will obtain in
that future world to which we are fast approaching. And shall
we therefore be very cautious how we believe or teach the doe-
trine of divine mercy to sinners in this world, for fear men will
take occasion to infer, that devils and damned spirits may also
obtain forgiveness? If there be a need of caution in the other case,
there certainly is more in this, because it appears to afford some
presumption of the kind, which the other does not.

The fact is, that men, who are determined to love sin more thaa
reason and truth, will find pretences enough to silence their con-
sciences, and will be at no loss to find sophistical arguments to con-
vince them of w hat they are resolved to believe at all events. In
vain may we attempt to guard them against it by suppressing the
light of evidence, from the groundless fear that the establishment
of one truth, would lead to a disbelief of another. This were to
suppose that truth naturally contradicts itself, that one error is
necessary to guard us against falling into another; that we ought
to be afraid of the clearest evidence, and finally, that God would
have the world directed by stratagem, instead of the calm voice of
reason and revelation.

Without consuming too much time on this article, which must
be allowed to be of Jess importance than many others, I will only
add one argument which has had the chief influence in producing
a conviction in my mind, that God will restore the animal crea-
tion to a state of perpetual happiness. It is this:

PLAN OF SALVATION. 3,i»

The animals were originally made to enjoy a happy existence;
had it not been for the sin of others, misery and death would never
have been introduced among them: of course divine goodness pre-
pared for them a state of felicity, which was interrupted by the
works of the devil: Jesus Christ came to destroy the works of the
devil, and will reign till all enemies are i)ut under his feet: but if
innocent animals are totally deprived of that happy existence
which God intended for them to enjoy forever, the devil has suc-
ceeded in destroying the works of God, the innocent not excepted.
If those innocent creatures are never restored, it must be because
God cannot restore them, or because he will not; if he cannot do it,
it would seem that the devil has overcome his power; and if he
.will not, the old serpent has caused him to abandon the original
purpose of his goodness towards millions of his unoffending crea-
tures.

This consequence cannot be set aside, without affirming that
the beasts were originally made for destruction. Nor can it be
retorted, by recurring to the state of men and angels: for it was
not the original design of God that they should enjoy everlasting
happiness, but upon condition of their obedience; whereas no con-
dition of obedience was enjoined on the inferior 'animals, and
therefore, unless we suppose they were originally made to be de-
stroyed or annihilated, they will be restored; otherwise you say
the devil has caused their Creator to alter his mind concerning
them.

As to men and angels, it was the design of God that they should
stand responsible for their moral conduct, and be dealt with ac-
cording to their works, by the law of his holy and unchangeable
attributes: thii
be to eternity.

SECTION xn.

Of the Divine Sovereignty.

It may be necessary, before we close this part of the subjeet, to
notice a favourite argument of our opponeDls, founded npon the
Divine Sovereignty.

360 AN ESSAY ON THE

"God, say they, has an undoubted right to do what he will with
his own: he is not bound to make any creature liappy, much less to
restore those who have fallen from a state of rectitude: therefore
he has the just prerogative to receive one and jtass by another^
according to his own good pleasure. Shall the thing formed, say
to him (hat formed it, why hast thou made me thus?" To this
we would answer:

1. The English word, sovereign, signifies, supreme in power,
having no superior. Sovereignty, supremacy, highest place, highest
degree of excellence.*

By the divine sovereignty then, we understand, that God is su-
preme in power, authority and excellence: consequently when his
power is exercised to maintain his authority, according to the
moral excellence of his nature, his sovereignty is secured. The
moment we charge him with using his power in opposition to his
excellence, or moral attributes, we charge him with renouncing
the sovereign glory of his nature; and when we plead that he has
a right to do so, we suppose he has a right to cease being God,
and to imitate the king of the bottomless pit, who delights in the
exercise of a despotic sovereignty, that has no connexion with
moral goodness.

2. Justice, truth and benevolence, are essential attributes of Al-
mighty God, or they are not; to say they are not, is to leap into
atheism, or into the belief of a God totally destitute of every prin-
ciple of morality, which is still worse than atheism: but if those
attributes are essential to the divine nature, then to say God has a
right to depart from them, is to siiy he has a right to abandon that
which is essential to his nature, to change himself into another
deity, of an opposite nature, and to govern his actions by the evil
principles w hich predominate in the devil and his angels. Will he
be pleased with any creature for imputing this to him, and for
labouring to vindicate his right to such a gloomy and terrifying
supremacy.^

3 The word tyrannous or tyrannical, according to Walker, signi-
fies despotic, arbitrary, severe. Tyrant, an absolute monarch gov-
srning imperiously; a cruel, despotic and severe master. According
to the same author, the word arbitrary means despotic, absolutej
depending on no rule; capricious. Arbitrarily, with no other rule
than the will; despotically; absolutely.

Hence it appears that a tyrant is one "who governs his actions
by no other rule than his own will, and who fancies he has a right

* See Walker's Dictionary.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 361

to do so arising out of his sovereign prerogative, as absolute mon-
arch:" his vassals, on the contrary, must have no will, or no other
rule of action, than a regular intention to submit to his will in all
things he is pleased to enjoin, for no other reason but because it is
his will.

Thus a tyrant departs from all moral principles himself, and
demands of his subjects also to depart from them, and to make
his will the sole rule of their actions. They may indeed do moral
actions in those cases where his will happens not to interfere; but
even then, they must not do them from a regard to morality, but
from a regard to his will; and whenever he shall will their depar-
ture from any righteous action, they must give it up, and consider
his sovereign pleasure alone as the foundation of all right and of
all obligation.

AVere we to plead for such a right as this in behalf of such per-
sons as Nero, Caligula or Bishop Bonner, they would doubtless be
pleased with us, and consider us as very acceptable advocates for
their sovereign prerogative. I am apt to imagine that the old
prince of darkness has also been in the habit of claiming this so-
vereign right for some thousands of years, and that he is ambi-
tious to govern without being limited l)y any other rule than that
of his own will. But what good man will presume, upon second
thoughts, that the benevolent Author of this great universe will be
pleased to hear us advocate his supposed right to transform him-
self into the nature and character of an arbitrary tyrant.^ AVho can,
without horror, consider the depth of blasphemy there is in the
supposition, that God has a right to transform himself into a devil?
And what creature of God will do such violence to the immediate
dictates of his ijitellectual faculties, as to believe it possible for
any being to have a right to do wrong? In other words, that a be-
ing does right in doing wrong; or that right is wrong and wrong is
right; or in other words, "that there is no distinction between right
and wrong, and that sovereign will may do any thing, every thing,
©r nothing.

4. To suppose God may do any thing, because he possesses
Almighty power, is to suppose right has its origin in power: that
is, that the reason why a being has a right to do any thing, is that
he has power to do it. Take away his power, and you take away
his right; enlarge his power and his right is enlaiged in exact pro-
portion.

This doctrine was advocated by Mr. Hobbes; and it is very pleas-
ing to every tyrant ia the world; for if this be true, it of course

36a AN ESSAY ON THE

follows, that the tyrant never did any wrong in his life, because he
never did any tiling beyond his power, and therefore it could not
be beyond his right, seeing right grows out of power, and out of
nothing else.

Upon this atheistic hypothesis all men have a right to do any
thing and every thing in their power, because the power is the on-
ly thing that supports right, seeing right naturally grows out of it.
I have a right to take away any man's liberty or life, provided on-
ly that I have power to do it; and any other man has a right to
take my liberty or life, whenever he may happen to have it in his
power. Thus all moral principles are destroyed, all obligation
ceases, and despotic tyranny is the only God tliat is to be worship-
ped in either earth or heaven.

The truth is, that the principle of right is as uncreated, eter-
nal, and unchangeable as God himself, because it is an essential
principle of his immutable nature. To say God has a right to act
in opposition to his eternal Attribute of justice, appears to be
equal in blasphemy with the supposition, "that God has a right
to destroy himself.

5. It is granted, that "God worketh all things after the counsel
of his own will;" because his perpetual will is to do every thing
according to his immutable justice, truth and benevolence. But
because our Saviour represents the Lord of the hired servants as
saying, "may I not do what I will with my own," some appear to
imagine he means that God has a right to do any thing with his
creatures, because they are his own. Whereas it is evident from
the parable, that the master had no reference to the labourers, for
they were not his own, seeing they had voluntarily entered into his
service for a stipulated price. By the term, my own, was meant
his money, which he had a right to bestow as a favour, or to with-
hold it at his option.

It is true, all creatures belong to God; but has he a right to pu-
nish the holy angels Avith everlasting damnation because they are
his own.^ If so, it would appear, that if the devil had power to
create sensible or conscious creatures, and were to do so in order
to torment them in the flames of hell forever, he would have a
right to do it because they would be his own. The only reason
M'hy he has not the right to do tins, is that he has not the power:
thus we are brought back to Mr. Hobbes's atheistic theory again,
that right grows out of power.

God justly claims all men and angels as his own: that is, they
are his own servants, or the subjects of his government, and he has

PLAN OF SALVATION. 363

a right to demand obedience from them in proportion to the know-
ledge and power he has given them, and according to the princi-
ples of his moral law. But to say he has a right to deceive them
by lying, to accuse and condemn them falsely, or to punish them
for nothing, but tlie gratification of his sovereign pleasure, because
they are his own, is to say God is a tyrant, and that he has a right
to be so.

AH creatures hold their existence and happiness by a grant of
benevoleneej but their right of exemption from penal torments, they
claim from eternal justice, so long as they continue innocent: here
they have a proper right of demand, inseparable from their being,
as innocent creatures; and their Creator is bound injustice not to
violate their right.

If we deny this, we say the creatures of God, when they rebell-
ed against his government, forfeited no right thereby, seeing they
had no right to forfeit; of course they were no more exposed to
punishment, in justice, then they were before; because tlie sove-
reign pleasure is supposed the only ground of their happiness or
misery, and if the supreme will should so determine, it might be
made just for them to be rewarded for their wickedness, and jpwn-
ished for keeping the commandments. The Almighty Sovereign
might, if it should happen to be his good pleasure, make guilt con-
sist in loving justice, mercy and truth, and make innocence con-
sist in falsehood, and in hating every thing that is just and good.
He might restore all devils from the lake of hell, and reward them
with crowns of glory for their profound abhorrence of all morali-
ty; he might at the same time send all his holy angels into hell,
together with the spirits of just men made perfect, to suffer the
vengeance of eternal fire, as the due wages of their want of malice;
and all this would be as perfectly just and righteous as any thing
that has been done since the creation, provided the sovereign will
should fix it so. which is supposed to be the only standard of justice
in the universe.

6. We grant God is not bound to pardon and save any sinner, by
any right in the sinner, to demand salvation at his hand: and
lience it is concluded by our opponents, that their doctrine is con-
ceded, namely, that he may save one, and pass by another, for no
other reason but his own good pleasure; and no creature can have
a just ground of complaint. His gratuitous act of eleelingone, and
neglecting another, they call his sovereign grace; but (he proper
name of it is sovereign partialitij.

864 AN ESSAY ON THE

Sovereign grace is the grace, or favour, exercisei] by a sovereign:
it has been shown that God's sovereignty consists in his supreme
right to govern his creatures, not as a tyrant, but according to his
holy and unchangeable attributes. It remains for us to inquire
whether partiality is to be considered as one of the attributes of
God, or whether it necessarily arises out of them.

By partiality I here mean "a disposition to limit favours to cer-
tain individuals, and to withhold them from others under similar
circumstances, for no reason but arbitrary w ill or pleasure. Does
isuch a disposition belong to God.^ I hope the following reflections
will serve to decide I'his question in the negative:

1. Supposing God is not bound to be impartial in bestowing his
favours, does it follow from this that he is disposed to be partial, or
that he ever will be so.'* Is not benevolence as dear to him as jus-
tice, and is he any more disposed, in any ease, to depart from the
former than the latter.'*

3. Suppose two sinners stand before God, equally needy, and
whose salvation would equally accord with justice: if he save one,
and pass by the other, only because he will do so, in this act of
passing by, he shows such a deficiency in the love of goodness,
that he will not be kind to this person, when there is no moral ob-
struction. It is not for the sake of benevolence surely, that he re-
fuses in this case to be benevolent; it is not for the sake of justice,
because the salvation of one is supposed to accord with justice as
well as that of the other; It is not for the sake of truth, unless
some one will undertake to prove that God has declared he will be
partial, and pass by some sinners whose salvation would perfectly
accord both with justice and benevolence; therefore in such an act
of partiality he would have no regard to any moral principle,
and consequently the action would result from some private and
selfish one, that is regardless of all morality.

3. Though it be granted that God is not bound to be impartial,
from any right of demand in sinners, yet he has graciously bound
himself by pledging his own character that he will always act ac-
coiding to the harmony of all his attributes. He has fairly and
openly stated the conditions on which pardon is to be granted,
and has declared that "u hosoever will, may take of the waters of
life freely:" if, therefore, he has made any secret reserves and ab-
solute resolutions or decrees, that x-Vdam's race shall not be equally
welcome; if he has a revealed will, proclaiming most unequivocally
that '^ he delighteth not in the death of the wicked, but would
have all men come to repentance," and at the same time his secret

PLAN OF SALVATION. 3C5

will and pleasure is that a majority shall be unconditionally ev
eludedfrom the possibility of salvation, what an hypocritical char-
acter does he display before his holy angelsl And before men too;
for it seems men have found out his secret will) and published it
abroad, notwithstanding his design to keep it secret. How they
obtained access to the secret cabinet, I have not been informed;
but be that as it may, they have made the thing public, and have
let the world into the mystery of God's "holy simulation."

4. The most selfish tyrant in the world is capable of this kind of
benevolence. He can bestow favours sometimes, when it suits his
humour, or when it may be thought in any manner to subserve his
selfish purposes; but if he frequently neglects others in similar
circumstances, for no other reason but because he will, it is clear
his favours are not bestowed from principle, or from a regard to
general happiness, but merely from a regard to his sovereign plea«-
sure: that is, from a desire to gratify the pride and selfishness of
his own heart. He bestows favours on some, and passes by others,
merely and solely because it is his will to do so: then his will is
not regulated by any regard to the principle of benevolence, for
that principle would apply to all those eases alike: not from a re-
gard to justice, for the persons whom he passed by, might have
been relieved as consistently withjustice as the others: his actions
flow from a selfish principle, and he is as destitute of moral good-
ness in bestowing his favours as in withholding them; because both
actions flow from the same principle, and that is a proud desire t»
gratify and display his own sovereign pleasure.

SECTION XIIL

The same subject.

The present objection supposes God to be ambitious to esta-
blish himself at the head of a party. Moral principles are uni-
versal in their application: justice is not limited to a part of man-
kind; and benevolence does not consist in the blind attachments of
party spirit, but in such a regard to general happiness as influen-
ces a person to extend happiness as far as he is able to extend it
consistently with justice. While a person is governed by thosp
3 A

366 AN ESSAY ON THE

principles, his actions and motives have relation to the community
in general, and admit of no arbitrary selection of particular
parlies.

But in our degenerate world we see party spirit prevail both in
church and state, and triumph over every principle of righteous-
ness. Thousands have a humorous loudness for one party, and a
proportional disgust and antipathy against another, which make
them blind to the clearest evidence.

They are willing truth should prevail, so far as it may accord
with the support of their own party; but their opponents must be
hindered from speakiiig the truth, and no faith is to be kept with
heretics. They are very tenacious of the rights of justice, on their
own side; but they are unwilling others should have equal rights,
and wish justicetobea limitedprinciple, confined to particular par-
ties. They are very benevolent also, provided it be true that bene-
volence consists in bestowing favours on their side of the house,
for the gratification of their partiality, or their- party spirit^
which is the same thing; but as to a general love, that delights to
bless all needy objects alike, without respect of persons, this is a
stranger to their bosom.

