his sense of it, may "be wrought by light," without any sanctifying influences of the Spirit at all. For as God's supposed new character may appear glorious and amiable to one who is at enmity against God's old character, so this new character may for the same reason be loved by one who is at enmity against his old character; that is, by the carnal mind. For this new God teaches his votaries, that it is "contrary to the character of God, and contrary to the character of men; contrary to the law and to the gospel; contrary to nature and to grace," to love that character of God which is exhibited in the divine law, holy, just, and good, as it is, against which the carnal mind is at enmity. And this doctrine is so perfectly agreeable to a carnal heart, that if we may have the favor and love of the Almighty on this plan, Mr. M. might well say, "that there is nothing in our fallen circumstances to prevent our returning to the love of God," and that without any new principle of grace.

Arg. 5. All the holy inhabitants of heaven love that character of God, which is exhibited in his holy law, as it is set forth, in the clearest and strongest point of light, in the eternal misery of the damned; for they all join to cry, Hallelujah, while their smoke ascendeth forever and ever. (Rev. xix. 1-6.) But if we are not by the gospel brought to a reconciliation to the same character, we cannot join in the worship of heaven, nor with any comfort live among them. (2 Cor. vi. 14-15.)

Arg. 6. But if Mr. M.'s scheme is true, the breach between God and the sinner may be made up, and a perfect reconciliation take place, without the sinner's ever repenting of that enmity against God which is in his heart as a fallen creature; yea, it is lawful for the sinner to continue in that enmity; yea, it is his duty; for Mr. M. says, it is "contrary to the law of God to love that character of the Deity which is exhibited in the moral law." And therefore, when Christ came to call sinners to repentance, he had no intention that they should repent of their enmity against his Father's character exhibited. in that holy law, which he loved and obeyed in his life, and honored in his death; but was free and heartily willing they should go on in their enmity to it to all eternity; for Mr. M. says, "The love of God which the gospel teacheth," is not love to the divine character exhibited in the law, but "love of that divine character which is exhibited to us in a Mediator, and no other." But if God the Father loves that character of himself which is exhibited in his holy law, and if God the Son loves that character, and if all the holy inhabitants of heaven are like God and his Son, and love that character too, then converts, on Mr. M.'s scheme, when they arrive at heaven, if they 53

VOL. II.

ever should arrive there, could not join with the church above, or make that profession of love to God, which all the rest of the inhabitants do there; but would need an external graceless covenant in that world, in order to join in full communion there, as much as they do in this world here below, in order to join in full communion here.

But it is time now to attend to Mr. M.'s reasoning; and this is the sum, and this is the whole force of his argument, on the strength of which his whole scheme stands, and which he has repeated over and over again.

Objection. "To love that character of God which is exhibited in his law, is the same thing as to love our own misery. But to love our own misery is to take pleasure in pain; which is a contradiction, and in its own nature impossible; contrary to the character of God, and to the character of men; contrary to the law and to the gospel; contrary to nature and to grace."

Answer 1. Our author says, "that the primary reason why God is to be loved, is the transcendent excellency of the divine perfections." But "the transcendent excellency of the divine perfections" is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and therefore that character of God which is exhibited in the law, is as "transcendently excellent" since, as it was before the fall, and therefore this reason of love remains in full force to us in our guilty state.

Ans. 2. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and all the holy inhabitants of heaven, love that character of God which is exhibited in his law; and yet they do not love misery itself, or take any pleasure in the pains of the damned, considered merely as pain. If God did take pleasure in the pains of the damned, considered merely as pain; if this were the character which he exhibits of himself in his law; then to love this character would be the same thing as to love misery. So that this is implicitly, and by fair construction, imputed to the Father of the universe, when it is said, that "to

"If all the ground and reason there is for fallen man to exercise dependence on God," that is, for eternal life, "ariseth from the covenant of grace," as Mr. M. says, " yet all the ground and reason that mankind have to love God does not arise from the covenant of grace." For God was in himself infinitely worthy of our love, antecedent to a consideration of the gift of Christ, otherwise the gift of Christ to answer the demands of the law, in our room, had been needless; for there was no need our surety should ever pay a debt for us which we ourselves never owed. And it was as repugnant to the law, and as much "presumption," to expect eternal life before the fall, as since, without perfect obedience, on the foot of law. This kind of dependence was never required by the law of Adam, or of any other man. It was no more his duty before the fall than it was after

wards.

love that character of God which is exhibited in the divine law, is the same thing as to love our own misery." But to say that God and the holy inhabitants of heaven take pleasure in the pains of the damned, considered merely as pain, is to impute to them a spirit of disinterested malice. But to justify our enmity against God by such an imputation, is exceeding impious. But, on the other hand, if God may love that character of himself which is exhibited in his law, and yet not love misery itself; then, were we regenerate, were we made partakers of the divine nature, we might be like God; and be affected as the holy inhabitants of heaven are; and so might love that character of God which is exhibited in the divine law, and not love misery in ourselves, or in any other beings.

