¹D. L.page 587.All this is quite beside the point, and leaves theJewsunder the same incapacity of every divine virtue, as has been above asserted. For a short or long existence, is here never thought of,as a reason, why we should, or should not be morally good. For duration, considered in itself, whether short or long, is only a natural consequence ofthat kindof life, which the creature hath. For, such as is itsinternalnature, such is the good, and evilthatbelongs to it, without any regard to its longer or shorter duration.Now it is the internal nature of man, not considered as short, but as wholly earthly, and created for onlyearthly goods,thatis the reason, why such a kind of life is incapable of any divine virtue, and cannot possibly have any other love, affections or tempers, but such as are confined to this world: and also, why every kind of envy, greediness, craft, and contrivance how to get the most of every earthly thing, must govern every man, that has only the earthly nature in him, as unavoidably, as they govern birds, and beasts. And to tell such a people of a goodness, to which their earthly nature does not lead them, as it leads every other animal tothatwhich it likes, is as vain, as to preach to the sparks, not to fly upwards. Nor can a nature, wholly earthly, any more sin by coveting only earthly things, than thelionsins, by having all his heart set upon his prey.But the Doctor has a maxim, by which he proves, that theJews, though wholly confined to earthly hopes, and enjoyments, yet might and ought to have been heavenly minded,namely, becausethe true foundation of morality, is the willof God. And yet this very maxim is itself a sufficient proof, than an earthly people, created only for earthly goods, are by the very will of God, directed to be earthly minded. For the will of God, in every creature, is manifested bythat kindof nature, which it hath only from God. Therefore earthly creatures, by being earthly minded, pay as full obedience to the will of God, as pure heavenly spirits by their being heavenly minded. Therefore if man is only an animal of this world, by the will of God, distinguished only from other creatures, by superior skill, subtlety, and contrivances, (as they are from one another) he neither is, nor can be, under any other law, relating to his good and evil, but that which is the law of all other animals, that have all their good and evil from this world. And as it is as good in the wolf, to be ravening, as in the lamb to be harmless, because they both follow their created nature; so if man is as merely a creature of this world, as they are, when he, by his superior subtlety, in order to make the most of his worldly life, either feigns the innocence of the lamb, or puts on the ravening wolf, he follows his nature, as they do theirs, and is just as good and as bad as they are. And to tell such a man of the beauty of holiness, or call him to the denial of his own will, for this reason, because the true foundation of virtue, is the will of God, would be to as much purpose, as if you was only to require him never to sleep any more, because holy angels never sleep in heaven. For what can a creature that can have no good, all its life, but that which is like thegood of milk and honey, have to do with any divine virtue?—If thereforeMosesdesignedly, fixed theIsraelitesin a belief, that they had no good to hope for, but that which flesh and blood could find in earthly things, they were by him taken out of the sphere of every virtue, that can be called godly or divine, and could have no fear of God, but like that, which they might have towards him, or the giants, nor any love of God, but that which they had to their bellies.Farther, that the Doctor has not entered into any right conception of the subject, he is upon, is plain from his asking, “But how does a short or long existence, a life here, or elsewhere, at all affect the practice of virtue so founded?”—It just so much affects it, as place, or space affects the existence of bodies. They are not brought forth by place or space, but they could have no existence but in place or space. And thus it is, that duration affects the practice of all divine virtue, it could have no possibility of existence, but in a nature incapable of dying.—Corruptibility, and divine goodness, are as impossible to be united, as life and death.—Death may as well exert the functions of life, as a mortal creature breathe heavenly tempers and affections. For though the duration of the creature is not the ground, or reason of any divine virtue, yet no creature can be capable of it, but that, which by the divinity of its birth, is born immortal.What an inconsistency, to say of a creature of a short existence, or whose life is vanishing away, that its true father is in heaven, and that it ought therefore “to be perfect as its heavenly Father is perfect?” Can that which is daily tending to non-existence, be daily growing up in the perfection of God, or that which is always approaching towards death, be a child of the ever-living God? As well might it be said of the mushroom, that it has the angels in heaven for its brethren, as of man, beginning to exist to-day, and ending his existence to-morrow, that he is a child of his everlasting Father in heaven.There are some other egregious errors which I intended to have remarked, but I am already got beyond the proper bounds of a letter.