Thus it is evident that party spirit or partiality is hostile to
every righteous principle. All such principles are universal in
their nature, and a proper regard to justice, truth and benevolence,
arises out of a general love tli at delights to make all individuals
happy, who can be made so without violating the rights of others.
"Whereas partiality is a limited, selfish love, which delights to
make justice, truth and benevolence, subservient to the blind at-
tachments and arbitrary decisions of a despotic v\ill.

This spirit is truly ihe mother of abominations. It causes us to
beblind to the faults and absurdities of our own parly: it causes us
to do violence to our reason and conscience, to suppress and hate
all truth and all evidence, unless it be favourable to our own side:
it causes us unmercifully to judg-e the other side, and to impute
crimes tothem according to our sovereign pleasure: it causes us to
monopiilize the rights of justice to ourselves: it causes us to limit
oar favours according to the selfish dictate of our partiality, and
to be envious at the prosperity of our opponents. In short, it pro-
duces a blind, unreasonable, and idolatrous fondness for our fa-
vourites, and a corresponding animosity against the objects whom
our arbitrary will singles out for reprobation. As the blind attach-
ment rises for one side, a secret malice rises lagainst the other in

PLAN OF SALVATION. 367

exact proportion; and thus every moral virtue is made to yield to
the selfish fury of party malevolence.

This gave rise to the furious bigotry of the Scribes and Phari-
sees: they laboured to confine all right and all ihe blessings of
salvation to the Jewish party; and to detest the Gentiles, to perse-
cute them, and fondly to consider them as outcasts from God, fit
only to be taken and destroyed.

It gave rise to the bloody scenes of popery. They confined sal-
vation to themselves; they fancied that God's partiality confined
all his eternal favours to their holy church, and that he had a
corresponding abhorrence for all heretics. That is, they fancied he
was altogether such an one as themselves. They believed they
had rights, but that others had not equal rights. They believed
men ought to be benevoleat and kind, but not to heretics. It was
right to be sincere, to tell the truth, and keep our word; but no
faith is to be kept with heretics. Thus the god of party was wor-
shipped, till all regard to moral principles was given up, and here-
tics were destroyed by the most excruciating tortures, and w ith a
fond belief that God's unchangeable hatred and malice against
them was equal to their own; and of course that they would all
burn in the flames of hell forever.

Wherever malice and persecution have prevailed in any sect or
country, it has risen froai devotion to the same God. Jt matters
not whether it appear under the garb of piety, zeal for God, liber-
ty, patriotism, a design to enlighten the world, to suppress priest-
craft and superstition, or any other hypocritical pretension. —
It is the same thing under all those names, and manifests itself
hy its fruits. It is such a blind and vehement fondness for our
party, and such habitual and settled malevolence against others,
as leads us to sacrifice truth, justice and benevolence, to build up
one party and pull down the other. This, as all experience shows,
is the nature and tendency of partiality.

Is it possible that good men can believe, upon second thoughts,
that there is any such jwinciple in the Lord our Maker.'' Surely
such unbecoming thoughts of God must be rejected by every re-
flecting mind. But I think it is not hard to discover that the elect-
ing love, sovereign pleasure, and secret will, so often spoken of,
are nothing more than other names substituted for arbitrary par-
'tiality, and the disposition is the same under every appellation.

God's will, in relation to his creatures, is always regulated by
his moral attributes, or it is not; if it is, he is always disposed to
make every creature happy, so far as it will accord with justice;

S68 AN ESSAY ON THE

if it is not, he sometimes departs from the perfections of his na-
ture, and is influenced by some secret principle totally distinct
ijrom them.

I think we may safely conclude upon the whole, that partiality,
subversive of all righteousness, arises out of a selfish heart, and
that so far as a ruler is disposed to be tyrannical, so far he de-
sires and needs a secret witl, in opposition to the will which he is
pleased to make known, and by which he professes to regulate hii
administration.

I know it may be urged, that God has in fact exercised partiali-
ty in giving the dilJerent capacities and means of happiness which
he has given to different orders of his creatures.

But this supposes partiality can be exercised towards creatures
before they exist, and if so, it can be exercised toward a nonentity.
Nothing can be more absurd than for the thing formed to say to
him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus.^ Because this
supposes we had rights or claims upon the divine attributes before
we vvere created. If partiality can be exercised towards a wore-
entity, the objection would still hold, though God had made all
creatures of the same order: for it might be said, how many mil-
lions of creatures might be created that are still in a state of non-
existence.^ Hurely God is partial, or he would not leave those crea-
tures which might be made, in a state of nonentity, while these
are in a state of happy existence!

And it' God's having given beasts a small capacity of happiness,
is a proof of his partiality, his conduct towards stones and trees is
a still greater proof of it, because he has given them no capacity of
happiness.

The partiality opposed in these pages, consists in an arbitrary
will to bestow favours on some, and neglect others, who equally
ijeed such favours, and who stand in the same moral relation to
him who bestows them. But as to the kind or degree of capacity
creatures were to have, it has no connexion with the subject: for
before our existence we were in need ©f nothing, and had no rela-
tion to moral principles.

The Lord gives the light and assistance of his hoIy> spirit to a
wen, and withholds this blessing from Sibeast: there is no partiali-
ty in this, because the beast does not need spiritual grace, as the
man does, nor does it stand in the same moral relation to God. —
But the case of two or more sinners, who equally need pardon and
salvation, and whose salvation would equally accord with the
§;eneral welfare, is so eatirely ditterent from the eases alleged

PLAN OF SALVATION. 369

ia the objection, that it requires no uncommon discernment to
perceive that this futile argument has no just bearing upon the
doctrine defended in the present section.

But because some men have greater advantages than others
during their existence on aarth, it is presumed by some, that this
results solely from God's sovereign pleasure^ and if distinguish-
ing grace makes such a difference in this life, why not in the life
to come.^ Answer:

If our opponents will prove that God has no moral reason for
the various dispensations of his grace and providence, but merely
his arbitrary will; — if they clearly evince that he has no regard to
the general welfare, and the greatest good of his creatures upon
the whole, in the variety manifested in the course of his provi-
dence in the present world; — we will then grant that a principle
of arbitrary sovereignty governs his actions, and in all probabili-
ty the same partiality may extend to a future state. But if they
cannot prove this, if the contrary be true, that God has benevo-
lent intentions, to which this order in his works in the present
world is perpetually subservient, no particular fact under his go-
vernment can be produced as a proof of his partiality. And they
are bound to prove this point, before their conclusion can be ad-
mitted, as much as infidels are bound to prove the same thing, be-
fore their conclusions can be admitted, concerning the caprice, or
folly, or injustice that appears, as they imagine, in the Almighty's
method of governing this world.

If they say it is incumbent on us to prove that God has such be-
nevolent intentions iu the different gifts and advantages conferred
upon men in the present life, and to reconcile the seeming partial-
ities of his administration Avith the doctrine here advanced; our
answer is short.

The moral attributes of God are proved by the testimony of re-
velation, and by every other source of evidence, the great Crea-
tor, possessed of these perfections, is unchangeable, the same
yesterday, to-day, and forever; of course he never departs from
them for a moment; but partiality is opposite in its nature and ten-
dency to the divine perfections, as has just been proved, I hope to
the satisfaction of every candid reader; therefore no such partiali-
ty is ever exercised by our Maker in any case, however some cases
may have the appearance of it to our limited conceptions.

As to the difficulty of reconciling the disorders of the present
world with the divine nature, we must cither resulve it into our
own ignorance, or we must charge God foolishly: and it ill becomes-

370 AN ESSAY ON THE

a christian to draw his conclusions against God, from certain tem-
porary appearances which he does not understand, and is incapa-
ble ofcompreliendjng, in their relation to the whole. This is truly
the deistica! method of reasoning; and i( is a metliod which has
been very fruitful of unreasonable and atheistical conclusions.

A father of a family or ruler of a state may exhibit abundant
evidence to his children or subjects, of the goodness and impartial-
ity of his character, and yet some particular cases may occur, con-
cerning which they may be incapable of entering into the views of
the benevolent ruler, and may consider them as deviations from
wisdom and goodness, merely because they are ignorant of their
tendency, and of their relation to the general welfare. A foolish
child will hastily conclude that such cases are proofs of his pa-
rent's unkindness or cruelty:but he m ho accustoms I'is mind to can-
did reflection, will conclude they are proofs of his own ignorance,
and ought not, in any degree, to weaken his confidence in the pa-
rent or governor, while so much evidence exists of the general
goodness of his character.

We have intuitive conviction that the First Cause, or Supreme
Being must necessarily be so completely above the blind and sel-
fish principles of action which govern ignorant sinners, that "he
cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." The
same fundamental truth is established by the unequivocal evidence
of revelation. We also perceive the signs of Avisdom and benevo-
lence in the visible creation, so far as we are able tf» take a gene-
ral view of it,aMdcould that view be comprehensive and oonjplete,
how would we be transported with the prospect! But a prejudiced
and narn!=,v mind neglects that patient reflection which would ena-
ble him (o draw his conclusions from an enlarged and general
view of things, and, conlining himself to some particular parts,
without attending to the clear signs of goodness in the whole, con-
cludes very absurdly that God is partial or unjust. This conclu-
sion depends upon the truth of the principle, ''that the particular
case under consideration has no tendency to subserve the purpo-
ses of justice or mercy." And can any one produce the least evi-
dence of this? if not, there is no evidence to support the conclusion;
and the belief of it can only result from the dictates of a haughty
mind, which pretends to nnderstand the government of this uni-
verse as well as God Almighty understands it.

In this sophistical manner atheists have reasoned against the
creation, and deists against the bible. God favours some men or
some nations more than others, with his natural or supernatural

PLAN OF SALVATION. 371

blessings In this life; therefore many conclude that this variety does
not flow from a benevolent intention to produce the greatest gen-
eral good in future, but from an essential principle of partiality in
God.

And many christians, it seems, inadvertently give full sanction
to these unjust reproaches against heaven, and then hope to mend
tlie matter by pleading that God has a right to deviate from his
moral attributes, and to regulate all things by his sovereign plea-
sure! Infidels and christians agree in the premises, and in the
first conclusion, namely, that God is a partial being: the unl)eliev-
er, perceiving that partiality is a source of every kind of wicked-
ness in the world, concludes that the Author of nature is an im-
moral being, which sentiment he soon exchanges for atheism. The
christian takes another course, and insists that God has a sove-
reign right to be partial, and to confine himself to no rule of ac-
tion buthis own capricious and independent will. They think this
principle alone fixes the unconditional and eternal destinies, both
of men and angels. If some men are saved, and others damned, it
is because God eternally predestinated the fate of each by his so-
vereign or arbitrary will. If some angels keep their first estate,
and others lose it, the reason is, that the former were always the
favourite objects of electing love, and the latter of reprobating
animosity. If human sinners are redeemed and restored from their
fallen condition, and angelic sinners are not, this also must be re-
solved into the same distinguishing grace, or electing partiality,
as the only reason or principle in the divine nuture which made a
difterence between angels and men, as it respects the benefits of re-
demption.

Thus all the links of predestination hang togetlicr, and we must
receive the whole, or totally reject the principle of partiality from
whence they flow; and maintain that God has never departed from
a pure regard to general happiness in any act of his administra-
tion, towards angels, or men, or any other creatures in exis-
tence.

As to the fallen angels, God has not seen tit to give us an ac-
count of the particulars of their apostaey. In what manner the
divine forbearance was manifested towards them we know notj
the nature, extent, and aggravating circumstances of their crimes
we know not; but if any man shall have the assurance to affirm
that they were passed by, through sovereign partiality, m hen they
might have had a merciful probati(;n granted, consistently with
every moral principle; we may safely defy him to support an hy-

37;^ AN ESSAY ON THE

pothesis so unworthy of God, from scripture or from any other
source of human knowledge.

As to tlie passages of scripture wliieh speak of the variety of
the Almighty's dispensations of grace and providence here below,
and which have been pressed into the service of predestinarian
sovereignty, they have been suificiently examined by Mr. Fletcher
and others, to whom I must refer the reader, and have lieen shown
to accord perfectly with the general tenor of the scriptures, that
"the Lord is good to all;
works." — Psalm exiv. 9.

PLAN OF SALVATION.

CHAPTER V.

Of THa MEANS OR CONDITIONS THROUGH WHICH WE REGEIVt;
THE BENEFITS OF OHRIST's ATONEMENT.

SECTION I.

*3 general view of faith.

Having considered the great love wherewith our heavenly fa>
ther hath loved us, and the fiilnei«s of redemption that is in Christ
Jesus, for the salvation of mankind; it remains for us to notice the
conditions on which we are to receive the benefits of Christ's
atonement, and to enforce them upon the understanding and af-
fections, by the interesting and powerful motives exhibited in the
gospel.

Among all the terms of acceptance we find stated in the scrip-
tures, none is so often mentioned, and so particularly and solemn-
ly enjoined, as that of believing, or the right exercise of faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ. This is rightly represented as the root of
all christian virtues. It is urged upon us by our Saviour and his
apostles as the grand instrument or condition of our pardon, sanc-
tification, and perpetual victory over the world; and it is so indis-
pensable in every stage of our progress to heaven, that "without
faith it is impossible to please God." It is therefore a matter of
the first importance for us to understand this essential doctrine of
the gospel, on which our eternal welfare so manifestly depends.

To believe a report, to give it credit, or to have faitk in it, are
terms well understood by men in general; but they are terras not
capable of what is called -a logical definition. We know that be-
lieving is an act or decision of ihe mind concerning what is true
or false; all correct faith has truth for its object, and that which
takes falsehood for truth, is a mistaken belief or delusion; but a
correct belief may exist in various degrees, and may produce vari-
ous effects, according to the nature of the truth it embraces.

Those words are used by the inspired writers in different senses,
and many I apprehend haveconfoundedthosediftercutapplications
of the word faith, or believing, or not sufficiently distinguished
3B

37^ AN ESSAY ON THE

them, and have thereby brought great confusion into their own
conceptions, and bewildered the minds of others.

The term faith, is sometimes applied to a single act of believ-
ing, on a particular occasion; at other times, to a continued act,
or habitual adherence to the truth.

It is sometimes applied to the simple assent of the understand-
ing; at other times, it means an adherence to truth, by the united
embrace of the understanding and affections. In some passages it
applies to the act of believing; in others, to the object of it; and in
others, to the effects of it.

That the words sometimes apply to a single act, on a particular
occasion, will be readily admitted; and I need only refer to Acts
xiv. 9. and Matt. viii. 13. for an example.

But when the promise of eternal life is connected with our
faith or believing, those words are applied to the continued and
habitual state of the mind. "He that believeth [perseveringly]
shall be saved." Markxvi. 16.

<'But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of
them that believe to the saving of the soul." Heb. x. 39. "That is,
we are not of them who for a while believe, and in time of temp-
tation fall away , like those mentioned." Luke viii. 13. "But we are of
those who continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and are not
moved away from the hope of the gospel." Col. i. 23. "This is
the will of him that sent me," says our Saviour, "that every one
which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting
life: and I will raise him up at the last day." John vi. 40. The
term, believeth on him, evidently signifies a continued act, or habit
of believing; for eternal life is not promised to those who "make
shipwreck of faith and a good conscience;" but to those who "con-
tinue in the faith, and through much tribulation, enter into the
Isingdom of God." Acts xiv. 22.