A wise and good father, when he inflicts just punishment on a haughty, stubborn child, for some heinous crime, approves and loves his own conduct, and the character which he exhibits therein; but yet he does not love his child's misery itself, or take pleasure in his pain, as such, or desire his child to take pleasure in it. And if the proud, haughty, stubborn, impenitent child should say, "To love a whipping father is the same thing. as to love to be whipped; but to love to be whipped is to love misery; but to love misery is a contradiction, and in its own nature impossible, and contrary to the law of God, which requires me to love myself;" every obedient child in the family would be able to see the fallacy of the argument. And love to their father's honor would make them love him for vindicating his honor in the just punishment of such a son. Nor is there a father on earth, hearing such language as this from a child, but that would think it proper and fit that his uncircumcised heart should be so humbled as to accept the punishment of his iniquity before he pardoned him; nor would he forgive him, until he should feel and say, "I deserve to be whipped. It is good enough for me. It becomes my father to do it. Nor is it a blemish, but a beauty, in his character, to be disposed to chastise such a haughty wretch as I am;" for the father approves of his own disposition to punish his child; he knows that it becomes him; and until his child knows it too, he cannot but disapprove of him, as a stubborn, impenitent child. And yet no father ever desired his child to love misery. Nay, on the contrary, did the child love to be whipped, did whipping give the child pleasure, it would cease to be of the nature of a punishment; it would gratify the child, and frustrate the father. say, in this case, that "to love a whipping father is the same thing as to love to be whipped," is to say, that the father whips. the child merely for the pleasure of whipping it, and takes

Το

delight in its misery, for itself; and so is guilty of disinterested malice, which no man ever was guilty of, and which to charge on the Deity is the highest blasphemy. For if the father loves his own character, and delights in his own conduct toward his child, without loving the child's misery itself, then nothing hinders, but that the child might love his father's character and conduct too, without loving its own misery. For a more particular answer to this objection, see Essay on the Nature and Glory of the Gospel.

SECTION VIII.

GEN. i. 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.

ADAM'S LOVE TO GOD BEFORE THE FALL.

Question. How was it possible for Adam, before the fall, to love that character of God which was exhibited to him in the law, consistently with the love of his own happiness?

The difficulty which attends this question may come into view if we consider,

1. That a state of eternal misery is infinitely worse than not to be. Existence itself is desirable to mere nature, only as it implies a capacity for the enjoyment of happiness. Nature dreads annihilation, as thereby all happiness is lost forever. But it is better to be without happiness, than it is to be not only without happiness, but miserable. Pure misery is worse than non-existence; hence abandoned, guilty sinners often wish for annihilation; and had Adam for the first transgression been threatened with annihilation, it might have been thought of with less horror and dread. But misery is a dreadful thing; and eternal misery is infinitely dreadful, infinitely worse than not to be. How therefore could Adam think of that dreadful word death, as implying eternal misery, and yet love that Being who had threatened this for the first transgression? yea, and love that very character exhibited in the threatening itself? How could love to this character consist with his love to his own happiness? It is true, God had been kind to him, in giving him a happy existence, surrounded with many delights; but this happiness and these delights, to be enjoyed for thousands

of ages, were lighter than a feather, compared with eternal misery. And it is true, he might remain happy forever, in case of perfect obedience; and this was a glorious prospect. But what if he sinned? what then? Death! eternal death! neverending woes were threatened, as his just desert. But why eternal death for one offence? Where was the wisdom, justice, or goodness of this? This is the language of self-love, as it now takes place in fallen man. And if, as Mr. M. says, "this principle of self-love was essential to moral agency" in innocent Adam, it must have been the language of his heart before the fall.

2. But one bad property entirely approved of, and constantly exercised, will render any moral character devoid of beauty. If there is no moral beauty in the divine character, he is neither worthy of supreme love, nor capable of being the supreme good. A law, a fixed law, is an expression of the fixed character of the lawgiver. If God's disposition to punish sin with eternal misery appeared in Adam's eyes to be a bad property in the Deity, it was not possible he should love him with all his heart. It was as impossible before his fall as after, even as it is as impossible to love a tyrant before we fall into his hands, as afterwards. And if Adam could not love the divine character before his fall, then he could take no delight in him; for an odious character, instead of giving pleasure, gives pain. And if Adam neither loved the divine character, nor delighted in it before the fall, he was in the same state and temper of mind before as he was after the fall; and if so, then he was not created in the image of God, but came into existence as much depraved as we are.

3. To say that this dark side of the divine character was out of his view before he fell, and that he viewed the Deity only in the character of an almighty benefactor, and his friend; and therefore, in this view of things, "the love of God and self-love were consistent ; is really to say, that Adam before the fall did not love God's true and real character, as exhibited in the law which he was under; but rather that character was so entirely out of his view, that he had no exercises of heart about it, good or bad; for it, or against it; which amounts to the same thing as to say, that he was never actually friendly to God's true character, even before the fall, but rather had he fully known it, and taken a deliberate view of it with application to himself, he would have disliked it even then. And this must with as much reason then, as afterwards, have been the language of his heart: "To love this character of God is to love my own misery; but to love my own misery is impossible; for to take pleasure in pain implies a contradiction."

4. Mr. M. says, "For a principle of self-love is essential to