—But holyDavid’s case, I cannot but mention, as sufficient to have deterred the Doctor from an hypothesis, which has obliged him to place this sweet finger ofIsraelamongst those, who had not the least thought of any eternal relation to God. This holyDavid, the type of Christ, “who knew that God had sworn with an oath, that out of the fruit of his loins, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne:” this great prophet, who foretold the resurrection of Christ,that his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption; thisDavid, thus deep in the counsels of God, and acquainted with the great article of the resurrection, this spiritual, typical, prophesyingDavid, is, for the sake of the Doctor’s project,crowded amongst those, who were not allowed to have any other relation to God, or any thing else to hope from him, or thank him for, but the blessings of a temporal life, till death had put the same end, to all ofDavid, as it did to those few sheep, that he once kept. And what is still worse, the sameDavidis made the most zealous preacher of the folly of fearing, or hoping for any thing after death: and is appealed to by the Doctor, and his assistant, as giving the most full evidence against all happiness, but that of this life, and represented in his divine transports, as setting forth the wisdom of believing that the life of man ends like that of rotten sheep, in a deaththatbrings him into the dark land of forgetfulness; singing gloriously, “the dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence. In death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave, who shall give thee thanks?”Thus it is, thatDavid, by these gentlemen is made a preacher against a future state; not considering that such infidelity would have been worse inDavidthan it possibly can be in any modern infidel. But the truth is, the holy prophet in all passages of this kind, is only calling upon God for the continuance and full manifestation of the blessings ofthattemporal theocracy, which could only be given by God, or received by man whilst he was on this side death. And thedarkness,silence, orinsensibilityaffirmed of death, has no relation to atotal endof life andsensibility, but solely to an end of allenjoyment, of the blessings promised by the divine theocracy.David, assonofAbraham,IsaacandJacob, had their faith and piety, and such his psalms are full of heavenly devotion, and flaming with divine love. ButDavid, as asonof the covenant made withMoses, was also an heir of the temporal blessings of the theocracy; and in this capacity, had a right to say,Why do the wicked prosper? Wilt thou shew thy wonders in the grave?That is, canst thou give thy promised temporal blessings, when death has taken away all possibility of receiving them?But if it could be supposed, thatDavidby the foregoing expressions, meant to give up the promises of eternal redemption made to all his forefathers, and called the world to look for no more but what they could get in this vale of misery; what excuse can be made for the Christian church, which from first to last, has made such heathenish songs a part of the gospel service? For in this case, these psalms may be justly esteemed prophane, as having a more direct tendency to beget and fix infidelity in the hearts of men, than the hymns of the Heathen poets.I must yet add a word, upon the Doctor’s most theological account of man’s first ability to speak articulate words.“In judging, says he, only from thenature of things, one should be apt to embrace the opinionofDiodorus Siculus, that first the men lived for some time in woods and caves, after the manner of beasts, uttering onlyconfused sounds.”¹And yet it is hardly possible for a man to make a judgment more contrary to the nature of things. For does not the nature of almost all animals, beasts and birds shew us, that they have a natural untaught language, not consisting ofconfused sounds, but distinct by an articulate difference and intelligible to every one of the same species? If therefore the nature of things will allow us to suppose, that man was created as perfect in his kind as the animals were in theirs, then it will oblige us to affirm, that the first of mankind had from nature, an untaught language, as suitable to the ends of their creation, as distinct and intelligible to themselves, as that of birds or beasts is to them in their several kinds. Now it must not be said that the Doctor has adopted the whole opinion ofDiodorus, tho’ so highly (as he thinks) conformable to the nature of things; for he has given up that of man’s livingin woods and caves, and has only chosen to stand by that which is much the worst part of it, namely, his natural inability to utter any thingbut confused sounds.—However, to make amends for all this poverty of speech, in which man was brought forth by God; the Doctor has a conjecture, how it soon came to be better with him. In scripture, says he, “we find thatGod taught the first man religion, and can we think he would not at the same time teach him language? Again, when God created man he made woman for his companion, but the only means of enjoying that benefit was the use of speech. Can we believe that he would leave them to get out of theforlorn condition of brutalityas they could?”²—Shocking and even blasphemous words! For little short can it be of that, to say, that man, created in the image and likeness of God, was created in aforlorn condition of brutality? Can any infidel more despise and ridicule all that is said both in the Old and New Testament, concerning man’s creation, his high birth and destination, his fall and redemption, than is here done?