Faith sometimes means a bare assent of the understanding, and
many who never were justified, or even awakened to a conviction
of the evil nature of sin, are said to have believed. This is evi-
dent from Acts viii. 13. "Then Simon himself believed also; and
when he was baptised, he continued with Philip, and wondered,
heholding the miracles and signs which were done." And yet it is
obvious from the context, that he was all the while "in the gall of
bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Verse 23.

"King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? 1 know that thou
believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, almost thou persuad-
est me to be a christian." Acts xxvi. 27.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 375

That many are said to have believed, who continued in a state
of condemnation, is still more evident from John xii. 42. "Never-
theless, among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but be-
cause of the Pharisees, they did not confess him, lest they should
be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men
more than the praise of God." Will any one say those persons,
who loved the praise of men more than the praise of God, and re-
fused to confess Christ before men, were really in a state of ac-
ceptance or justification?

There are tjiousands of such believers at the present day: they
have believed in Christianity from their youlh, and continue still
to believe that Jesus Christ is the Sou of God, and the Saviour of
sinuers. And yet they are ashamed of Christ and his words be-
fore an adulterous and sinful generation, and love the praise of
men more than the praise of God. They are yet in their sins, and
the wrath of God abideth on them. How can it then be said that
all that believe are justified, and have passed from death unto
life? To answer this question, we must consider in what the de-
ficiency of this faith consists, and wherein it diifers from that
which is imputed to us for righteousness.

The deficiency consists in its want of energy, as a principle of
action, to move the affections, and regulate the conduct. The
faith which God requires, is not merely an indifferent assent of the
mind, as a principle of speculative knowledge; but it is that which
is influential as a principle of action, to excite the affections, to
work by love, and to purify the heart. "For as the body without
the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." Jam. ii. 26.

The cause of this deficiency is the false foundation on which
their faith is built. Evidence is not the ground of their belief, and
though the object of it be true, yet it is not for the sake of truth
they believe it: they have never examined the evidence, nor felt
any solicitude to understand it; but they believe merely for the
sake of being in the fashion, or through some other sinister mo-
tive; their faith, therefore, is not the dictate of candour, which re-
gulates the belief by evidence, but the dictate oi prejudice or bigot-
ry, which influences men to believe things, not for the sake of
their being true, but for the sake of their subserviency to some
private and selfish gratification.

Many believe the scriptures, because they can appeal to the
scriptures, for the support of their party; and the support of their
party is essential to the support of their popularity, as well as to
many other private advantages. They believe Christ is the Son of

&76 AN ESSAY ON THE

God, and the Saviour of the world, not because thej feel any needi
of a Saviour, or any solicitude to examine the evidence of his mis-
sion, but because it is the belief of (heir relations and neighbours;
to disbelieve would be unfashionable, and they esteem it better to
be out of the world than to be out of the fashion. Thef'dogmati-
cally believe the doctrine of the Trinity, justification by faith; and
the uew-birthj not because they have any concern to understand
these matters, or to know their evidence and importance; but be-
cause they have been the distinguishing tenets of their fathers
and ancestors for some centuries, and because the belief of them is
necessary to distinguish them from Infidels, Socinians, and other
heretics. Thu§ their faith is good for nothing, because it does not
arise from a regard to truth, but from a regaixl to something else.

Others may believe from the influence of evidence which they
cannot resist, as many of the Jews did; but their want of candour
influences them to suppress the evidence, or to neglect an honest
pursuit of it, for fear of losing their popularity; "for they love the
praise of men more than the praise of God." Such believers are
as deficient as the others, because they are equally destitute of a
pure regard to truth.

This view of the subject is not only confirmed by experience
and daily observation, but also by our Lord's express declaration
to the Jews. "How can ye believe," says he, "which receive hon-
our one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God
only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is
one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye
believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his writings, hpw shall ye believe my words?"
John v. 44-. &c.

Are we to infer from this, that the Jews did not believe the
writings of Moses? They surely appealed to Moses on all occa-
sions, and believed in his divine mission, and his writings, with a
most bigoted and dogmatical assurance. This our Saviour plainly
intimates, when he says, even J\Ioses, in whom ye trust. They
could not surely trust in him, if they had no faith in his writings.
And yet it is added immediately, "had ye believed Moses, ye would
have believed me: for he wrote of me." The solution is easy: the
Jews believed in Moses, just as Simon the sorcerer believed in Je-
sus, as "many of the chief rulers believed on him," and as thou-
sands in our days believe in his religion: that is, they believed in
Moses, not for the sake of the truth containetl in his writings, but
for the sake of supporting their party, their popularity, and their

PLAN OF SALVATION. syy

fond presumptions, that God's partiality confined all the promise?
to their holy nation, to the exclusion of all Gentile heretics. Had
they examined the writings of Moses with candour, and with an
honest tind sincere desire to know the truth, they would have be-
lieved in another manner; the truth thus rightly attended to would
have had its effect: it would have produced a conviction of iheir
hostility to the essential doctrines of Moses: it would have enlight-
ened their understanding, under the divine influence, and have
given them to see and feel the importance of those matters, and of
their deep interest in them: it w ould have led them to examine the
prophecies relating to the Messiah, with a candid desire to enter
into their meaning: hence their faith, having this proper influence
upon their attections and conduct, would have led them honestly
to compare the writings of Moses with the doctrine and miracles

. of the Redeemer, which would have produced a sincere and hear-
ty belief in his divinity. Had the Jews thus believed the writings
of Moses, they would have believed in Christ: for Moses wrote of
him.

The apostle tells us, "The end of the commandment is charity,
out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeign-
ed." 1 Tim. i. 5. Again he says, "I call to remembrance the un-
feigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother
Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee
also." 2 Tim. i. 5.

From this the inference is clear, that there is such a thing as

feigned fuith^ and that the excellency of Timothy's faith consisted
in its being unfeigned. When a man's faith is regulated by a re-
gard to truth, and by a candid survey of its evidence and impor-
tance; when it arises from a sincere desire and honest intention to
seek the truth, and to follow it without prejudice or partiality;
this faith is unfeigned, and will never fail to influence the affec-
tions, and regulate the conduct of its possesser.

This is the faith required in the gospel. That sincerity and
honesty of mind, which yields to the force of evidence, and which
searches into the truth of God, with a willingness to sacrifice eve-
ry prejudice for its sake, is well pleasing in the sight of God; be-
cause it admits truth into the aftections as well as the understand-
ing, and leads us to abandon those beloved vices which are hos-
tile to all goodness, and to submit ourselves to the gracious gov-
ernment of our Redeemer. That the faith which is required to
justification and eternal happiness, is of this description, and im-
plies the united exercise of the understanding and aftections, in

srs AN ESSAY ON THE

©ur embrace of the truth, is evident from the general tenor of the
scriptures. "And Philip said if thou believest with all thine hearty
thou mayest. For with the lieartman believeth unto righteousness,
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Acts viii.
37. Rom. X. 10.

We have said the term faith, or believing, is sometimes appli-
ed to the object of it. This might be proved by many passages:
but let it suffice to produce only a few.

"By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedi-
ence to the faith among all nations." Rom. i. 5. Here obedience
to the faith means, obedience to the gospel, or to the doctrines of
Christ, w ho is the object of our faith.

*'Say not in thine heart, who shall ascend into heaven? [that is,
to bring Christ down from above] or, who shall descend into the
deep? [that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.] But what
saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy
heart: that is, the word of faith which we preach." Rom. x. 8, &c.
The word of faith which we preach, evidently means Christ the
object of faith, who is nigh thee, and not afar off in heaven or in
the deep.

" He which persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the
faith which once he destroyed." That is, he now preacheth the
doctrines of Christ crucified, which once he opposed with great
rage and bigotry." — Gal. i. 23.

" But after that faith is come [that is, after Christ is come
with the revelation of his gospel] we are no longer under a school-
master."— Gal. iii. 25.

Lastly, the term is sometimes used and intended to include the
whole effects of fiiith, and is not to be limited merely to the exer-
cise of the mind in believing.

" Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith:" that is,
whether ye be in the divine favour, and have the fruits of the
spirit, as the evidence of your acceptance in the beloved. " Know
ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye
be reprobates?" 2 Cor. xiii. 5,

" Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor
of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he
hath promised to them that love him?" Jam. ii. 5. By their be-
ing rich iufaithi the apostle means the true riches which our Sa-
viour recommends. They are rich in " love, joy, peace, long-suf-
fering, gentleness, meekness," and all the fruits of the Spirit, which
are produced and continued in us by faith, as its effects; but they
may be conceived distinctly, and are often distinguished from faitK

PLAN OF SALVATION. a79

in the scriptures, though in these passages and a few others, the
word is used in a figurative way, to include all its consequences
as well as the thing itself.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence
of things not seen." Heb. xi. 1.

The word in this passage is used in its largest sense, and in-
cludes the fulness of christian experience. It is not the mere act
of believing, but the whole of that love and joyful communion with
God, which a christian feels, that is, the substance of things hop-
ed for. Does a christian wish to know the nature of those plea-
sures that are at God's right hand forevermore? His present
peace and joy in believing, is the substance thereof; that is, the
joys of heaven are the same in substance with his present happi-
ness hi God, though far higher in degree, and have no mixture of
temptation or inquietude.

But is not all correct faith regulated by evidence? How then can
faith itself be an evidence of things not seen? If it be proved to a
man that there is a heaven of eternal happiness for the upright,
and if he believe the report upon this evidence, wilJ his believiu"
it bring any new evidence of the fact.^ Not if the term faith be
used according to its common meaning, to signify the mere act of
the mind in believing; but if it be applied to the full experience of
a christian, to include his act of believing and his immediate com-
munion with God, as the effect of it, this is truly an evidence of
things not seen: for God having appointed faith as the condition
or medium through which he manifests himself to the soul, when
a man embraces the Lord Jesus as his God and Saviour, the love
of God is shed abroad in his heart, which produces an immediate
conviction or consciousness of the divine presence entirely un-
known before. This is a new evidence or conviction of things not
seen, produced by the influence of the Holy Ghost, in consequence
of our believing: "for the spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirits that we are the children of God." Rom. viii. 16. This new
witness^ or evidence of things not seen, is not the act of faith, but
the effect of it; for it is the spirit that bears witness, and we re-
ceive the spirit by the hearing of faith; (Gal. iii. 2.) therefore
faith itself is not the witness, because it is faith that receives it:
the receiver and the thing received are not surely the same thing,
though the term faith is sometimes used in a figurative way to
comprehend them both.

Having noticed the several applications of this word, we now
meet the long contested question, is faith the i^ift of God?
Answer:

330 AN ESSAY ON THE

1. Let us apply the question to the faith of Simoif, and thoS^
chief rulers, who loved the praise of men more than the praise of
God: was their faith the gift of God? If the inquiry relate to
Christ, the object of their faith, (for they believed on him) this sure-
ly was the gift of God, for God gave his Son, and had this gift
been withheld, he could never have been an object of their faith.
If we mean the j;o«pr to believe, this also was the gift of God, as
are all the intellectual and physical powers of a human being. But
if the meaning be, were they enabled to believe by an immediate
influence of the Holy Spirit.'' I think the answer must be given
in the negative. Thousands believe in Christ with an indifferent
speculative faith, and they have a natural power to believe in this
manner, without any immediate influence from above.

2. As to the faith required in the gospel, that is, faith unfeign-
ed, which properly influences the affections and the conduct, this
is the gift of God in all the senses above mentioned. The object,
the power to believe, and the spiritual itijlitence through which we
believe, are all the gift of God.

3. When faith is applied to the gospel, and the system of doc-
trines contained therein, as it often is, every christian will ac-
knowledge that this heavenly system is the gift of God.

4. When the word is applied to the etfecis of faith, or the in-
dwelling power of the Holy Spirit, which becomes a new "evidence
of things not seen, by bearing witness with our spirits that we are
the children of God," this is certainly the gift of God. He has
promised to give us the Comforter to abide with us, and his word
assures us we are to receive it by faith.

5. Confining the query to that act or exercise of the mind in be-
lieving, by which we are influenced to do the works of God, and
by which we receive the in-dwelling Comforter, properly called
gospel faith, Ave must say, either (1.) that it is an act of the hu-
man mind, independent of any immediate influence from above;
or (2.) that it is an act of God, producing an eft'ect upon the hu-
man mind, without any voluntary act of that mind; or (3.) that it
is a voluntary act of the human mind, in conjunction with, or aid-
ed by, an immediate influence of the Holy Spirit.

If we admit t\\e first, it will follow that man is able, of himself,
and independent of any spiritual assistance from God, to believe
with a faith that justitieth the ungodly, that purifieth the heart,
and that overcometh the world. This coutradicts the w hole tenor
of the gospel.

PLAN OiP SALVATION. 381

If we admit the second, it will follow that faith is no gospel du-
ty, enjoined on man, but is as exclusively the act of God, as the
creation of this world. If it be a duty at all, it must be the duty
of God, for it is supposed to be the sole act of God, and we are as

passive in receiving it, as we were in receiving our existence

To say, therefore, that it is man's duty for God to act faith, is as
ridiculous as to say it is man's duty for God to create another
world. If any person can, with his eyes open, and with the bible
before him, admit, either that faith is not a gospel duty required
of man, as a condition of salvation; or that it ever was enjoined
on man, as his duty, to perform the actions of God, I feel no more
disposition to reason with such a person, than I should to reason
with Mr. Hume concerning the "existence of an external universe."
I think there is no possible alternative but to admit the third, that
gospel faith is "a voluntary act of the human mind, in conjunc-
tion with, or aided by, an immediate influence of the Holy Ghost,
embracing the truth of God, both with the understanding and the
affections."

SECTION IL

Of faith as the condition of our acceptance or justification.

Genuine gospel-faith embraces different truths at different
times, and exists in various degrees.

"Ye believe in God," says our Saviour, "believe also in me."
John xiv. 1. The disciples had long before this believed in him in
some sense, that is, they had believed this truth; "Jesus Christ is
the Messiah sent from God;" but he was now proposing another
truth concerning himself, and exhorting them to believe it, as Ave
find inverse 10,11. "The words that 1 speak unto you, 1 speak not of
myself: but the Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Believe me that I am'in the Father, and the Father in me; or else
believe me for the very works' sake."

■ 1. "They believed in God." 2. "That Christ was the Messiah,
sent from God." 3. "That he and the Father were one.-' 4. "That
he died for our sins, and rose again for our justification." 3 "That
he came to be a spiritual Saviour, manifesting the love of God to
8 C

382 AN ESSAY ON THE

his people, by the in-dwelling power of the Holy Ghost." The
two last articles they appear not to have believed till after our
Lord's resurrection, as we shall have occasion to remark presently

That there are various degrees in true faith is evident from
many passages of scripture; a few we will notice. "I am not asham"
ed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salva-
tion to every one that believeth: for therein is the righteousness of
God revealed from failh to faith." Rom. i. 16, 17. Here the apos-
tle informs us the gospel is intended to communicate light and
truth to the human mind progressively; from faith to faith. One
truth embraced opens the way for another; one act of faith pre-
pares the mind for another; and thus we proceed regularly, /rom
faith to faith.

