Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

one of the spirits of the just made perfect; yet, according to the sentiment in question, that prior law of sin, which, as it attaches to every created intelligence, may be considered as a law of creation-that law which, by the hypothesis, may be justly denominated, The original source of all the wickedness, and of all the misery, in the universe-yet subsists in all its dreadful force!

8. The Scriptures, I have been accustomed to think, afford abundant reason for concluding, that every angel and saint, in the ultimate glory, will for ever feel himself completely happy, when reflecting on what he is, and on what he enjoys. Agreeable to that saying, I shall be satisfied when I awake, with thy likeness. But I do not perceive how it is possible for Gabriel, or Paul, or any other creature that ardently loves God, though in the enjoyment of supernal felicity, to be conscious of having a radical, unconquerable, everlasting tendency to hate him; and yet be perfectly satisfied with his own character and state.

9. Does our Lord say, The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me, to favour his pernicious designs? This hypothesis, had the devil been acquainted with it, would have taught him to reply, 'Boast not, thou Son of Mary, and Second Adam, of thy purity and perfection. Knowest thou not that there is in thee, equally as there was in me before my apostasy, a tendency to revolt and renounce thy allegiance to God? Which tendency, if not controlled by sovereign favour, or if thou be not withheld from transgression, as Abimeleck was, would soon plunge thee into guilt and misery. Nay, let me tell thee, O Seed of the Woman! that I have

as much reason to hope for deliverance from everlasting punishment as thou hast for deliverance from a tendency to deserve it!'

10. When the apostle says, The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death; he leads us to infer, that after the resurrection of the righteous, there will be nothing in their persons, their character, or their state, in the least inimical to their holiness, their honour, or happiness. But surely, a perpetual tendency, in their own persons, to revolt-to hate God -to lose their felicity-with which we may justly suppose them to be well acquainted; must be considered as an enemy-an invincible and everlasting enemy. Once more:

11. The principle opposed seems naturally adapted greatly to lessen our views of the intrinsic evil of sin; whether it be considered with reference to original apostasy, or as reflecting hereditary depravity. Our views of original apostasy fall very much under its influence. For if a tendency to revolt from God be ESSENTIAL to a reasonable creature; and if neither Adam, nor Satan, had an opposite and equally powerful concreated tendency; to rebel against the Most High, was only acting according to an essential property of their natures, and quite agreeably to primitive character. Nay, as by this hypothesis, Adam and Satan had an essential tendency, not only to sink into non-existence, but also to revolt from God; and as annihilation, in the one case, and moral defection, in the other, could not be prevented, except by divine agency; so, that agency being withdrawn, in either case, the loss of existence or the loss of happiness must inevitably follow. But

as, had conferring power been withheld, the loss of being could not, I presume, have come under the notion of a crime, in either Satan or Adam, so it will be hard to prove, on the reprobated principle, that any great degree of criminality attaches to their apostasy: it being the natural effect of an essential, physical properly.

The same principle will operate, in a similar manner, on our views of intrinsic evil in hereditary depravity. For the principle, it must be recollected, avows, That there is in every rational creature a tendency to rebel against God: that this tendency is essential to every created intelligence: that the holiest creatures must therefore have it in the ultimate glory: and, that it is not a moral evil.

Is an ungodly man, who adopts these extraordinary and bold positions, alarmed by a sense of guilt and an apprehension of danger, on account of his powerful propensity to this, that, and the other probihited object? he will probably endeavour to quiet his conscience by thus reflecting: 'I feel, it must be confessed, a strong inclination to various things which the law of God forbids, and to complain of his providence for visiting me with disappointments, afflictions, and sorrows; nor do I perceive in my heart any counter-tendency to love and obey him: which, according to the opinion of many preachers and theological writers, are evidences of deep, dreadful, desperate depravity. But, being convinced by metaphysical demonstration, that there was a strong tendency in both Adam and Satan, before their fall, to disobedience and revolt from God; which tendency, nevertheless, was perfectly free from sin; I may

safely conclude, that my propensity to evil cannot be either so hateful to God, or so destructive to man, as many of our zealous theologues presume to assert.

-6

Being now taught, and sincerely believing, that a tendency to disobedience belongs to my condition as a creature; that this tendency is an essential property of my dependent nature; that the angels and saints in light, nay, that the glorified humanity of Christ, are not free from it; I cannot but view my strongest propensity to forbidden objects, as being little besides that original, and absolutely unavoidable tendency, which, simply considered, is not a moral evil; and, therefore, uncensurable. This reflection affords relief to my pained mind,'

Is there not some danger also of a real Christian, in times of temptation, and when in a backsliding state, reasoning to this effect? The tendencies of my nature to that which is dreadfully evil, have been frequently so strong, as to excite the most painful doubts, whether I be a partaker of that holiness without which no man can enter heaven. But, being convinced that a tendency to disobedience to revolt from God—to become guilty as damned spirits, and polluted as hell, may exist in a creature, without any moral evil: that such a tendency does actually exist in the person of Gabriel; and that it is essential to every created intelligence; I cannot forbear suspecting, that much of this powerful, inherent bias to evil arises from my condition as a creature; rather than from any adventitious depravity, transmitted by carnal descent from Adam, or super-induced by his apostasy; and that, with regard to myself, it ought

rather to be considered as distinguishing the creature from the Creator, than as an evidence of my being destitute of true holiness.'-Nay, if I be not greatly mistaken, there is reason to infer, that the intrinsic evil of all sin which ever was, or ever can be committed, will appear much extenuated, when viewed through the medium of Dr. Williams's contested principle: but this I leave others to investigate and to determine.

To conclude the argument: So far from being self-evident, and incontrovertible by any reasonable person, is the Doctor's grand principle respecting an absolutely necessary tendency to moral defection being essential to every created intelligence; that I cannot but consider its genuine consequences, as contrary to divine revelation, relative to the primi tive state of man; as inimical to the supreme perfection of our Creator's character; as implicit blasphemy against our Mediator's complex person; as impeaching, of moral imperfection, beatified saints in the ultimate glory; as a libel on all the thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers in heaven; and as naturally tending to extenuate, in our views, the intrinsic evil of sin, under every consideration of it. Consequences, these, which the worthy author, I am fully persuaded, must abhor.

Either, therefore, the Doctor must prove, that a radical and immortal tendency to rebel against the divine government, and to hate God, is a completely innocent propensity; or evince, that these consequences are not fairly deducible from his principles and reasoning; or totally renounce his present hypothesis respecting the origin of moral evil.

« PreviousContinue »