¹D. L.Vol. II.page 81.²D. L.ibid.In the scripture we are told, that man in the first, perfect state of his creation, came forth a living image and likeness of the all-perfect God; that he came forth in this exalted state of perfection, above all other animals of this world, in order to be a lord and ruler over them. Can there be a more open ridicule made of all this, than to hold, that this first glorious image of God came forth in aforlorn brutal condition, unable to utter any thing, butconfused sounds? Or what can be more unbecoming a Christian Doctor, than to espouse such a paltry notion from the authority of a paganGreek, in full contradiction to all thatMoses, Christ and hisapostles have said of the first heavenly nature, divine birth and glorious prerogative of man? What a mockery is here made of the whole Christian system, which supposes man to have fallen from such a high degree of heavenly union with God, that nothing less than the birth of the Son of God in fallen man, could restore him to that perfection which he had at first? What a folly to talk of the fall of man, if he came out of the hands of God in a forlorn condition of brutality?But the Doctor comes now to his full proof, that man had at first no articulate speech, and that he was actually taught it afterwards by God; “God brought every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air untoAdam, to see what he would call them.”And yet, so unlucky is the Doctor, that no words can give a higher proof, thatAdamhad not only an articulate speech, but in such a degree of perfection, as none of his natural sons, not the whole tribe of linguists, critics, and grammarians, ever had, or can possibly have. For if it could be supposed, that any man was a hundred times more knowing than the Doctor is, in what he calls hisenigmatic,curiologic,hierogliphic,emblematic,symbolicprofundities, yet if all the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air, were to be brought before him to be distinguished from one another, by articulate sounds of his voice, even such a man would be as unequal tothe task, as aTom Thumb. And of all the absurdities,thatever were heard of, surely none can equal that, of supposing, thatAdamhad not articulate speech, but had it to learn at a time, when he was called to the exercise of the highest perfection of language, namely, to distinguish such an infinite number of creatures, by different articulate sounds of his voice. It is like supposing, that a man whose eyes had no natural power of distinguishing one thing from another, should on that account, have all the creatures in the world, brought before him, that he might describe every difference in form, and figure, that belonged to them.The Doctor has by strength of genius, and great industry, amassed together no small heap of learned decisions of points, doctrines, as well Heathenish, as Christian, much the greatest part of which, the Christian reader will find himself obliged to drive out of his thoughts, as soon as he can in good earnest say,What must I do to be saved?—This collection of decisions, he calls hisprojected defence of Christianity, which if it was such, Christianity must have been but poorly provided for its support by the four gospels. I shall make no doubt of his intending, what he says by them. But a project in defence of Christianity, is not more promising, than a trap to catch humility. The nature of things allows no more of the one, than of the other. To be a defender of Christianity, is tobe a defender of Christ, but none can defend him in any other degree, than so far as he is his follower. To be with Christ, isto walk as he walked, and hethatis not so with him, isagainst him.There are two ways of embracing Christianity, the one is as asinner, the other as ascholar; the former is the way taught by Christ and his apostles, the latter is the invention of men, fallen from the Christian life under the power of natural reason, and verbal learning.—Now these two ways are not to be considered, as only the one better than the other, but in such a difference, as right and wrong, true and false, bear to one another. For there is no possibility of taking one step in Christianity, but as a sinner, for it has no errand but to the sinner, has no relief but for sin, and nothing can receive it, but the heart wounded, and wearied with the burden of its own sin. All the gospel is but a foreign tale, a dead letter to the most logically learned man in the world, who does not feel in the depth of his soul, that all the reasonableness, and excellency of gospel truth, lies in that fund of sin, impurity, and corrupt tempers, which are inseparable from him, till he is born again. And if the Doctor, in his application to the Deists, had pressed home this affecting truth, which stands at the door of every man’s heart, and is the only ground of Christian redemption, he had shewn a better care and concern for theirsouls, and had done more to awaken them out of their infidelity, than by all that wit and satyr in his dedication of his book to them. For like begets like; love and seriousness in the speaker, beget love and seriousness in the hearer; and he that has no earnestness towards unbelievers, but that of perswading them not to lose their share of the love and mercy of God in Christ Jesus, towards helpless fallen men, can only do it, in the spirit and language of that love and