Paul to the Thessalonians, 1 epistle, chapter iii. verse 6, says,
"Timotheus came from you unto us, and brought us good tidings
of your faith and charity." And in verse 10, he speaks of "pray-
ing exceedingly that we might see your faces, and might perfect
that which is lacking in your faith." From this I infer that they
then heartily believed according to the light they had, and yet a
higher degree of faith was necessary, and the apostle had a strong
desire to go and preach to them some higher truth, which they
were now in a proper state to receive, that he might "perfect that
which was lacking in their faith." In the next epistle, he
says, "we are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, be-
cause that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every
one of you all towards each other aboundeth." 2 Thess. i. 3.

By one degree of faith we are influenced to repent, or come un-
to God: "For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and
that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb.xv.6.
By such a faith in God's promise in Jesus Christ, as influences us
to forsake our sins and submit to the covenant of mercy, we are
brought into a state of acceptance with God. For "to him give
all the prophets witness, that, through his name, whosoever be-
lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins." Acts x. 43. By
another degree of it we experience the new birth, or receive the
spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father. For "whoso-
ever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God: and he
that [thus] believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him-
self." 1 Jolin V. 1, 10. "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh
the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even
our faith." Verse 4. "Little children your sins are forgiven for
his name's sake.— Young men — ye have overcome the wicked one.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 883

Fathers — ye have kuown him that is from the beginning." i John
ii. 12, 13. "Though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice
with joy unspeakable and full of glory." 1 Pet. i. 8. "Purifying
their hearts by faith." Acts xv. 9. "Sanctified by faith that is in
me." Actsxxvi. IS.

Those various efteets are produced, not all at once, or by one
single act of faith, but at different times, and by the successive do-
greesorstages of faith, embracing different truths, as the state of
the mind is suited to receive them. To conceive this subject more
distinctly, let us weigh the following particulars.

1. Faith is often mentioned, as though it were the sole condi-
tion of our justification. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou shall be saved; — All that believe are justified; — being justifi-
ed by faith," &e. And yet repentance, confession and reformation
are stated as essential conditions of our pardon.

" Repent ye therefare and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out; — If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to for-
give us our sins; — Let the wicked forsake his way, — and our God
will abundantly pardon."

In these promises of pardon faith is not mentioned; but repent-
ance, confession and forsaking our evil way, are said to be the
condition. How are these passages to be reconciled with those
which speak of faith as the only condition? Answer: Faith is the
root and ground of all these; it is by faith men are led to repent,
confess their sins, and forsake them; for this very purpose they
were first required to believe; and that act of the mind which so
embraces the truth as to produce sincere repentance and submis-
sion to God, is true gospel-faith, and may well be considered as the
single or principal condition of our acceptance, because it is essen-
tial to produce every thing else required.

3. That every real penitent is in possession of a degree of genu-
ing gospel-faith, may be thus proved: God is pleased with every
sincere penitent, because he has commanded repentance, and to
say he is not pleased with it, is to say he is not pleased that we
should keep his commandments. " A broken and a contrite heart,
O God, thou wilt not despise." Psalm li. 17. "A bruised reed shall
be not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send
forth judgment unto victory." Matt.xii. 24. "The Lord is nigh un-
to them that are of a broken heart." Psalm xxxiv. 18. "But to this
man will 1 look, even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit,
and trembleth at my word," Isaiah Ixvi. 2. "It is thus evident
from many particular passages in the scriptures, as well as from

384. AN ESSAY ON THE

the general account they give us of the nature of God, that he is
pleased with sincere repentance.

" But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that
Cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder
of them that diligently seek him." Heb. xi. 6.

Therefore every true penitent has faith, as the stimulating prin-
ciple which leads him to seek that he may find, to ask that he may
receive, and to knock that it may be opened unto him.

3. He that conieih to God must believe that he is: — that he is
God, powerful, wise, true, just and good. A serious attention to
the evidence of this great truth, and of the sinner's want of con-
formity to this divine nature, produces a conviction that he is
guilty and polluted, that sin is exceeding sinful, or in other words,
that he is a miserable oftender, whose crimes have great demerit,
and expose him to a just sentence of condemnation. This leads to
godly sorrow, to self-reproaches, and to deep regret or lamentation
for having been such an offender.

4. He must believe that God is a rewarder of them that diligent-
ly seek him. This faith, by all who are under the gospel dispen-
sation, has the goodness of God in Jesus Christ for its object. —
The serious, inquiring mind searches into the evidence of the di-
vine mercy to sinners, and finds it all pointing to Jesas Christ, as
the only Mediator betiveen God and man. The gospel proclaims
God in Christ reconciling the ivorld unto himself. The poor
mourner believes God is a merciful Being; that he accepts all tru-
ly penitent sinners, for the sake of Christ's atonement; aud that
he will thus accept him in the beloved, when he shall have fully
surrendered to the terms of reconciliation,

5. When a man exercises such a degree of faith in these truths,
as produces a genuine repentance; when he has such an abhor-
renoe of sin, and such an acquiescence in God's plan of saving sin-
ners, as leads him to submit to Christ as his prophet, priest and
king, he is accepted in the beloved. When he fully surrenders
himself, and consents to be saved according to the covenant of
mercy in Jesus Christ, God is reconciled to him, because his vO'
hmtiwy hostility to the divine government has ceased, which is
the only thing that hinders any sinner of Adam's race from being
accepted, since Jesus magnified the law and made it honourable.

6. This laith is the condition of the sinner's pardon or justifica-
tion. God has pledged his truth and goodness in the Redeemer,
to accept all sinners who lay down the weapons of their rebellion,
and sincerely submit that Christ should rule oyer them. It is by

PLAN OF SALVATION. 385

faith they are influenced to this, and that very exercise of the
mind in crediting fJod's word, which leads to true repentance
confession, forsaking of sin, and humble submission to Christ's
authority, is the condition of the sinner's pardon or acceptance in
the beloved.

I am aware that it has often been represented, and it accords
perfectly with the whole system of predestination, that all the sin-
ner's repentance, confession, forsaking , sin, and the faith which
produced them, are to go for nothing; and that some new act of
faith is required, as the sole condition of his justification. That
in the midst of all liis penitence and humble acknowledgments,
the wrath of God is flaming against him, and will so continue till
he shall receive faith; and this new faith which he receives, after
his repentance, amendment, and submission, is the sole term or
condition of his acceptance. That he has no ground to expect
that any of his attempts to seek the Lord are any thing in God's
account, because "faith is the total term of all salvation," and
this faith he has not yet received: it is held at the disposal of his
Maker, and whether he w ill ever give it or not, depends upon his
own sovereign pleasure. The penitent must lie at the footstool of
sovereign mercy: if faith should be given, all will be well; but if
the Sovereign should refuse to give him faith, the poor mourning
creature must depart into hell for not receiving it-

The sinner is supposed to receive faith, as passively as a vessel
receives water, and at the same moment he receives pardon; this
faith is the condition of his pardon, and yet it is the sole act of
God, as much as the act of forgiving the sinner's transgressions!
Then it seems God performs one act as the condition of his per-
forming another, and this act of God is required as the duty of
man, being the grand and sole condition, on which his salvation
or damnation turns! 1 desire to know tiow this is to be reconciled
with the plain word of God, which promises pardon upon our con-
fessing our sins, — upon our repenting and being converted, — and
upon our forsaking our way and returning unto the Lord. 1 John
i. 9. Acts iii. 19. Isa. Iv. 7.

Is all this included in the faith we receive the moment we are
justified.^ or is it the condition of our receiving that faith,^ The
promise of pardon is given on condition of repentance, confession
and forsaking sin; but faith is represented in other places as the
sole condition of our acceptance; therefore there is no way to avoid
. charging the scriptures with contradiction, but to maintain that
the very faith which is received as a condition of forgiveness, is

386 AN ESSAY ON THE

that vvliich compreliends or produces repentance, confession and
amendment. To say a sinner is forgiven upon another faith, dis-
tinct from that which produces repentance, &c. is to say, eitlier
that he may be forgiven without repentance, or that there are other
indispensable conditions of his receiving pardon, beside that of
faith, and whicli are not necessarily connected with it. It remains
to be proved then, that repentance, confession of sin, and forsaking
it, are all included in that passive faith which we are supposed to
receive at the moment of our justification, or to contradict the
scriptures, which necessarily imply, that the faith which is re-
ceived as the one condition of our pardon, is that which compre-
hends all the othej' conditions with which the promise of pardon
is connected.

To say repentance can exist without faith — that it is the condi-
tion on which we receive faith — and that God's act of impressing
this faith upon our passive souls, is the condition of our accep-
tance— is a confused notion that has arisen out of the system of
predestination, and which has no countenance from the oracles of
God.

I grant when the term faith is used in its highest and most ex-
tensive sense, as including the in-dwelling power of the Holy Spi-
rit, it is properly received from God; but this blessing is received,
not as the condition of our pardon, but as the consequence of it.

7. Pardon is an act of the divine will: who can forgive sins but
God only."^ The act of God in pardoning or accepting a penitent
sinner in Christ, and his giving the sinner a spiritual manifestation,
or full assurance of his being accepted, are distinct from each
other, and are not necessarily inseparable. The latter cannot exist
without the former: but the former may exist without the latter.
That is, a man cannot know his acceptance before he is accepted,
but he may be accepted before he has a divine assurance of it.
But some appear to think that a mane's consciousness or knoivledge
of his acceptance, is the very faith, that is required as the condi-
tion of his acceptance: that is, that he shall be accepted, on condi-
tion that he first know he is accepted! That God gives us a divine
assurance of his love, not as a cojise^-wej/ce of our believing, but
i\\\?,assuranceof the divine favour, \?,i\\e very faith, on condition of
whicli, "we are received into the divine favour!" These mysteries
are truly worthy the Antinomian Babel.

There is a passage in our Saviour's discourse to his disciples,
most unhappily applied to prove this strange doctrine: "At that
day ye shall know, that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in

PLAN OF SALVATION. 3g7

you." John xir. 20. It is taken for granted without examination
that this promise of assurance applies to the very day, and the
very hour, when men are first accepted of God in Christ Jesus;
whereas the context is a clear proof of the contrary. Will any man
presume to say the disciples were following Jesus all this while
and yet were "in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniqui-
ty?" Were they not accepted of the Father, and did he not love
them, because they had believed that Jesus came out from Ged?
And yet in this chapter their kind Redeemer is supporting their
minds against the sorrow they felt upon the prospect of his ap-
proaching fate, by promising them a comforter m hich should come
from the Father after his resurrection, and abide with them for-
ever. Speaking of this event, he says, "I will not leave you com-
fortless; I will come to you." Verse 18. That is, I will come in
the in-dwelling power of my Holy Spirit: ("for the Holy Ghost
was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.") It
follows, "At that day [namely, "when the comforter is come,
whom the Father will send in my name"] ye shall know, that I am
in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." Ye shall have a con-
scious assurance of the divine presence, that will be better than
my personal presence with you.

This promise was not fulfilled till after our Lord's resurrection.
The day after his resurrection they still proved themselves slow
of heart to believe the spirituality of his kingdom. They were di-
rected to tarry at Jerusalem till they should receive power from
on high; and after waiting sometime in faith and prayer, the Holy
Ghost came upon them, and after this they went on tlieir way with
an unwavering assurance, very different from the doubtful and un-
settled state of mind they had manifested before.

8. This divine assurance is also received by faith. There is a
distinction between this faith and that which brought the sinner
to a state of acceptance, both as to the particular truth believed,
and as to the effiect of believing. In the former case the truth be-
lieved was this: "God being a rewarder of them that diligently
seek him," accepts all penitents who heartily repent of their sins,
and fully submit to the Redeemer, as their prophet, priest and
king. He will pardon and accept me in the beloved, Mhen I shall
Iiave fully surrendered to the terms of reconciliation. This faith
leads to "diligent seeking, asking, humiliation, confession, stri-
ving against sin, disclaiming personal merit, relying upon Christ,-'
&c. In order to make a full surrender, and meet the gracious
overtures of God, in his covenant of mercy through Jesus Christ

388 AN ESSAY ON THE

The truth believed in the latter case is this: "God is now my
reconciled Father, and graciously accepts me as his child, for the
sake of the merit and atonement of my Re<leemer." This faith af-
fectionately embraces God as a Father and a friend; it relies upon
him with a filial confidence, and "sets to our seal that God is true,"
in his great and precious promises; and he kindly answers, accord-
ing to thy faith so be it unto thee; and gives us the spirit of adop-
tion, whereby we cry abba Father.

This is the faith by which a christian gains his victories over
the world, the flesh and the devil. A filial confidence in God as
our loving Father in Jesus Christ, invigorates every faculty of
our souls, and influences us, "by patient continuance in well do-
ing," to "seek for glory, and honour, and immortality. Cast not
away your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward.'^
God is well pleased to see us trust in his paternal goodness; and
for a christian to cast away his confidence in God, as his reconci-
led Father, while conscious of a sincere desire and purpose to do
his will to the best of his ability, is to reproach his Maker, and t«
represent him as being less willing to be reconciled with his crea-
tures, than they are to be reconciled with him. The same may be
said of a penitent, who with the most sincere solicitude has long
laboured to forsake all his sins, and to submit to his merciful Re-
deemer; but who is still writing bitter things against himself, and
considering God as being afar ott', frowning with vengeance upon
his soul. "He abhors himself, repenting in dust and ashes;" and
yet, being entaiigled in the theories of predestination, he holds it
altogether doubtful whether the Sovereign pleasure will deign to
regard his plaintive cries. The great God, he thinks, is very an-
gry with him, and intends never to give him faith. All his peni-
tence he has been taught to consider as filthincss, and his very
breath is sin! He has no ground to indulge any confidence in God,
on account of his deep repentance, and his hungering after the
blessings of the new covenent; but must ever consider himself as
an accursed being, unless it should please God to give him faith;
and this is altogether uncertain, for if his present contrition and
humility are nothing in God's account, what likelihood is there
that God will give faith to him any sooner than to an impenitent
sinner.? Is there any promise in the bible that God will give a man
fiiith, in consequence of his repentance? Is it any where said, "Re-
pent ye therefore, and be converted," and I will give you faith.^
Is there any promise that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful
and just" to give us faith? What unbecoming thoughts of God

PLAN OP SALVATION. 339

is this poor creature taught to entertain! The Lord Jesus Christ
has died upon the cross for his redemption; his soul is weary of
his sins, and pants after the living God, more than for his neces-
sary food; and yet he thinks the Almighty refuses to be reconciled!
He ought to consider that God is love, and that he is reconciled
to every soul of us the very moment we are reconciled to give up
our sins, and submit to the government of the Lord Jesus Christ.
His unchangeable character is pledged: the promise is given: itis
confirmed by an oath, and sealed with "the blood of the everlast-
ing covenant:" and yet we are to suppose, it seems, that however
a sinner may repent, and prostrate himself at the feet of Jesus,
God is no more reconciled with him than with any other sinner.
"Faith is the total term of all salvation:" God has not been pleased
to give him faith; he has never promised to give it on condition of
repentance; and therefore this person may repent and strive during
the whole of his probation, and still continue a poor miserable un-
believer, because God will not give him faith.

