8. The doctrine of the eternity of hell torments must be given up, or God's moral character is wholly ruined; for it is as bad a piece of conduct in the Deity to damn my neighbor, as it is to damn myself; for my neighbor's welfare is worth as much as my own; and it is as contrary to the law to love my neighbor's misery, as to love my own misery. It never was, therefore, if Mr. M.'s reasoning is just, any part of God's moral character to be disposed to punish sin with everlasting punishment, as Jesus taught. (Matt. xxv. 46.) And so Jesus was not the Christ; or else the Socinians are right, and we must join with them, and say, that God never did think, 1. That he was God, that is, an infinitely glorious and amiable being, infinitely worthy of the supreme love and universal obedience of his rational creatures. Or, 2. That sin was an infinite evil. Or, 3. That sin did deserve an infinite punishment. 4. Nor did he ever intend to punish it with everlasting punishment. And, 5. If sin is not an infinite evil, an infinite atonement never was needed, or made. And so, 6. Our Savior is not God. And thus a denial of the divinity of God the Father issues in the denial of the divinity of God the Son; and having framed in our fancy a God to suit our hearts, the Holy Ghost, as a sanctifier, becomes needless; for we can love this God, without any new principle of grace. And thus, if Mr. M.'s reasoning is just, and if we will pursue it, in its necessary consequences, we are Socinians or infidels; and the odds between Socinianism and infidelity is not great.

Thus the difficulty is stated. And the answer to it is as follows:

This must be admitted, as a self-evident maxim, that that regard to the welfare of ourselves and of our neighbors, which is inconsistent with the love of God's moral character, is of the nature of opposition to God. But opposition to the moral character of God is not a duty, but a sin. That self-love, therefore, "which is absolutely inconsistent with the love of God," is criminal; and therefore it was so far from being "essential to moral agency" in innocent Adam, that it did not belong to, but was inconsistent with, his character. He loved happiness, but he placed his chief happiness in God's glory, "of whom, and through whom, and to whom, are all things; to whom be glory forever." Nor had he any separate interest of his own, independent of God, and in opposition to his honor and glory, nor the least degree of a selfish spirit. For himself, his soul and body, his all, was offered up as a living sacrifice to God, without reserve. And it was no more inconsistent with Adam's love of happiness to love God for saying, "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die,"

than it was inconsistent with God's goodness for God to love his own character exhibited in this threatening. It is in its own nature, and by the consent of all mankind, perfectly consistent, to give up and sacrifice a lesser good to a greater, if the greater can be secured in no other way; while yet at the same time, the lesser good, which is given up, is valued according to its worth. If God acted a consistent part in exercising a greater regard to his own honor than to Adam's welfare, in giving out that threatening, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," then it was equally consistent in Adam to be affected as his Maker was. If the Deity was consistent with himself, then Adam, who was created in his image, was consistent also. If the holiness and justice of the divine nature, exhibited in that threatening, were perfect in beauty, without a blemish in the eyes of infinite Goodness, they must likewise appear so in Adam's eyes, while he had no other kind of regard for his own welfare than had his Creator; that is, so long as he continued to be in the image of God. And if love to God and to his own happiness were originally consistent in Adam, when in the image of God, they may be equally consistent in any of Adam's sons, who are anew restored to that image of God which Adam lost. And the holiness and justice of the divine nature, as exhibited in the divine law, may appear to be perfect in beauty, with application to ourselves, and God appear to be infinitely lovely in his disposition to punish sin according to its deserts, and yet our own eternal welfare be at the same time prized according to its worth, and the salvation of the gospel appear infinitely precious, and the fruit of grace infinitely great and absolutely free; and the gospel way of salvation worthy of God. But were not the divine character exhibited in the divine law perfect in beauty, without a blemish, it ought to have been laid aside in disgrace, and not honored with the highest honors on the cross. If " to love God is the same thing as to love misery," if to love God is "contrary to the law of God," then that law which requires this is an absurd, inconsistent, tyrannical law not worthy of God, nor worthy to be honored by the blood of his own son. For a more large and particular view of this subject the reader is referred to my Essay on the Gospel, Sect. II.