goodness, in whose arms, he longs to see them embraced.But as no man ever came to Christ, but because he was weary, and heavy laden with the burden of his own natural disorder, and wanted rest to his soul, so nothing can help men to find the necessity of coming to Christ, but that which helps him to find and feel a misery of sin and corruption, which in some, the care and pleasures of this life, and in others the happiness of finding themselves wits, and polite scholars, never suffered them to feel before.Our Lord’s parable of theprodigalson, contains the whole matter between God and fallen man. It relates nothing particular to this, or that person, but sets forth the strict truth of every man’s state, with regard to his heavenly Father. For every son ofAdamhas every thing in him, that is said of that prodigal; he has lost his first state, is wandered as far from his heavenly Father and country, has abused and wastedhis Father’s blessings, and is that very poor swineherd, craving husks in a land of famine, instead of living in the glory of his Father’s family; and of every reader of that parable, it may be justly said,Thou art the man. And no son ofAdam, do what he will, can possibly come out of the poverty, shame, and misery of his fallen state,♦till he finds and feels, and confesses from the bottom of his heart, all that which the penitent prodigal found, felt and confessed.♦“tell” replaced with “till”I should have had much uneasiness, my Lord, in exposing so many gross errors both in the matter, and manner of the Doctor’s books, did not my heart bear me witness, that no want of good-will, or due respect towards him, but solely a regard to that which ought only to be regarded, has directed my pen.The End of theSixth Volume.
¹D. L.page 587.
¹D. L.page 587.
¹D. L.page 587.
All this is quite beside the point, and leaves theJewsunder the same incapacity of every divine virtue, as has been above asserted. For a short or long existence, is here never thought of,as a reason, why we should, or should not be morally good. For duration, considered in itself, whether short or long, is only a natural consequence ofthat kindof life, which the creature hath. For, such as is itsinternalnature, such is the good, and evilthatbelongs to it, without any regard to its longer or shorter duration.
Now it is the internal nature of man, not considered as short, but as wholly earthly, and created for onlyearthly goods,thatis the reason, why such a kind of life is incapable of any divine virtue, and cannot possibly have any other love, affections or tempers, but such as are confined to this world: and also, why every kind of envy, greediness, craft, and contrivance how to get the most of every earthly thing, must govern every man, that has only the earthly nature in him, as unavoidably, as they govern birds, and beasts. And to tell such a people of a goodness, to which their earthly nature does not lead them, as it leads every other animal tothatwhich it likes, is as vain, as to preach to the sparks, not to fly upwards. Nor can a nature, wholly earthly, any more sin by coveting only earthly things, than thelionsins, by having all his heart set upon his prey.
But the Doctor has a maxim, by which he proves, that theJews, though wholly confined to earthly hopes, and enjoyments, yet might and ought to have been heavenly minded,namely, becausethe true foundation of morality, is the willof God. And yet this very maxim is itself a sufficient proof, than an earthly people, created only for earthly goods, are by the very will of God, directed to be earthly minded. For the will of God, in every creature, is manifested bythat kindof nature, which it hath only from God. Therefore earthly creatures, by being earthly minded, pay as full obedience to the will of God, as pure heavenly spirits by their being heavenly minded. Therefore if man is only an animal of this world, by the will of God, distinguished only from other creatures, by superior skill, subtlety, and contrivances, (as they are from one another) he neither is, nor can be, under any other law, relating to his good and evil, but that which is the law of all other animals, that have all their good and evil from this world. And as it is as good in the wolf, to be ravening, as in the lamb to be harmless, because they both follow their created nature; so if man is as merely a creature of this world, as they are, when he, by his superior subtlety, in order to make the most of his worldly life, either feigns the innocence of the lamb, or puts on the ravening wolf, he follows his nature, as they do theirs, and is just as good and as bad as they are. And to tell such a man of the beauty of holiness, or call him to the denial of his own will, for this reason, because the true foundation of virtue, is the will of God, would be to as much purpose, as if you was only to require him never to sleep any more, because holy angels never sleep in heaven. For what can a creature that can have no good, all its life, but that which is like thegood of milk and honey, have to do with any divine virtue?—If thereforeMosesdesignedly, fixed theIsraelitesin a belief, that they had no good to hope for, but that which flesh and blood could find in earthly things, they were by him taken out of the sphere of every virtue, that can be called godly or divine, and could have no fear of God, but like that, which they might have towards him, or the giants, nor any love of God, but that which they had to their bellies.