If it be said all those will certainly receive faith who rightly
seek and ask for it, I must answer, (1.) I know of no passage Ih
the bible which commands us to ask for faith. In one place the
disciples prayed, Lord increase our faith, and a certain person on
another occasion said, Lord I believe, help thou mine unbeliefj
but this supposes they had faith, and only prayed for help, or
spiritual assistance, that the same faith might be increased. (2.)
Although Christ has assured us our "heavenly Father will give
the Holy Spirit to them that ask him," and that this Spirit w ill
help our infirmities, yet I know of no promise that God will give
faith to them that ask him. And if there be no such promise, oix
what ground is it presumed so confidently that this passive faith
which is received in the moment of justification, will be given to
all that seek and ask for it? (3.) We are commanded to seek and
ask in faith, and are assured that the man who does not pray ia
faith is like a wave of the sea; and "let not that man think
that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." James i. 6, 7. Now if
we ask before we have faith, we certainly ask w ithout faith, and
therefore shall not receive any thing of the Lord; and it is very
evident that the very faith which accompanies our seeking and
asking is the condition of our acceptance. If men receive faith in
the moment of their justification, in consequence of seeking and
asking for it, then we say their seeking and asking are the condi-
tion, and faith is the very blessing they receive in consequence of
performing the condition; which plainly contradicts the deciara-
3D

390 AN ESSAY ON THE

tiou of St. James, as well as several important sayings of oar Re-
deemer.

But it maybe objected "that a man must feel that he is pardoned
and accepted in the beloved, before lie can believe it; otherwise he
may deceive himself and believe a falsehood." Answer:

1. Is it not equally possible for a man to take some feeling for
a pardon, which is only imaginary.^ and if so, is he not equally li-
able to deceive himself and believe a falsehood, on supposition
that he must first feel his acceptance, and then believe it, as he is
on supposition that he must first believe in God's fatherly appro-
bation of him in the beloved, and receive the evidence or con-
sciousness of it through the medium of this cordial embrace of his
Heavenly Father by faith?

2. God requires of us to believe his truth upon the evidence ex-
hibited in the gospel, before he gives us the full evidence of con-
scious assurance, by ihe in-dwelling power of his Holy Spirit. —
The gospel proclaims that "God was in Christ r^iconciling the
world unto himself;" that he "is not willing any should perish,
but that all should come to repentance;" that the obstacle which
hinders our acceptance, is our hostility to the divine government,
or our obstinate refusal to be reconciled to God: of course, when
we so believe the truth as to be brought to genuine repentance
and submission to Christ's authority, the obstruction is removed,
and we are accepted of God through the Redeemer. We are
then to believe that we are accepted, and that the Almighty loves
us freely, for the sake of Christ's atonement, because we heartily
repent of our sins and consent to be reconciled to God. To sup-
pose God is not reconciled to a man, when that man sincerely re-
pents, confesses his sins, and is reconciled to the covenant of
grace, is to contradict the gospel, and to suppose that there is still
soine other obstacle in the M'ay,beside the sinner's voluntary hostility.
It is to suppose that some private obstruction exists in the mind of
God; and therefore though the sinner exercises all the faith, repen-
tance and submission in his power, yet the Almighty will not be
reconciled on this account, but enjoins some other act of faith as
the sole condition of his accepting the sinner, which he reserves
in his own sovereign power, to give when he pleases, and which
the sinner must passively receive. This notion accords very well
with the divine sovereignty, partiality and arbitrary will, attribu-
ted to God in some human creeds; but it will never agree with
the moral attributes proclaimed in the gospel; and I fear hundreds
of mourning penitents have been led by it to entertain very unbe-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 391

coming thoughts of God, and have bseo miserably entangled iu
these remains of the gloomy system of reprobation.

3. As to the danger of a man's deceiving himself, I cannot help
thinking the charge justly falls upon the passive faiih of the An-
tinomian. For if "faith is the total term of all salvation," and if
this faith is received in the moment of justification, is it not an ea-
sy matter for a man, whose soul was never thoroughly humbled by
repentance, but who has felt some desire to be converted, to take
a sudden impulse or feeling for this gift of faith, and then to take
for granted that he is in a state of justification? He is delivered
at once, and by a very short process, from the trouble of repen-
tance; and having never surrendered to the yoke of Christ, his ap-
petites and passions retain the ascendency; but notwithstanding
his loose morals, he can remember when he received faith, aad
therefore he glories in his full justification.

4. If it be said that a man upon this ground may believe him-
self into a state of acceptance when he pleases, seeing he has
nothing to do but to believe God is reconciled with him, the an-
swer is easy. First, any man who believes he is in the divine fa-
vour before a gospel -faith has led him to genuine repentance, be-
lieves a falsehood; and the ditference is nothing, whether he be-
lieve this falsehood, upon the bare supposition that he had a
right to believe it, or upon some imaginary or passionate feeling
which he took for the gift of faith and justification. Secondly,
when a man has truly repented and become reconciled to God, he
is accepted, and has a right to claim the promise, or to believe
in his Father's love, M'hen he pleases. It is now a truth that he
is in favour with God, and I hope a man has a right to believe the
truth at any time. Thirdly, when a man believes he is accepted,
before he is so, there will be no corresponding influence of the
Spirit on his mind, bearing witness to the justness and truth of
his claim, because God will never bear witness to a lie. Fourthly,
if a man should fondly imagine he has such a corresponding wit-
ness, when it is not so .in ideality, the word of God gives very
clear rules by which he is to examine himself whether he be in the

faith. And the man who thinks he can point to the place and time
when faith was given him from heaven, is equally bound to exam-
ine himself by the same standard: for he too may be deceived.
What then are the rules by which our faith is to be tried, and
proved to be genuine.'' Will one say "I know the time and place
when the Almighty gave me faith, and pardoned all my sins.'"'
Another may as truly say, «I know not when the Almigty for-

393 AN ESSAY ON THE

gave my sins; but I remember the time and place, when my spirit
first believed God was my reconciled Father, and upon whicl^
"The Spirit of God did bear witness with my spirit that I w as a
child of God." Another may say, "I know not w hen my sins were
forgiven, or w hen I first received the clear evidence of it: but I
now have a clear evidence that I am accepted in the beloved."

Without wasting time in contending which of these experiences
is the best, 1 must contend upon the authority of God's word, that
they are all to be tried by the same standard. And there is no rule
in that standard which says, "the criterion by which your experi-
ence must be proved sound and genuine, is, that you be able to tell
the place and time when you received faith, or when you were
justitied." 1 never found such a rule as this in the bible, though I
have learned it from other sources. It has sometimes been insinuat-
ed or declared, tliat if a man cannot tell the very time when he re-
ceived faith and was justified, he is yet in the way to hell. Per-
sons of this opinion, in all likelihood, repose great confidence
in this criterion, and glory in being able to tell the place and time
when God gave them faith; "but God forbid that I should glory,"
says the apostle, "save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom the world is crucified, unto me, and I unto the world." Gal.
vi. 14. "Does not talking about a justified or sanctified state tend to
mislead men.^" says Mr. Wesley: "Does it not naturally lead them
to trust in what was done in one moment? Whereas we are every
moment pleasing or displeasing to God according to our works:
according to the whole of our present inward tempers and out-
ward behaviour."

The apostle John, in his first epistle, fifth chapter, lays down
the rules by which we are to examine ourselves whether we be in
the [christian] faith. 1. "Faith worketh by love. Whosoever be-
lieveth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that
loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of
him." 1 John v. 1. Let us examine whether we have the "genu-
ine mark of love," or whether our faith worketh by bigotry and
malice. Let us not presume that we love God, while we indulge
angry and malevolent aftections against his creatures.

3. "This faith, working by love, leads to gospel obedience.
For this is is the love of God, that we keep his commandments;
and his commandments are not grievous." Verse 3. The Apostle
James urges this criterion against the Antinomians of his time:
"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils
also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that
faith without works is dead?" James ii. 19, 20.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 393

3. The faith of a christian produces victory. <'For whatsoever
is born of God overcometh the uorld: and this is the victory that
overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcom-
eth the w"brld, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of
God.?" Verse 4, 5.

4. He that believeth with this loving, working.and victorious faith,
hath the witness of the Holy Spirit. For "he that believeth on the
Sou of God hath the witness in himself." Verse 10.

These are the criterions God has directed us to use, when we
examine ourselves whether we be in the faith; and any man whose
faith will bear this test, is a genuine christian, loved and approv-
ed of God, w hatever might have been the particular mode of his
conversion. ♦

He whose faith worketh by a flaming, fiery zeal, or bigoted fu-
ry; he who is destitute of the meekness and gentleness of Christ;
and who is not only loose and irregular in his moral conduct, but
proud, selfish, and resentful in his disposition, is no genuine chris-
tian, however he may profess to have the witness in himself, and
be able to tell the day when he received faith and justification.
God directs us to judge of our state, not by one of those rules alone,
but by the whole of them in conjunction; and in vain may we pre-
sume to separate "the witness of the spirit, from the fruits of right-
eousness which are by faith of Jesus Christ."

SECTION m.

Whether faith depends upon the will.

Is not belief an involuntary act necessarily following the degree
of evidence perceived? And has a man power to believe when he
pleases?

To answer the first question we may observe:

1. In all cases where the evidence is irresistible, the belief or
decision of the judgment is involuntary, and follows of necessity,
tvhen the evidence is fully before the mind. That I now exist, and
am now thinking and writing, I believe of necessity, because the
evidence is irresistible: it is impossible for me to believe the con-
trary. When a man feels acute pain, his feeling or consciousness

394c AN ESSAY ON THE

is irresistible, and it is impossible for him to believe that lie feels
no pain, when he is conscious that he does. The same may be
said of many other truths. But,

^. To say all belief is involuntary, is to say all evidence is
alike irresistible, and of course that all we hear or read concern-
ing the comparative degrees of evidence, is founded in absurdity;
for it is surely absurd to talk of there being degrees in absolute
necessity. The same may be said concerning the degrees of be-
lieving: if all my belief is absolutely necessary, no one act of belief
can be stronger or more firm than another, unless it be possible
for something to be more firm than necessity. All men of reflection
will acknowledge, for example, that we have probable evidence to
believe the other planets ai'e inhabited by living creatures; but
will anv one say he is under the same necessity to believe there
are living creatures in the moon or the planet Jujnter, that he is
under to believe there are living creatures upon this €tfirth.?

3. Mr. Hume's maxim is acknowledged to be true, by Deists,
Christians, Turks and Jews: "A wise man will proportion his be-
lief to the evidence." But this surely supposes belief to be in our
power: for if all evidence produces belief of necessity, it is impossi-
ble for any man not to proportion his belief to the evidence; and iu
this respect there can be no distinction between a wise man and a
fool: all are equally wise, all equally conform their belief to the
evidence, and that of necessity.

4. If belief be not in our power, and can in no case depend up-
on our will, all complaints of deists and philosophers concerning
the credulity of mankind, and their proneness to be too dogmatical
in their belief, is truly ridiculous: for why complain if they al-
ways proportion their belief to the evidence, which the objection
supposes they must do of necessity.^

5. All our complaints against the incredulity or unbelief of in-
fidels are equally absurd, for the same reason. They do not be-
lieve in Christianity; but the objection says they believe every
thing for which they have evidence, and cannot do otherwise;
therefore the reason why they believe not, is that they never had
any evidence: consequently, if my objector blame them for their
unbelief, he wishes them to believe without evidence, and at the
same time, maintains that it is impossible!

6. If all belief is necessarily produced according to the evi-
dence, then it is impossible for a man either to resist evidence, or
to believe without evidence. Consequently, no man in the world
ever deceived himself, or believed a falsehood, otherwise you say
a man is led into a falsehood by believing according to evidence.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 395

If so, evidence not only impels belief, but also supports delusion;
and therefore truth and falsehood are both supported alike, and no
man ever believed a falsehood, without being led into it by such a
force of evidence as was perfectly irresistible.

7. Every man of good character, who gives his testimony con-
cerning matters ef fact, claims a right to be believed: if his neigh-
bours and children refuse to credit any thing he says, and to be-
Ifeve he is a liar, he feels himself injured, and blames them for
discrediting his testimony. But according to the hypothesis here
opposed, he ought not to blame them at all; because if this theo-
ry be true, the reason why they discredit his word is, that they
have irresistible evidence to believe him a liar.

8. When our Lord first appeared to his disciples after his re-
surrection, Thomas was not among them: "The other disciples
therefore said unto him, we have seen the Lord. Thomas knew
their character, and could not deny that their united testimony-
was a just ground of belief: yet it seems he had resolved not to be-
lieve upon any other kind or degree of evidence than that of sight
and feeling. "Except 1 shall see in his hands the print of the
nails, and put my fingers into the print of the nails, and thrust my
hand into his side, 1 will not believe.*' John xx. 25. Was not
Thomas here conscious that it depended upon his will, whether
he would believe upon this evideuc3, or withhold assent till he
should obtain greater.^ That he might have believed when he re-
fused to do so, and that it would have been truly virtuous for him
to have given credit to the testimony of his brethren, without in-
dulging such obstinate scepticism, is evident from our Lord's reply:
"Jesus saith unto hira, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou
hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have
believed." Verse 29.

9. Lastly, We may appeal to the consciousness of every living
man, if the act of believing be not often as voluntary as any other
action of his soul. He can examine evidence, or refuse to exa-
mine it. He can resist his prejudices and passions, or he can sub-
mil to them. He can yield to the influence of imagination, or he
can oppose its influence. And it is in a great degree, at his
option, whether his opinions be formed according to the model of
some favourite leader, the creed of his party, or by a patient and
eandid examination of evidence.

The objection supposes that there is no such thing as prejudice,
obstinacy, or a disposition to reject evidence, in the world. Or at
least, if there be such things, they can have no eftect; for however

396 AN ESSAY ON THE

bigoted and obstinate a man may be, whenever he hears a good
argument advanced by his adversary, he is supposed to yiehl to its
evidence as necessarily as matter gravitates lo the centre.

This notion of faith is supported by deists, as well as by predes-
tinarian divines. Palmer advances it in his "Principles of Na-
ture," page 62. "Faith," says he, "is the assent of the mind to
the truth of a proposition supported by evidence. If the evidence
adduced is sufficient to convince the mind, credence is theneccssa-
ry result — if the evidence be insufficient, belief becomes impossi-
ble. In religion, therefore, or in any other of the concerns of life,
if the mind discerns tliat quantum of evidence necessary to estab-
lish the truth of any proposition, it will yield to the force and effect
of the proofs which are produced; if, on the other hand, the intel-
ligence of man does not discern the necessary influence of such
evidence, infidelity will be the natural and unavoidable result. —
Why then is the principle of faith considered as a virtue.^ When
therefore, the christian religion represents faith as being merito-
rious, it betrays an ignorance of nature, and becomes censurable
by its deviation from the primary and essential arrangements. Yet
in this holy book, we are told, that "he that believeth not, shall
be damned."

Strange, that Mr. Palmer, after advancing this sentiment, which
he appears to believe with great assurance, should complain so
much of the credulous vulgar, who tamely give up their reason,
and believe whatever priests are pleased to propose to their cre-
dence. He cannot complain of any of us, for believing in the
christian religion; for he says, "if the evidence adduced is suffi-
cient to convince the mind, credence is the necessary result — if the
evidence be insufficient, belief becomes impossible." Therefore
the reason we believe the truth of Christianity is, that "the evi-
dence adduced is sufficient;" for had it been "insufficient," belief
would have been "impossible." And w by complain of priests for
deceitfully taking advantage of the prejudices and passions of the
people, if "belief becomes impossible" upon any ground but that
of "sufficient evidence.^" If this be so, the only reason why priests
or philosophers, atheists or fanatics, have been believed in the
contradictory opinions they have advanced, is, that they all "ad-
duced sufficient evidence," and therefore, "credence was the ne-
cessary result:" for had it been otherwise, "belief" would have
"become impossible." Thus, Mr. Palmer, to excuse his own un-
belief, excuses all fanatics, hypocrites and bigots in the world, and
maintains that they regulate their belief by evidence, as aniformlf

PLAN OP SALVATION. 395^

as the most candid person in existence. And yet he says in
another place, "if you can once persuade a man, that he is total-
ly ignorant of the subject on which you are about to discourse, you
can make him believe any thing." Page 27.