Mr. M.'s reasoning implies that in Adam, before the fall, there was really "no principle of holiness," no disinterested regard to the Deity; and that his whole soul was under the government of self-love, even the same "principle of self-love" which governed him after the fall. And therefore, as soon as God's favor was lost, and he exposed to destruction, this favorite principle of self-love became "inconsistent with the love of

God," and continues to be so, until God appears to be our friend again. And so Adam had no "principle of holiness" to lose, nor is there any such thing for us to expect.

Mr. M. says, "But when we inquire of them what they mean by this new principle which is implanted in the soul by regeneration, they can give no account about it." Yes, we can give as principle of selfdistinct an account about it as we can of a " love." It is that image of God in which Adam was created, restored anew. It is true, that in Adam this holy principle was not a confirmed habit, but liable to be lost by the first sin; but in believers who are united to the second Adam, the "principle It beof grace " is a confirmed habit, and shall never be lost. comes confirmed in consequence of the first act of saving faith.* (Eph. i. 13, 14;) but its nature is the same.

For

* As Adam was created in the image of God to prepare him for holy acts and exercises of heart, so the same image of God is restored in regeneration, to preAs there was a holy principle in Adam before pare us for the first holy act. the first holy act, so there is a holy principle in the regenerate sinner before the first holy act. And, as Adam's holy principle was not a confirmed habit in its first existence, but was to have been confirmed on his acting up to the covenant he was under, so the holy principle given in regeneration is not a confirmed habit in its first existence, but immediately becomes confirmed as soon as the regenerate sinner complies with the covenant of grace in the first act of saving faith. And thus, as Adam would have been entitled to eternal life on his compliance with the covenant of works, so the regenerate sinner is entitled to eternal life on his compliance with the covenant of grace; for a confirmed habit of grace is eternal life, that is, life never to end, life everlasting. "He that believ eth hath everlasting life." Hence the promises of the gospel are not made to the holy principle, passively considered, but to its acts and exercises; even as the blessings of the first covenant were not promised to that image of God, in which Adam began to exist, but to his active compliance with that covenant. And thus, that faith, by which we are married to Christ, is not an unregenerate, sinful act; but, as our Catechism expresses it, "a saving grace." But if faith is before regeneration, the act of a sinner, dead in sin, "totally depraved," it is not "a saving grace," but a saving sin. Or else it is not an act, but a mere passive thing, and implies no consent of will.

"Question. But here it may be doubted, and objected against this position, If we cannot believe till we are quickened with spiritual life, as you say, and cannot be justified till we believe, as all say, then it will follow, that a regenerate soul may be in a state of condemnation for a time, and consequently perish, if death should befall him in that juncture." Thus Mr. Flavel states the objection, and thus he answers it:

Solution. To this I return: that when we speak of the priority of this quickening work of the Spirit to our actual believing, we rather understand it of the priority of nature, than of time, the nature and order of the work requiring it to be so; a vital principle must, in order of nature, be infused, before a vital act can be exerted. First make the tree good, and then the fruit good. And admit we should grant some priority in time also to this quickening principle, before actual faith; yet the absurdity mentioned would be no way conequent upon this concession; for as the vital act of faith quickly follows the regenerating principle, so the soul is abundantly secured against the danger objected; God never beginning any special work of grace upon the soul, and then leaving it, and the soul with it, in hazard; but preserves both to the finishing and com. Mr. Flavel's Method of Grace, Sermon 5. pleting of his gracious design."