Farther, that the Doctor has not entered into any right conception of the subject, he is upon, is plain from his asking, “But how does a short or long existence, a life here, or elsewhere, at all affect the practice of virtue so founded?”—It just so much affects it, as place, or space affects the existence of bodies. They are not brought forth by place or space, but they could have no existence but in place or space. And thus it is, that duration affects the practice of all divine virtue, it could have no possibility of existence, but in a nature incapable of dying.—Corruptibility, and divine goodness, are as impossible to be united, as life and death.—Death may as well exert the functions of life, as a mortal creature breathe heavenly tempers and affections. For though the duration of the creature is not the ground, or reason of any divine virtue, yet no creature can be capable of it, but that, which by the divinity of its birth, is born immortal.
What an inconsistency, to say of a creature of a short existence, or whose life is vanishing away, that its true father is in heaven, and that it ought therefore “to be perfect as its heavenly Father is perfect?” Can that which is daily tending to non-existence, be daily growing up in the perfection of God, or that which is always approaching towards death, be a child of the ever-living God? As well might it be said of the mushroom, that it has the angels in heaven for its brethren, as of man, beginning to exist to-day, and ending his existence to-morrow, that he is a child of his everlasting Father in heaven.
There are some other egregious errors which I intended to have remarked, but I am already got beyond the proper bounds of a letter.—But holyDavid’s case, I cannot but mention, as sufficient to have deterred the Doctor from an hypothesis, which has obliged him to place this sweet finger ofIsraelamongst those, who had not the least thought of any eternal relation to God. This holyDavid, the type of Christ, “who knew that God had sworn with an oath, that out of the fruit of his loins, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne:” this great prophet, who foretold the resurrection of Christ,that his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption; thisDavid, thus deep in the counsels of God, and acquainted with the great article of the resurrection, this spiritual, typical, prophesyingDavid, is, for the sake of the Doctor’s project,crowded amongst those, who were not allowed to have any other relation to God, or any thing else to hope from him, or thank him for, but the blessings of a temporal life, till death had put the same end, to all ofDavid, as it did to those few sheep, that he once kept. And what is still worse, the sameDavidis made the most zealous preacher of the folly of fearing, or hoping for any thing after death: and is appealed to by the Doctor, and his assistant, as giving the most full evidence against all happiness, but that of this life, and represented in his divine transports, as setting forth the wisdom of believing that the life of man ends like that of rotten sheep, in a deaththatbrings him into the dark land of forgetfulness; singing gloriously, “the dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence. In death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave, who shall give thee thanks?”
Thus it is, thatDavid, by these gentlemen is made a preacher against a future state; not considering that such infidelity would have been worse inDavidthan it possibly can be in any modern infidel. But the truth is, the holy prophet in all passages of this kind, is only calling upon God for the continuance and full manifestation of the blessings ofthattemporal theocracy, which could only be given by God, or received by man whilst he was on this side death. And thedarkness,silence, orinsensibilityaffirmed of death, has no relation to atotal endof life andsensibility, but solely to an end of allenjoyment, of the blessings promised by the divine theocracy.David, assonofAbraham,IsaacandJacob, had their faith and piety, and such his psalms are full of heavenly devotion, and flaming with divine love. ButDavid, as asonof the covenant made withMoses, was also an heir of the temporal blessings of the theocracy; and in this capacity, had a right to say,Why do the wicked prosper? Wilt thou shew thy wonders in the grave?That is, canst thou give thy promised temporal blessings, when death has taken away all possibility of receiving them?