The truth is, as universal experience shows, that the imagina-
tion, the passions and prejudices of men, when yielded to, have an
influence upon belief; and it is in a considerable degree optional
with every man, whether his faith shall be regulated by evidence,
or by some other standard.

As to the second question, can a man believe when he pleases?
it needs but a short answer:

First, It will be readily granted, I suppose, that a man, while
awake, and in his right mind, is able to believe some truths, or ex-
ercise his mind in some acts of believing, when he pleases.

Secondly, As to genuine gospel-faith, which produces true re-
pentance and submission to God, a man is dependant on the divine
influence, which enlightens the eyes of his understanding, but
which is not irresistible, and does not destroy his agency. If
there be any time in which he cannot exercise this faith, in any
degree, the fault is in himself, and not in God. He may have
grieved the Holy Spirit of God, and incapacitated himself to ex-
ercise any lively or influential act of faith for the present; but ex-
cepting such particular cases, I presume he may exercise some
degree of faith at any time. If it were asked, can a man exercise
his reason when he pleases.'' I think the proper answer would be
that in general he can; but he may incapacitate himself by drunk-
enness, or otherwise, and for the time being, may not have it in his
power to think or act like a reasonable creature. So a man may
injure his faculties, grieve the spirit, and for the time being, feel
himself unable to get forward in the ways of God; but in general,
a sincere soul may believe in some degree, or use the means of
faith, when he pleases.

The word of God assures us that faith cometh by hearing; and
I hope it will be admitted that a man may hear or read the word, by
which faith cometh, whenhe pleases. A man may think when he
pleases; and though he may feel it impossible for him now to rise,
as it were, to the third heaven, and commune with God, yet he can
meditate a little upon the sufferings of Jesus on Mount Calvary,
and upon the end for which he died and rose again from the dead.
These serious reflections will peradventure have a greater ten-
dency to enkindle the spark of faith within liim, than some of his
most painful struggles to bring Christ down from above.
3£

aat* AN ESSAY ON THE

Thirdly, Whether a man can believe that he is accepted of
God, through Christ, when he pleases, or not, it is very evident
the man who believes it before he has truly repented, whether
upon the ground of some feeling which he took for justification, or
otherwise, believes a /a^se/iooc/. Ifthisbethe faith alluded to in
the inquiry, the answer is, that no man can, at any time, believe
it as a truth, who has not fully surrendered to Christ; and if he
should believe it when it is not true, this surely is not gospel-faith.
But he who has so repented as to become reconciled to God, is
accepted in the beloved, and God is reconciled to him. He new
has a right to believe it, at any time, because every man has a
right to believe the truth; and I apprehend nothing hinders him
from having the power also, except it be some voluntary declension
in heart, or some Antinomian delusion. But hundreds, it may be
said, know by experience that a man cannot believe when he
pleases; for they have often laboured to believe, and found it as
impossible as for them to make a world; and afterwards, when
they were not thus striving, faith was given them at a time alto-
gether unexpected. Answer:

What were they labouring to believe.^ Were they striving t©
embrace that truth which it was then their duty to believe.** And
did they labour to do their duty, and at the same time find it im-
possible for them to do it.** Then it seems a man's duty is, to do
that which is impossible. Faith cometh by hearing. Did they la-
hour to hear the word of God, and find it impossible? Did they
Jabour to hear with attention, candor, self-examination, humility
and earnest prayer.^ And is it true, that all these things were com-
pletely out of their power? Were they striving to meditate upon
the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ, to understand the di-
vine nature, to treasure up the gospel promises in their memory,
to weaken their attachments to the worldy and to exercise their
thoughts on heavenly things? And was it absolutely impossible
for them to do any of these things? If it was not, let it be remem-
bered that in doing them, they were attending to the very matters
which the word of God enjoins as conditions of our acceptance;
faith is the ground of all these exertions, and when it is brought
into this proper exercise, according to the power we have, more
faith (or power to believe) will come through these means, seeing
" faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

If the man was then exercising his faith in the very way the
word of God directs, how can it be said with truth that he labouv-
p.d to believe and found it impossible?

PLAN OF SALVATION. 899

But I suppose the meaning of the objection is, that he tried
to believe himself into a state of unutterable joy, like that of Paul
when he was carried up into the third heaven; and that he found
this to be impossible. And because the penitent cannot rise to the
state of a ftither in Christ in a moment, it is concluded that he
has no power to believe: as if nothing was to be called /ai^/t, but
the full assurance of our spiritual union with God, produced by
the in-dwelling power of the Holy Spirit.

We will suppose a little child is just now beginning to Malk,
and that a person asks the question, can this child become a man
M'hen he pleases? Is he able to become a man at any time? The
obvious answer is, that it is impossible. Then, says he, you have
granted all I contend for; namely, that the child can do nothing,
but must passively wait till it shall please God to give it man-
hood.

This is a very sophistical conclusion, because, thongh a child
cannot become a man when he pleases, yet he can use that exercise
and those means, which are within his power, and which naturally
tend to manhood. In like manner a penitent has power to exercise
faith in some degree; and one degree, or act of believing, will
make way for another. For him to neglect that exercise which is
Avithin his power, and vainly attempt to become an established be-
liever in a moment, without taking all the intervening steps, is like
a man standing at the foot of a ladder, labouring to reach the mid-
dle or the top of it at one step. Can this man ascend to the top of
the ladder in a moment? It is impossible. And while he labours
to do so, he is like a man beating the air, and will continue on the
ground, till he shall learn to take the intervening steps, and thu^
regularly progress from one stage to another.

How many mourning souls have thought they had the indubitable
proof of experience that they could do nothing, when the fact was,
they were neglecting the truths within their reach, to grasp at the
fulness of christian salvation, without taking the proper steps to at-
tain it? The penitent, after labouring hard to receive faith, or to bring
Christ down from above, sits down discouraged, and concludes he
can do nothing. But has not his faith already influenced him to
"humble himself under the mighty hand of God?" Has it not led
him to forsake his evil way, to confess his sins, repent of them, and
submit that "the man Christ Jesus should reign over him?" And
is all this doing nothing? As sure as the word of our God shall
stand forever, it is doing the very things which are enjoined as the
terms of our acceptance or justification.

400 AN ESSAY ON THE

But «we have received it as a maxim," says Mr. Wesley, "that
a mauis to do nothing in order to justification. Nothing can be
more false: for he that comes to God must 'cease to do evil, and
learn to do well;' he that repents must 'do works meet for repen-
tance:' And if this is not in order to find favour, what does he do
them for?" God commands him to do them, and that in order to
find.favour, promising in the most solemn manner, that all who re-
pent and confess their sins shall find mercy.

And has not the mourner power to examine himself, to know
whether he has made a full surrender? Has he not power to search
the scriptures, to know what are the gospel terms of reconciliation?
Has he not power to meditate upon the evidence God has given
of his love to man? and is not attention to evidence the thing which
produces faith? Is he wishing to believe without evidence? Or does
he expect God requires him to found his faith on some new evi-
dence not yet given, instead of requiring him to pay proper atten-
tion to the evidence he has? "It is accepted according to that a man
hath, not according to that he hath not."

By self-examination, by comparing the present statex)f his mind,
of which he is conscious, m ith the marks and fruits meet for re-
pentance, which he will find stated in the scriptures; and by a
careful attention to the divine influence on his mind, a penitent
may have sufficient evidence of the reality of his surrender to the
covenant of grace. Upon this evidence, together with that con-
tained in the promises in general, he has a right to claim God as
his gracious Father, reconciled to him through the blood of the
everlasting covenant. He has no right to expect any higher evi-
dence, while he refuses to pay proper attention to this: and liir a
penitent to refuse to believe in his Father's present reconciling
love, until he shall be compelled (o do it, by an overpowering reve-
lation from heaven, is to act like Thomas, who declared "except
I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and thrust my hand
into his side, I will not believe." God may condescend to the weak-
ness of some, as he did to the weakness of Thomas; and may give
them an extraordinary manifestation to help their unbelief; but as
Jesus said "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have be-
lieved;" so I am persuaded God is well pleased to see a sincere
penitent believe in his Fatherly goodness, upon the general evi-
dence of the gospel, without waiting to "see the heavens opened,
and the Son of man standing on the right of God," Such a sincere
soul, whose faith thus glorifies God, by crediting the record he
has given of his Son, without resolving (like Paine) to disbelieve

PLAN OF SALVATION. 40i

the evidence contained in the gospel, till a new revelation shall be
given to continn the truth of the old; shall be rewarded with a
peaceful answer, and shall know by happy experience, that "bless-
ed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

A man of an honest mind, who thus believes he is accepted in
the beloved, will be careful to examine the fruits of his faith, to
know whether it will bear the gospel test. Does it work by love?
Does he find that every successive act of this faith draws him into
closer communion with God? Does it increase his hatred of sin,
and his pleasure in the practice of justice, mercy and truth? Does
it lead him to set his attection on things above, not on things on
the earth? and to "endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus
Christ?" By these marks and evidences he may be settled in a
sure trust and confidence, that he is a child of God by faith in
Jesus Christ: and no soul that thus conforms himself to the truth
of the gospel, will ever be deceived.

As to the argument founded on experience, that many have re-
ceived faith like lightening from heaven, when they were not
looking for it; we may observe,

1. Great allowance is to be made for those who have been en-
tangled in the theories of Antinomiauism. They have laboured
hard to bring Christ down from above, and God condescended at
length to their weakness and ignorance of the way of rigteousness,
and helped them out of the slough of despond, by an extraordina-
ry display of his enlightening and drawing power: upon this they
believed, and went on their way rejoicing. "Thomas, because thou
hast seen, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen,
and yet have believed."

2. The reason why they laboured so hard to believe and could
not, may have been, that they thought faith was away up in hea-
ven, and were labouring to bring it down: but finding their labour
vain, they gave over the struggle, and to their astonishment, in a
very little while after, they were unexpectedly relieved, and ena-
bled to rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Upon this they conclude,
that while they sought for faith they could not find it: but after
they gave over seeking, faith was given them from above. But
the truth of the case may be, that after they gave over the fruit-
less labour to bring Christ down from above, which was an exer-
cise of unbelief, i\vt^ found the word was nigh them, and believed it,
npon which their Redeemer answered, "according to thy faith so
be it unto thee."

402 AN ESSAY ON THE

3. An appeal to experience, in support of any doctrine, is not to
be received unless it accord with the oracles of God. This appeal
was made in Mr. Wesley's time: "God does iu fact justify those
who by their own confession neither feared him, nor wrought
righteousness." That is, as I understand it, that faith was unex-
pectedly given, before they repented, or did works meet for repen-
tance. This contradicts the scripture, and such an Antinomian
faith and justification, ought to be examined with a jealous eye.
Such a person may glory in his conversion being very instantane-
ous, and that faith was given in a wonderful manner; but what is
his faith now? Do we not need as strong faith now as in the hour
of our justification.^

SECTION IV.

Of the right exercise of the understanding.

The excellency of faith consists in its subserviency to the prac-
tice of piety, or evangelical righteousness. Gospel-faith being a
rigorous principle of action worketh by love; and God's believing
people are "a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

By good works, in the gospel sense of the phrase, is to be un-
derstood "the whole of our inward tempers and outward beha-
viour regulated by grace." The term implies the right exercise of
all our fticulties, intellectual, moral and corporeal. It includes the
proper regulation and government of our affections, passions and
appetites; the right ordering of our thoughts and conversation; the
dedication of our property to the cause of piety and benevolence;
and the temperate use of all worldly enjoyments.

As we come now to consider the practical part of religion, to
which all other parts ought to be made subservient, and without
which they will avail nothing to our salvation; let us first consi-
der the right exercise of the understanding, as the foremost of all
christian duties. This comes now in order, because as the prac-
tice of our duty cannot go before our knowledge of it, the right
conduct of the understanding is the first of all moral obligations.
We might as well suppose a man can become an accomplished ar-
tist without using his eyes, as to suppose he can become a perfect

PLAN OF SALVATION. 4Q3

christiaD, in the habitual neglect of his reflecting powers. How
could we more effectually degrade the important and dignified re-
ligion of our heavenly Redeemer, than by presUfbiug to expect we
shall become proficients in it, without diligent and habitual think-
ing? Who can rightly appreciate the infinite advantages of revela-
tion, or consequently return suitable and becoming gratitude to its
eternal Author, without labouring to become acquainted with its
essential principles? And who can become properly acquainted
with them, without the uniform attention of his mind, and the vi-
gilant exercise of his understanding?

It is true, the doctrines of the gospel, especially the practical
parts of it, are very plain, and adapted to the weakest capacity;
but they are made plain, not to afford any apology for indolence,
but for the encouragement of the diligent soul, who by the prac-
tice of regular and serious thinking, shall acquire a suflicient
knowledge of God, and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, the
weakness of his natural capacity notwithstanding.

The first operation necessary to the enlargement of knowledge,
is that o{ attention. By this is meant that act of the soul by which
its roving thoughts are arrested in their desultory progress, and by
which the thinking power is confined to a single object, in order
to acquire a more adequate knowledge of its nature and proper-
ties. This cannot be done without a voluntary exertion, ofwhich
we are conscious; this exertion, for the most part, is laborious; and
men in general have such an aversion to labour, that they choose
rather to let their thoughts run on in their irregular course, as ima-
gination or passion shall dictate, than to confine them to any
useful subject: hence thousands spend the whole course of their
lives with very little regular thinking. And hence also they re-
mainso strangely indifferent to their eternal welfare. The law has
no terrors, the gospel no charms, for them. The great motives de-
rived from eternity, from heaven and from hell, are no motives to
them. And why? Because they will not think. The clear and iu-
contestible arguments, which evince their deep obligations of gra-
titude and devotion to the great God of heaven, produce no convic-
tion, or none that is effectual, in their ignorant and thoughtless
minds. The heavens and the earth alike expostulate in vain; pa-
thetic intreaties, and terrific warnings, are alike unavailing; reason
.and revelation alike disregarded; and even tiie moving influences
of the Holy Spirit are resisted and despised. And whence is it
that nothing in heaven, earth, or hell, can move these hardened
and indifferent creatures to repentance? They will not think.

404 AN ESSAY ON THE

«'The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; bnt
Israel doth not know: my people do not cowsirfer."

The irregularity, lukewarmness, and instability of professing
christians, may often be traced to the same source. They halt be-
tween religion and the world, and vainly attempt to serve two
masters. In the day of prosperity, theij receive the ivord with joy;
but when calamity and trials approach, immediately they are of-
fended or discouraged, and are not willing to retain religion at so
high a price. One while they seem transported with desire and
resolution to take the kingdom by violence; but suddenly we see
the form of their visage changed, their souls move heavily like
Pharaoh's chariot wheels, and they are at the point of giving up
their religion till a more convenient season. How is all this to be
accounted for.'^ Such persons undervalue things heavenly and di-
vine, and overvalue things temporal and momentary: hence worldly
things, to such minds, furnish very strong, and heavenly things
very feeble motives, to influence their actions. The reason is, that
they are ignorant of the value of heavenly things, and of theraMi-
ty of earthly things. And why are they thus ignorant? Because
they will not think.