there is but one kind of true holiness in the universe; for the holiness of Christ is of the same nature with the holiness of God the Father. Christ is the express image of his Father; and of his fulness we receive, and grace for grace. In regeneration, therefore, we are restored anew to that image of God, in which Adam was created; so that this "principle of grace" is that whereby we are inclined to a disinterested supreme regard to the Deity, an infinitely worthy being; and so disposed to love that character of him exhibited in his law, in which his infinite dignity is asserted, in the threatening of an infinite punishment for sin; even as self-love is "that principle" whereby a fallen creature is inclined to a supreme regard to himself, and to his own honor and interest, separate from, independent of, and unsubordinate to, God and his glory; which self-love is in kind different from that love of happiness which is essential to every holy being. The one is contrary to the holiness of the divine nature, and the source of all our enmity against the Deity; the other is in perfect harmony with the divine nature, and consistent with the perfect love of the holiness and justice of God, as exhibited in his law.

Mr. M. says, "But if this be true, that there must be a gracious principle implanted in the heart of a sinner, before he is capable of any gracious acts, then, for the same reason, there must be a corrupt principle implanted in the heart of a holy creature, Adam, for instance, before he is capable of any sinful acts." The Scripture teaches us, that God created man in his own image, whereby he was prepared to holy acts and exercises: but the Scripture does not teach us, that God afterwards created man in the image of the devil, to render him capable of sinful acts. And, therefore, "if we would acquiesce in the plain Scripture account of these things, we should readily allow," that it was needful, in order to prepare Adam for holy acts, that he should be created in the image of God; yet it was not necessary "for the same reason, that there should be a corrupt principle implanted in his heart, before he was capable of any sinful act." For sin begins in that which is merely negative; that is, it begins in not loving God with all the heart; in ceasing to exercise that regard to the Deity which is his due; or in not having such a sense of his worthiness of love and regard, as ought to take place in the heart. But a sense of God's infinite worthiness, of supreme love and perfect obedience, may cease to fill and govern the whole soul, without a previous implantation of a corrupt principle. It did so in Adam; for had he remained under the entire government of supreme love to God, he would not have eaten the forbidden fruit; and as supreme love to God ceased,

supreme self-love took place of course; but it never was in Adam's heart before. He now, for the first time, began to have a frame of heart answerable to Satan's words, "Ye shall be as Gods; ye shall not surely die." And so he took and ate; in consequence of which, this principle of supreme self-love became a confirmed habit, and his whole heart was disposed to justify himself in it. And thus Adam became totally depraved.

Remark 1. Holiness, as it originally took place in human nature, had God for its author: and it was produced by a creating power. "In the image of God created he him." So it is restored by the same power. "We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." But that which is God's gift, (Ezek. xxxvi. 26,) "a new heart will I give you," is also the sinner's duty. (Ezek. xviii. 31.) "Make you a new heart." For total depravity and moral agency are consistent: otherwise those words, (Eph. ii. 1,) "dead in sin," would be an express contradiction. To say that the doctrine of created holiness is absurd, is to say that the Bible is not the word of God; for this is one of the first doctrines taught in that book. "In the image of God created he him."

Rem. 2. As Adam, while in the image of God, viewed the divine character exhibited in the moral law in the same glorious point of light in which God himself did, in which view the image of God in Adam partly consisted, and which view he totally lost by the fall, so this view of the divine character is restored, when the image of God is renewed in regeneration; as it is written, (Col. iii. 10,) "the new man which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him;" that is, that view of divine things, which is like that view which God hath of them, and which is the image of his knowledge, and which was originally in man before the fall, and was lost by the fall, is renewed, is caused to exist anew, by the same power by which it at first existed, when God created man in his own image. (Cor. iv. 6.) "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness," saying, "Let there be light, and there was light," by the same creating power, "hath shined into our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Rem. 3. Habitually to view things as God does, and to be affected and act accordingly, (that is, comprising both habit and act,) is the whole of that image of God, to which saints are recovered by the power of the Holy Ghost, imperfectly in this world, and perfectly in the world to come. And this image of God is the same in kind with that which Adam lost; for the essential rectitude of the divine nature is the original standard.