But if it could be supposed, thatDavidby the foregoing expressions, meant to give up the promises of eternal redemption made to all his forefathers, and called the world to look for no more but what they could get in this vale of misery; what excuse can be made for the Christian church, which from first to last, has made such heathenish songs a part of the gospel service? For in this case, these psalms may be justly esteemed prophane, as having a more direct tendency to beget and fix infidelity in the hearts of men, than the hymns of the Heathen poets.
I must yet add a word, upon the Doctor’s most theological account of man’s first ability to speak articulate words.
“In judging, says he, only from thenature of things, one should be apt to embrace the opinionofDiodorus Siculus, that first the men lived for some time in woods and caves, after the manner of beasts, uttering onlyconfused sounds.”¹And yet it is hardly possible for a man to make a judgment more contrary to the nature of things. For does not the nature of almost all animals, beasts and birds shew us, that they have a natural untaught language, not consisting ofconfused sounds, but distinct by an articulate difference and intelligible to every one of the same species? If therefore the nature of things will allow us to suppose, that man was created as perfect in his kind as the animals were in theirs, then it will oblige us to affirm, that the first of mankind had from nature, an untaught language, as suitable to the ends of their creation, as distinct and intelligible to themselves, as that of birds or beasts is to them in their several kinds. Now it must not be said that the Doctor has adopted the whole opinion ofDiodorus, tho’ so highly (as he thinks) conformable to the nature of things; for he has given up that of man’s livingin woods and caves, and has only chosen to stand by that which is much the worst part of it, namely, his natural inability to utter any thingbut confused sounds.—However, to make amends for all this poverty of speech, in which man was brought forth by God; the Doctor has a conjecture, how it soon came to be better with him. In scripture, says he, “we find thatGod taught the first man religion, and can we think he would not at the same time teach him language? Again, when God created man he made woman for his companion, but the only means of enjoying that benefit was the use of speech. Can we believe that he would leave them to get out of theforlorn condition of brutalityas they could?”²—Shocking and even blasphemous words! For little short can it be of that, to say, that man, created in the image and likeness of God, was created in aforlorn condition of brutality? Can any infidel more despise and ridicule all that is said both in the Old and New Testament, concerning man’s creation, his high birth and destination, his fall and redemption, than is here done?
¹D. L.Vol. II.page 81.²D. L.ibid.
¹D. L.Vol. II.page 81.
¹D. L.Vol. II.page 81.
²D. L.ibid.
²D. L.ibid.
In the scripture we are told, that man in the first, perfect state of his creation, came forth a living image and likeness of the all-perfect God; that he came forth in this exalted state of perfection, above all other animals of this world, in order to be a lord and ruler over them. Can there be a more open ridicule made of all this, than to hold, that this first glorious image of God came forth in aforlorn brutal condition, unable to utter any thing, butconfused sounds? Or what can be more unbecoming a Christian Doctor, than to espouse such a paltry notion from the authority of a paganGreek, in full contradiction to all thatMoses, Christ and hisapostles have said of the first heavenly nature, divine birth and glorious prerogative of man? What a mockery is here made of the whole Christian system, which supposes man to have fallen from such a high degree of heavenly union with God, that nothing less than the birth of the Son of God in fallen man, could restore him to that perfection which he had at first? What a folly to talk of the fall of man, if he came out of the hands of God in a forlorn condition of brutality?
But the Doctor comes now to his full proof, that man had at first no articulate speech, and that he was actually taught it afterwards by God; “God brought every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air untoAdam, to see what he would call them.”