They have taken for granted, and perhaps have often heard it
hinted from the pulpet, that religion prospers most among ignor-
ant and uniformed people; that all attempts to improve our know-
ledge are dangerous, and only lead to a head-religion; that a studi-
ous habit naturally makes a man speculative, philosophical^ and
then deistical: and consequently that there is no necessity of much
reading or thinking; but if a person can pray, and talk about reli-
gion, and feel well, it is altogether sufficient. ['"These ought ye to
have done, and not to leave the other undone."] Such persons of
course irnxke feeling the standard of religion. Being ignorant of
the duties arising from their various relations in life, there is of-
ten a deSeiency in their moral conduct; and they dishonour the
cause of their Redeemer by frequent irregularities, which will be
noticed by others, though the immorality of them is unobserved by
themselves, through a most culpable inattention and inexcusable
want of thought. Hence their conscience does not condemn them,
and the singing of a lively tune will excite their passionate feel'
ings into transports as before; but they ought to consider, that ig-
norance affords no apology, when that ignorance arises from a
voluntary neglect of the proper means of knowledge; and that a
sacred regard to duty, is of far higher price in the sight. of God,
than any /ee/ino;-s that can be made to accord with deficiency in
moral conduct.

PLAN OP SALVATION. 403

That peraicious prejudice against intellectual impi'ovement,
which is too often cherished, is more dangerous in its tendency
than thousands are aware of. I fear it leads many to glory in their
ignorance, and to look with suspicion or animosity upon eVery at-
tempt to improve the mind, and to enlarge our knowledge ot'God
and of his works. Conftning the attention entirely to feeling, al-
most to the total neglect of the judgment, tends to produce a
blind and fiery zeal, that is not according to knowledge. Let the
passions operate independent of the judgment in religious matters,
and they will be equally ungovernable in the common aflfairs of
life. Other excitements will move upon them as well as devotional
exercises, and the person who is at no pains to regulate his religi-
ous affections by the calm dictates of an enlightened understanding,
will be apt to manifest a quickness of feeling under the powerful
excitements this world affords, as well as in religious affairs.

Pious reader, mistake me not: I am far from being an advo-
cate for that stoical formality, that inexcusable and frozen dulness,
which prevails in too many professors: but I wish to guard against
the common absurdity of running into one extreme, under the plau-
sible pretence of avoiding another. The speculative and unfeel-
ingformalist ought indeed to be reproved; but it is equally necessa-
ry to guard against the direful influence of a blind and ranting
enthusiasm.

Ifearthatmanyuprightandpious soulsaremuch injured by this
delusion. Conceivingthat sensible impressions alone constitute the
whole of religion, their confidence and propects rise and fall with
their feelings. After having access to the throne of grace, in
which the divine manifestations were abundant, they rejoice great-
ly, and consider themselves almost on the verge of the promised
land; but afterwards "for a season (if need be) they are in heavi-
ness through manifold temptations,*' and hastily conclude their
religion is all gone. And indeed their conclusion is very just, if it
be true that religion consists entirely in happy feelings; but if it
consist in the esteem and integrity of the mind, — in the Jia^ed pur-
poses tixid upright motives of the soul, — as well as in the feelings of
the heart, then surely the good man has no grounds for desponden-
cy, merely because his feelings are not lively, while conscious of
a firm adherence to God, a sacred regard to righteous principles,
and a perpetual detestation of moral evil.

But alas! many spend hours of fruitless lamentation, which
carries unbelief iu its bosom, and borders upon murmuring against
God, because they are not blest with uninterrupted ecstacy. Their
3 F

406 AN ESSAY ON THE

feelings are dull, and because thej' cannot obfain a sensible bless-
ing immediately, which shall rouse their aftections into lively
exercise, they are ready to give up all for lost. I shall never for-
get thd case of a pious woman on her dying bed, that came under
my own observation; lingering under the pressure of a painful
disorder, she could not exercise her aftections in that vigorous and
lively devotion, which had been common in seasons of health: in
consequence of this she abandoned hersell'to such despondency and
lamentation as grieved the hearts of her family and religious friends:

to myself and others, and seemed deeply interested for her ever-
lasting welfare: she stated that her trust was in God; that her
soul was resigned to his will; that she loved the ways of holiness,
and hated sin as much as ever; but w as doubtful and dejected,
merely for want of ?ively feelings: upon this it was argued by one
present, that sore atFiiction had a natural tendency to depress the
spirit; — that religion did not consist merely in feelings; — that God
would never east off his people, for being pressed down with bodi-
ly pain; — and that while the mind adhered to God in principle, was
firm and upright in its intentions, and resigned to the divine au-
thority without a murmur; tliis was more acceptable to God than
the most passionate ecstacies, where such good principles were
wanting.

This conversation had the desired effect; and being thus in-
structed in the ways of the Lord more perfectly, her dejection van-
ished, and in a few days afterwards she calmly resigned her spirit
into the hands of God, in full confidence of his everlasting com-
placency.

Whencearose her unnecessary grief.? From the mistaken notion
here opposed, namely, that the exercise and improvement of the
understanding has little or nothing to do with religion; but that it
consists entirely in the feelingsof the heart. This fatal error leads
persons to nourish their ignorance, and to make a merit of it; and
they not only neglect the improvement of their own minds, but
discourage and despise all attempts to acquire and communicate
knowledge above their own standard. I want none of your specula-
tive knowledge and improvements of the head, say they; give me
the religion of the heart. As if the head or the understanding was
not the gift of God, as well as the heart or affections! Will God
be pleased with those warm devotees, for charging him with the
absurdity of giving liis creatures an understanding for nothing?

PLAN OF SALVATION. 407

Will he thank that servant for saying, Lord, J knew thee to be an
inconsistent master, who gave me an improvable understanding on
purpose that 1 might neglect the improvement of it; therefore af-
ter strenuouslyopposing all carnal reasoners and metaphysicians, I
have buried the talent of judgment in a napkin, and have devoted
my whole attention to the feelings of the heart: '"here take that
is thine own."

Another duty belonging to the right exercise of the understand-
ing, is that of reasoning. This, as 1 have attempted to explain it,
signifies the progress of the mind from one truth to another, by
comparison and consequential inference. It may perhaps be
thouglit strange that 1 should place this among the duties of the
gospel, which has been considered altogether carnal, and there-
fore unfit for the spiritual warfare. And indeed, if we may judge
.from what has been sometimes suggested by certain divines, it
would seem that reasoning is so far from being a moral duty, that
it is extremely doubtful whether it ought to be tolerated. Those
metaphysical souls, it may be said, who make such a mighty stir
about their consequences and rational conclusions, are so far from
discharging a religious duty, that it is a practice which may bare-
ly be allowed, but which can never be considered as the discharge
of a moral obligation.

If so, it is a matter of perfect indifference whether men use their
reason, or entirely neglect it. Of course God^ave man the power
to reason, merely that he might use it as a plaything, or neglect
it at his option, as a matter that has no relation to moral duty! It
is a shame to insult heaven in this manner; and I think the conclu-
sion is very clear, that every man in the world, possessing the pow-
er to reason, is morally bound to exercise it, as he is to read the
bible, or to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Not that eve-
ry man is bound to learn the artificial rules of logic; but to use his
thinking powers, to the best advantage, to acquire all useful
knowledge. Many have reasoned most conclusively, who never
read a treatise on logic, or who never even heard of such a trea-
tise: and be it remembered, that "it is accepted according to that
a man hath, not according to that he hath not."

A third duty is that of recollection; or that active exertion of
the mind which is necessary to impress and retain useful truths in
the viemory. Those who neglect to obtain the knowledge of God,
and those who neglect to retain God in their knowledge, are alike
responsible and inexcusable. "Only take heed to thyself, and
keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine

408 AN ESSAY ON THE

eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days
of thy life." Deut. iv. 9. "Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye/or-
get the covenant of the Lord your God." Verse 23. "The M'icked
shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."
Psalm ix. 17.

The fourth and last duty vve will mention, as belonging to the
understanding, is that of caizier in all our judgments.

Without this, all our attention, reasoning and recollection, M'ill
be unavailing; for prejudice naturally blinds the soul, and hardens
the mind against conviction. 1 presume it has done more to ob-
str'.ict the progress of truth, and to involve the world in darkness
and barbarism, than Satan or his emissaries, would be able to do
without its assistance. Yet many professors of religion have in-
dulged it without scruple; and narrow-hearted bigotry, accompa-
nied with a blind and passionate attachment to a party, has too
often passed for a becoming firmness to the truth, and a commen-
dable zeal for the Lord God of Hosts. And this bigoted partiality,
instead of being viewed according to its real nature, as a crime of
the deepest dye, has been permitted to assume the semblance of
virtue, or to pass as a matter of indifierence that may well accord
with high attainments in religion.

The reason this monster has been tolerated, and cordially che-
rished in the bosom of our churches, 1 take to be this: we have
got into the habit of .thinking that the support of all truth, and all
virtue and excellence, depends upon the support of our particular
parties; and finding bigoted souls among qs very warm and zeal-
ous in the defence of our party, the inference steals upon us im-
perceptibly, that such a spirit is indispensable, without which our
cause cannot be defended against the powerful and violent attacks
of our opposcrs. We condemn partiality and bigotry on the other
side; but who can find in his heart to check its progress, M'heu it
is warmly engaged in a cause so dear to his own soul? a cause too,
on whicli, in his imagination, the welfare of the unit crse depends.-*
Our party, we imagine, comprehends all truth, purity and excel-
lence of every kind; while the other party, and all who adhere to
it, are most wretchedly involved in error and wickedness. If we
can find no evidence to prove their bad deeds, we will believe
without evidence; or if their conduct be correct, we will judge
their motives and designs, and thus impute the deej>est crimes to
them, according to our sovereign pleasure. Mean time our own
partizans are to be believed in every thing they say, without scru-
ple and without examination. Our cause is so pure that it is ri-

PLAN OF SALVATION. 409

dieulous and insufferable for the least suspicion to be indulged
concerning it, or any part of it. It must be defended at every ha-
zard, and every thing in the world must be made subservient to its
support and establishment. The plain English of all this is, that
our party is the god we are resolved to worship: he is :a god too,
that is to be supported at the expense of every moral principle:
If the popularity of our cause can be supported by telling the
truth, it is very well; but if not, it must be done by falsehood and
deceit. If it can he supported consistently with justice and die
general welfare, be it so; but if not, the common dictates of good-
ness must be neglected, and the rights ofopposers must be assail-
ed by tyranny and persecution.

But partiality is not the only cause of bias or prepossession
against the evidence of truth. Our indolence, our passions, and
the pride of opinioa, often influence us to be uncandid, and to love
darkness rather than light. This uncandid disposition, when long
indulged, produces an habitual obstinacy that triumphs over the
dictates of reason and judgment, and thus despoils God's rational
creatures of that intellectual discernment, which was intended
chiefly to distinguish them from the brute creation. The under-
standing becomes at length so eftectually blinded by prejudice,
that the miserable soul is brought into a state of slavery, and is
influenced, as the prophet speaks, to "put bitter for sweet, and
sweet for bitter; to put darkness for light, and light for darkness.''
Prejudice is a great sin, because it is directly opposite to pifty.
Truth is one of the moral attributes of God: he has given us judg-
ing faculties, and demands the diligent and candid exercise o(
them, that truth may thereby be understood and enjoyed; there-
fore he who voluntarily indulges prejudice, opposes the infiuenco
of truth, and consequently is fighting against one of the moral at
tributes of his Maker.

Prejudice is contrary to justice: it leads us to judge others
rashly, whenever they presume to advance any thing contrary to
our darling opinions: and human character is as often the subject
of its rash and blind decisions, as any other matter. It produces a
strong desire to hinder others from enjoying the liberty of opinion,
and the liberty of speech: and when circumstances admit of it, this
malevolent desire will break out into actual hostility against these
native rights of God's intelligent creatures, and will thus do ils
uttermost to suppress the light of evidence, and fill the world witli
ignorance and partiality.

4i0 AN ESSAY ON THE

It is contrary to benevolence, and to the common dictates of hu-
manity. It rouses up the evil passions, and causes men to become
enemies to their own parents and children, if they shall presume
to differ with them in opinion. Thus the father will be against the
son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daugh-
ter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law
against the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-laAV. And a man's foes shall be those of his own house-
hold.

Thus it appears that prejudice is contrary to reason, conscience,
and human happiness: it opposes the light of revelation, wages
war against God, and tramples upon the rights of man: it stifles
the tender feelings of humanity, sets on fire the course of nature,
and terminates in vengeance, murder and persecution.

And yet, alas! it has been prevalent for more than a thousand
years, even among those who profess to be the genuine followers of
the meek and lowly, dispassionate and candid, Saviour of man-
kind. Surely it behooves us all, as candidates for a happy immor-
tality, to look closely into our own hearts, and see if this enemy of
all righteousness have not a secret influence upon our judgment
and passions. Are we willing that every man in the w orld should
enjoy the same right of private judgment which we claim for our-
selves? Or are we angry at a man because he has the assurance to
think for himself.? or because he will not make our party, or our
favourite leaders, the standard and criterion of all his conclusions.?
If so, we may flatter ourselves with being high in religious attain-
ments; but that God who requireth truth in the inward parts, and
consequently a candid love of truth, will not be deceived by our
pretensions, or approbate us, while we harbour in our bosom one
«f the most pernicious principles of moral evil.

SECTION V.

Of the right exercise of the affections.

The proper regulation of the affections is the next great duty of
christians. "Set your aftection on things above, not on things on
the earth." Col. iii. 2.

PLAN OF SALVATION. 4li

This supposes the affections to be, in some degree, under (he con-
trol of our will; for if we had no power over them, we might as
well be commanded to direct the course of the clouds, as to direct
the course of our affections. It is true, the spirit of the living God
quickens and invigorates our affections, and by his reviving in-
fluence draws them to heavenly things; but this gracious operation
is intended, not to destroy our power or agency, but to enlarge it:
"for it is God that worketh in you; — therefore work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling."

This loving spirit "reproves the world of sin," and convinces
them of the necessity of righteousness, by impressing on them the
solemnities of a "judgment to come." He rouses our dull minds

from their criminal supineness, and points us to things above.

He unveils the thunders of Mount Sinai to the guilty soul, and ex-
cites him to realize the horrors of that hell, for which he is pre-
paring himself. To the mourner he kindly whispers peace, and
gently draws him to the bosom of his father and his God, who is
abundantly propitiated, and cordiallyreconciled to the humble peni-
tent, through the intercession of his beloved Son. This spirit is light
and joy to the believer, and speaks with an internal voice so com-
forting and encouraging, that the conscious felicity thence arising,
is known only to him who becomes the happy subject of it, and
cannot be adequately expressed in human language.

But in all these operations our voluntary concurrence is demand-
ed, and we cannot set our affection on things above without that
vigorous exertion which is well knoMU to every christian, and
which constitutes the chief part of his devotion and "piety to
God." There is a deep propensity in our nature to "mind earthly
things;" and if a man would be earthly, sensual and devilish, he
has nothing to do but to yield himself a passive slave to the "lusts
of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, and the pride of this life," which
will regularly carry him down the current of iniquity into the pit
of destruction.

Those on the contrary who would set their affection on
things above, must become active creatures. They must not
passively yield to the influence of animal motives, but resist them.
The flesh lusteth and draweth us down to earth; but the spirit
draws against it, presents reasonable and spiritual motives to the
•understanding, and calls us up to heaven. If we m ould follow the
spirit, we must exert ourselves, because God made us for an ac-
tive life, and calls our faculties into exercise; but to follow the
flesh demands no vigorous activity: it is but to yield to the sensual

413 AiN ESSAY ON THE

excitement, and we soon become proficients in iniquity. Laziness
as naturally tends to moral corruption, as matter gravitates to the
centre; and it is as vain for a man to expect he will get to heaven
without active diligence, as it is for the husbandman to expect to
remove the weeds out of his corn-tield by a few fruitless wishes,
while he lies prostrate on the earth, oppressed with the most piti-
ful and passive indolence.

