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