And yet, so unlucky is the Doctor, that no words can give a higher proof, thatAdamhad not only an articulate speech, but in such a degree of perfection, as none of his natural sons, not the whole tribe of linguists, critics, and grammarians, ever had, or can possibly have. For if it could be supposed, that any man was a hundred times more knowing than the Doctor is, in what he calls hisenigmatic,curiologic,hierogliphic,emblematic,symbolicprofundities, yet if all the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air, were to be brought before him to be distinguished from one another, by articulate sounds of his voice, even such a man would be as unequal tothe task, as aTom Thumb. And of all the absurdities,thatever were heard of, surely none can equal that, of supposing, thatAdamhad not articulate speech, but had it to learn at a time, when he was called to the exercise of the highest perfection of language, namely, to distinguish such an infinite number of creatures, by different articulate sounds of his voice. It is like supposing, that a man whose eyes had no natural power of distinguishing one thing from another, should on that account, have all the creatures in the world, brought before him, that he might describe every difference in form, and figure, that belonged to them.
The Doctor has by strength of genius, and great industry, amassed together no small heap of learned decisions of points, doctrines, as well Heathenish, as Christian, much the greatest part of which, the Christian reader will find himself obliged to drive out of his thoughts, as soon as he can in good earnest say,What must I do to be saved?—This collection of decisions, he calls hisprojected defence of Christianity, which if it was such, Christianity must have been but poorly provided for its support by the four gospels. I shall make no doubt of his intending, what he says by them. But a project in defence of Christianity, is not more promising, than a trap to catch humility. The nature of things allows no more of the one, than of the other. To be a defender of Christianity, is tobe a defender of Christ, but none can defend him in any other degree, than so far as he is his follower. To be with Christ, isto walk as he walked, and hethatis not so with him, isagainst him.
There are two ways of embracing Christianity, the one is as asinner, the other as ascholar; the former is the way taught by Christ and his apostles, the latter is the invention of men, fallen from the Christian life under the power of natural reason, and verbal learning.—Now these two ways are not to be considered, as only the one better than the other, but in such a difference, as right and wrong, true and false, bear to one another. For there is no possibility of taking one step in Christianity, but as a sinner, for it has no errand but to the sinner, has no relief but for sin, and nothing can receive it, but the heart wounded, and wearied with the burden of its own sin. All the gospel is but a foreign tale, a dead letter to the most logically learned man in the world, who does not feel in the depth of his soul, that all the reasonableness, and excellency of gospel truth, lies in that fund of sin, impurity, and corrupt tempers, which are inseparable from him, till he is born again. And if the Doctor, in his application to the Deists, had pressed home this affecting truth, which stands at the door of every man’s heart, and is the only ground of Christian redemption, he had shewn a better care and concern for theirsouls, and had done more to awaken them out of their infidelity, than by all that wit and satyr in his dedication of his book to them. For like begets like; love and seriousness in the speaker, beget love and seriousness in the hearer; and he that has no earnestness towards unbelievers, but that of perswading them not to lose their share of the love and mercy of God in Christ Jesus, towards helpless fallen men, can only do it, in the spirit and language of that love and goodness, in whose arms, he longs to see them embraced.
But as no man ever came to Christ, but because he was weary, and heavy laden with the burden of his own natural disorder, and wanted rest to his soul, so nothing can help men to find the necessity of coming to Christ, but that which helps him to find and feel a misery of sin and corruption, which in some, the care and pleasures of this life, and in others the happiness of finding themselves wits, and polite scholars, never suffered them to feel before.
Our Lord’s parable of theprodigalson, contains the whole matter between God and fallen man. It relates nothing particular to this, or that person, but sets forth the strict truth of every man’s state, with regard to his heavenly Father. For every son ofAdamhas every thing in him, that is said of that prodigal; he has lost his first state, is wandered as far from his heavenly Father and country, has abused and wastedhis Father’s blessings, and is that very poor swineherd, craving husks in a land of famine, instead of living in the glory of his Father’s family; and of every reader of that parable, it may be justly said,Thou art the man. And no son ofAdam, do what he will, can possibly come out of the poverty, shame, and misery of his fallen state,♦till he finds and feels, and confesses from the bottom of his heart, all that which the penitent prodigal found, felt and confessed.
♦“tell” replaced with “till”
♦“tell” replaced with “till”
♦“tell” replaced with “till”
I should have had much uneasiness, my Lord, in exposing so many gross errors both in the matter, and manner of the Doctor’s books, did not my heart bear me witness, that no want of good-will, or due respect towards him, but solely a regard to that which ought only to be regarded, has directed my pen.
The End of theSixth Volume.