But let us consider the objects of the good man's affection more
particularly.

1. God is the chief object of his esteem, love, hope, joy and con-
fidence. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul," Wherefore does the christian love God.''
"We love him because he first loved us." That is, we love him
because of his essential goodness, which has not only given us
life, but all things richly to enjoy, not only in this world, but also
in that which is to come.

2. He who hates moral excellence cannot love God, and he who
loves a God of such perfection, loves him because he is thus per-
fect. This love naturally leads him to take pleasure in seeing the
divine beneficence diffused abroad, the more extensively the bet-
ter. It leads him to delight in the exercise of benevolence himself,
and to encourage and promote it among his fellow-creatures.

3. He loves God because of his justice, and consequently, he is
far from wishing his Maker were less strict, or less pure than he
is. His law only demands the security of universal right, and
therefore the good man can never consent that it should be altered.
The God whom he loves sends incorrigible sinners to perdition,
only M'hen it becomes indispensably necessary to secure the gene-
ral welfare; therefore he can never consent for God to become
less severe against offenders than he is, without departing that
moment from a love of justice. This love influences him to hold
sacred the universal rights of men, and to take pleasure in doing
unto all men as he would they should do unto him. It influences
him to render unto all their due, and to set his face as a flint
against the mean conduct of sinners, who, setting justice at defi-
ance, violate the rights of their Maker by impiety and idolatry;
the rights of men, by lying and fraud; and the rights of women
and children by the dark and infernal arts of seduction.

4. He loves God because he is true: consequently he is diligent
hi the pursuit of truth, siiiccre in the communication of it, and
candid in all his juilgments. His language and external deport-
ment always correspond with the meaning of his heart; he abhors

PLAN OF SxVLVATION. 413

all lying and dissimulation, and is "an Israelite indeed in whom
there is no guile."

4. If he loves God hecause of his being possessed of such per-
fections, then he loves all good men, for the same reason. Wher-
ever hesees benevolence, justiceand truth prevail in any creature,
he loves that creature for his adherence to these principles. As
God is infinitely perfect, he loves him with supreme attection,
and loves with a subordinate affection, every creature in propor-
tion as it resembles God. Consequently, "with him a vile person
is contemned; but he honours them that fear the Lord." His
soul is delighted with the company of good men, and he says with
the blessed Redeemer, "whosoever doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mo-
ther." Of course he takes pleasure in frequenting the assemblies
of the righteous, and his glad heart cries out with ecstacy, "how
amiable are thy tabernacles, O Lord God of hosts! One thing
have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may
dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold
the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in his temple." Psalm
xxvii. 4.

5. When it is said religion consists in love, it is to be careful-
ly observed, that this love is to influence all the facuUies of our
nature. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength." Mark xii. 30.

Perhaps no better comment can be given upon this passage, than
the comment given by Dr. AVatts. "God must be loved with all
the mind, that is, he must stand highest in the esteem of the judg-
ment. He must be loved with all the soul, that is, with the strong-
est attachment of the will to him: He must be loved with all the
heart, that is, with the warmest and sincerest affection: And he
must be loved with all the strength, that is, this love must be man-
ifested by the utmost exercise and activity of all the inferior pow-
ers." Discourses on the love of God, page 10, H.

When this love has a perfect and uniform influence over the
human mind, it leads to an undeviating conformity to moral rec-
titude in the exercise of all our intellectual faculties, aflections,
and bodily members. This is christian perfection. Gracious
Redeemer! when sliall this pure and heavenly virtue prevail among
mankind.^ Alas! Millions are so far from following after it, that it
is an object of their greatest contempt and detestation. They pur-
sue it with witticism, ridicule, slander, passion and revenge. They
3G

414 AN ESSAY ON THE

despise goodness aud do their uttermost to make all their acquain-
tances ashamed of it; and were they not restrained by the civil
law, they would gratify their enmity against God, by putting good
men to death, by the most excruciating tortures that malicious in-
genuity can devise. History proves this melancholy truth; and
human nature remains the same it was in the days of Nero or
bishop Bonner.

But while we lament and mourn for the general wickedness of
mankind, let us not forget to bewail our own folly, and to confess
the innumerable sins of religion people. Were we all of one heart
and of one soul, possessing «the meekness and gentleness of Christ,"
we should be terrible as an army with banners: but are there not
many evils prevailing among christians, and even among the min-
isters of Jesus Christ.^* How much ignorance prevails among us,
through a voluntary neglect of the means of knowledge? How
much self-indulgence, formality, and devotion to earthly things?
How much prejudice, rash judging, fiery zeal, and party bigotry?
"Are not many of us "desirous of vain glory, provoking one another,
envying one another?" Have we not sometimes a stronger desire
for popularity, than for the glory of God aud the salvation of
mankind? Alas, my brethren, I fear we are not able to an-wer these
questions in the negative. "The mystery of iniquity doth already
-work;" corruption is working its way into the heartof our church-
es, and a little of "the old leaven of malice and wickedness," un-
less it be speedily removed away from us, will ultimately "leaven
the whole lump."

We shall never be a wise, a holy, and a happy people, till we
heartily agree in these four general rules of conduct.

First, to lay aside all indolence, prejudice and bigotry, and
unite our efforts to improve and enlarge our knowledge of truth,
by a diligent and candid exercise of all our intellectual faculties.
Secondly, to sacrifice all sensual gratifications that are inconsis-
tent with pure and undefiled religion, give up all confidence in
mere formality or speculation, and set our affection on things
above.

Thirdly, to lay aside all ridiculous and blind devotion to names,
parties, ceremonies, and the thirst of applause, and maintain a
perpetual and sacred regard to the glory of God, the general
good of his crealures, and oar own eternal salvation.

Fourthly, to lay aside the fear of man, the love of custom,
the dread of singularity, and regulate all our externar conduct,
not according to the fashion, the general opinion, or the deeisions

PLAN OF SALVATION. 415

of the great &nd {he honourable; but according to the pure and
immutable dictates of truth, justice and benevolence, as we may
find them stated in the oracles\f God, and confirmed by the intui-
tive convictions of an enlightened conscience.

While we foolishly set one part of christian righteousness against
another, we are weakening each other's hands, and wounding the
sacred cause of the Redeemer under pretence of supporting it.

He that devotes his whole attention to the intellectual powers,
to the neglect of his affections, is sure to fall into a dry specula-
tive formality, or stoicism; a kind of external morality that has
no soul. And he that attends entirely to the affections, to the ne-
glect of the understanding, is sure to fall into a fiery, supersti-
tious enthusiasm, something like the frenzy of Moses' disciples
when "they cast dust into the air;" or like those of the heathen
goddess, "who tor about the space of two hours, cried great is
Diana of theEphesians."

The harmony of the understanding and the affections, is essen-
tial to the perfect enjoyment and practice of genuine Christianity.
The enlargement of knowledge furnishes motives to influence the
will and affections; expands our views of the glory of God shining
in the face of Jesus Christ, and enables us to give an answer to
every one that asketh us for a reason of the hope that is in us.— ■
The lively exercise of the affections invigorates the operations of
the understanding, puts life into all our acts of devotion, and
leads to a most cordial and happy union with God. Pious affec-
tions may well be considered as the wings of the soul, by which
we rise above the influence of sublunary things, and lay up our
treasure in heaven. The understanding may w ith equal proprie-
ty be considered as eyes to the soul, which are necessary to point
the course of the affections, and direct them in their flight.

Thisharmony of our intellectual and active powers is necessary
to regulate our conduct, and to regulate our zeal. If they be not
united in their operations our conduct will be partial and incom-
plete, and our zeal will either be deficient in energy, or wild and
fiery in its course. Zeal is commonly considered as a proof of
piety, and indeed there can be no better evidence of it, while that
zeal rises from candor and humble love; but a zeal arising from
superstition and prejudice is so far from being a proof of piety that
•it is a very evident proof of the want of it. "A zeal for God" that
"is not according to knowledge," is productive of very danger-
ous etFects; hew much more when the zeal is not for God, but for
some favorite party, opioion or ceremony? It is the very thing that

416 AN ESSAY ON THE, &c.

has led to the most bloody persecutions that ever disgraced the
christian or the heathen world; and we have cause to be very jeal-
ous of the first motions of a zeal that works by anger, is nourish-
ed by ignorance, and is founded on an implicit devotion to a party-
But that soul whose zeal is regulated by an enlightened under-
standing; nourished by a calm, dispassionate love of truth; and
founded upon a firm adherence to the moral attributes of God, is a
plant of our heavenly Father's right hand planting, and shall be
useful and happy here, and inherit eternal life hereafter. Being
delivered from the dark shades of ignorance, the contracting infliu-
ence of partiality, and the tyrannical ascendency of appetite or
worldly grandeur, the mind is free to think, and judge, and exercise
its pious affections without obstruction, in which consists "the
glorious liberty of the children of God." Free from the pitiful
shackles of bigotry, such a soul enjoys a most pleasant and revi-
ving range through all the wonders of Redeeming love. The attri'-
butes, and works, and providence, and grace of God, afford abun-
dant matter for his pious meditations: His active mind travels
through the beauties of creation, and adores that beneficent
hand which sends us ra-n from heaven, and tills our hearts with
food and gladness. He turns to the pages of revelation, explores
the opening beauties of the moral law, surveys the wonderful
goodness of God manifested in the flesh; then rises on the wings of
contemplation, with ecstacy of thought, to those salubrious re-
gions of ineffable tranquillity, "where momentary ages are no
more." His soul adheres to God, as to the centre of all its desires. He
finds no pleasure in existence equal to that of doing good. He
looks over the face of the earth, with conscious friendship for
every living creature. He mourns over the ignorance and wicked-
ness of men, and melts into sympathetic tears, for the miseries of
Adam's children. His enlarged and generous mind embraces the
different nations of the earth with affection, and with conscious
sincerity, beseeches heaven to bless all his brethren of the human
race. May that great and good Being who holds the destinies of
creation in his right hand, inspire us with these sentiments and
affections! May his benign influences subdue the savage disposi-
tions of our nature, and inspire the heart of man, with brotherly
love to man! May his truth shine and enlighten the nations, his
spirit reform them, and his goodness save them from the bitter
pains of the second death! "to God only wise, be glory througli
Jesus Christ forever," Amen.

FINIS.

CONTENTS.

Page
INTRODUCTION, . . . . . v

CHAPTER I.

iSPON THE METHOD ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATOR, THROUGH
WHICH MANKIND ARE TO DISTINGUISH TRUTH FROM FALSE-
HOOD.

Sect. I. A general view of truth and evidence, - - 11
Sect. II. Concerning the several sonrces of our knowledge,

and first, of those principles which are self-evident, - 16

Sect. III. Two objections answered, - - - 27

Sect. IV. Of the evidence of reason, - - - 40

Sect. V. Of the evidence of revelation, - - 54
Sect. VI. The connexion between those three sources

of evidence, and their dependence upon each other, - 66

Sect. VII. Of analogy and presumption, - - 90

Sect. VIII. Four defective rules of judgment examined, - 101
Sect. IX. The necessity and safety of a diligent pursuit of

truth, ------ 113

Sect. X. The tjecessity and safety of a diligent communica-
tion of truth, - - - - - - 120

Sect. XI. Whether certain errors ought to be believed for the

sin, - - - - isy

CHAPTER II.

UPON THE NATURE AND GROUNDS OF REDEMPTION.

Sect. I. A view of the Divine Attributes, - - - 133

Sect. II. Sin dishonours God, and destroys the happiness of
his creatures; therefore his displeasure against it must
be manifested, ----- 147

Sect. III. The attributes of God were glorified in the redemp-
tion of the world, by our Lord Jesus Christ, - - 153

CONTENTS.

Sect. IV. An examination of two opposite prejudices, founded

upon mystery, ... - - lei

Sect. V. The doctrine of redemption stated in the words of

several respectable authors, - - - - 171

Sect. VI. The testimony of eminent Calvinislic Divines, 178

CHAPTER III.

THE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF REASON AND REVELATION, IN DEFENCE
OF THE DOCTRINE STATED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER.

Sect. I. A brief view of the nature of forgiveness, - 186

Sect. H. The nature of justice and benevolence considered, in

their relation to each other, _ . - 194

Sect. III. An objection answered, - - . 200

Sect. IV. The fitness, importance and necessity of redemp-
tion, -..--. 503
Sect. V. The same subject, - _ _' - 311
Sect. VI. The same subject, - - . - sis
Sect. VII- The same subject, - - - - 232
Sect. VIII. The two systems of redemption, tested by the na-
tive consequences which flow from them, - 339
Sect. IX. Our system harmonizes the doctrines and clears up

many diSicult passages of revelation, - - 248

Sect. X. The plain scripture testimony, concerning redemp-
tion, reconciled with the metaphors which represent it
as a purchase, ... - - 259

CHAPTER IV.

AN EXAMINATION OF SOME GENERAL OBJECTIONS CONNECTED
WITH OTHER DOCTRINES OF RELIGION.

Sect. I. Of the full display of eternal justice, - - 267

Sect. II. The supposed necessity of sin to make redemption

necessary, ..... 275

Sect. III. The supposed violation of truth, - - 279

Sect. IV. Moral principles in the Deity are not different from

those which are to govern his creatures, - - 283

Sect. V. The infinity of Christ's atonement considered, - 290
Sect. VI. A statement of the doctrineof original sin, in reply

to the charge, that our system denies it, - - 294

CONTENTS.

Sect. VII. A view of the principal arguments by which infant

guilt is defended, - - - - _ 30^

Sect. VIII. Infants are not guilty on account of their natural

passions, or propensities to evil, - - . 819

Sect. IX. Of man's natural inability to do good, - - 337
Sect. 'X. A consequence of the doctrine established in the
foregoing sections, that death is necessary in the case of
infants, but is not a penalty, - . . 334,

Sect. XI. Second consequence, - - . » 350

Sect. XII. Of the Divine Sovereignty, - - . 359

Sect. XIII. The same subject, - - - - 365

CHAPTER V.

©F THE MEANS OR CONDITIONS THROUGH WHICH WE RECEIVE
THE BENEFITS OF CHRIST's ATONEMENT.

Sect. I. A general view of faith, - - . 373
Sect. II. Of faith as the condition of our acceptance or justifi-
cation, - - - - - - S81

Sect. III. Whether faith depends upon the will, - 393

Sect. IV. Of the right exercise of the understanding, - 403

Sect. V. Of the right exercise of the aft'ections, - - 410

ERRATA.

Page 68, line 16, after the word that read it.

Page 77, line 17, for reasonable read reasoning.

Page 80, Vine "iO, for represent re-Ad represents.

Page 81, line '60, for conclusion read conclusions.

Page 83, line 18, omit the word that.

Page 95, line 27, for the word was read were.

Page 99, line 17, for has read have.

Page 100, line 38, for then read than.

Page 157, line 37, omit the word and.

Page 24:3, line 15, for christian read christian's.

Page 246, line 8, for Zyon read Zion.

Page 254, line 30, for where read were.

Page 299. line 38, for not read nor.

Page 383, line 31, for genuing read genuine.

N. B. Many particular or emphatieal sentences, which were
intended to be put in italicks, have been (by mistake) enclosed in
eommas as quotations.

i

'ft

ff