1

in his condemnation as a sinner, for without this he would have no idea of grace in his salvation. This cannot be denied.

The promise of God to save a believer, by grace, cannot diminish that believer's sense of his own desert. Even pardon clearly implies the justice of punishment, or else there can be no grace in pardon.

5. The Christian may feel rightly disposed towards God and his government, that is, may love God, before he has an evidence that God will save him. This is out of the triangle, and will be denied. But I beg the reader, as he values the truth, to attend with candour to this point.. It may affect his own religion and hopes more than he is aware of. This proposition is denied, because it militates against the grand fortress and strong hold of what I call selfishness.

I justify the proposition by the following reasons:

1. The real Christian may judge incorrectly of his own exercises and feelings. They may be of the right kind, without his having any degree of confidence in them. Thus I have no doubt it happens, that many a converted soul does not come to a due estimate of his exercises towards God, for hours, nay, days and months after his conversion. He has the feelings of a child, but no confidence in those feelings. It is a very rare thing that a renewed sinner is able to say, "This is faith-this is love--this is holiness-I am born again," immediately, the first moment after his regeneration. When I see a christian come forward in that manner, I am doubtful, and have reason to fear he is deluded. Nor will he be very ready to give in to the opinion of any one who may officiously tell him, he is a renewed man; and such persons there are always at hand. He will perhaps say, "I think I love God-I seem to perceive the glory and fulness of Christ, but the matter is too important; I fear I am mistaken."

2. The Christian's confidence of salvation is not the cause, but the effect, of his love to God. There is not a more fatal error in the church, and to the souls of men, than the supposition, that the sinner begins to love God in consequence of discovering that God is going to save him. The thing itself speaks and shows sheer selfishness, with the broadest grio. I am

amazed that the bare suggestion should not excite alarm and suspicion, distrust and aversion. What says our Saviour? "If ye love them that love you, what thank have ye?" Do not even sinners love those that love them? Such a kind of love is no sign of grace. That which I feel towards God, when I see that he will save me, is gratitude. Nothing can be more certain than that all the wicked on earth, and that all the devils in hell, could they discover that God was going to make them eternally happy, would love him for it, would feel very grateful, would think him a very good being. Let those who trust in such a kind of love to God be assured, that their foundation is sand.

3. The nature of that love, which is due to God from all creatures, shows, with the brightness of a sunbeam, that it is far above gratitude, or any return or reflection of kindness. What is the ground of the most perfect and exalted friendship among men? Is it a mere requital of kindness, a reflection of interest? Does it rest on the narrow ground of reciprocal benefits? Is it not grounded on the high and estimable qualities which two persons may discover in each other? What if General Washington had reprieved a criminal from death, or paid his ransom, would that criminal perceive in that generous act the highest and utmost ground of respect? Robespierre, or Cateline, might have done him the same kindness. In truth, all that God has done for one sinner bears no more proportion to the grounds of regard discoverable in his nature and character, than a single grain of sand bears to the universe. Hence,

4. Love to God is not the effect or consequence of faith; it is coeval with it, nay, it is in, and belongs to the nature of faith. Faith without love is good for nothing-is dead-is no better than the faith of devils. As there can be no holiness in the heart previous to love, and as nothing can be acceptable to God without holiness, we may rest assured that holiness is not only a concomitant, but a constituent of faith.

It may further be observed, that consequent on regeneration there can be no earlier exercise of heart than love to God; and, I leave it to the acute and able theologian to say, whether he can perceive any thing in regeneration itself, but a change of heart from hatred to the love of God. But by love, here, I

mean not only the effect, but the cause; not only the exercise, but the agency by which it is produced, that is, "the love of God shed abroad in the heart, by the Holy Ghost." "For he

that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him."

I have, I trust, shown, that love to God is not the effect of faith. The arguments might indeed have been amplified, but that I deem unnecessary, till I shall see stronger reasons brought against them. And, if the love of God be considered objectively, it will be seen, that it cannot arise from a conviction that God is going to save the sinner. This, indeed, has been already stated, but the importance given to this point by the dispute before us, renders it necessary to be more explicit.

The unregenerate man is in a state of condemnation, of course, he has no evidence to believe that God will save him. If regeneration be an instantaneous work, which those admit with whom I am at issue, a moment of time does not intervene between the last sinful exercise of the unregenerate, and the first holy exercise of the regenerate man, or love to God: in a moment he finds himself loving God, and feels delight in the exercise. The first intellectual apprehensions of the new man are allowed to be various, by most orthodox divines, old as well as new and this must be allowed from the nature of the case, and is confirmed by constant experience. I seldom ever heard two Christians relate having had similar apprehensions, either in the first moments, or first hours or days, of their Christian experience. Their first views may be supposed to take their complexion very much from their state of knowledge, and general habits of thinking. But though these cases doubtless embrace an endless variety, yet there is reason to believe, that God is the grand object of their apprehension; and that themselves are generally, if not entirely, out of the question, and not thought of.

I first mention the case of those persons who pretend to no recollection of the time of their conversion; and many such there are who give abundant evidence of piety. Though they did not know it, there was a time when they were renewed by the Holy Ghost: no thought occurred to them, however, that they were born again, or were going to be saved; so far from

it, that if any one had told them they were Christians, they would have spurned the idea, and would have said, you flatter and deceive me." What may we suppose were their exercises during this time? Why, at times they had clear and affecting views of the loveliness and glory of God, of the person and character of Christ, of his fulness and all-sufficiency as a Saviour; but, then, they dare not trust to these views and feelings. I next mention the case of such as suppose they know the time of their conversion. What were their first views? "There was a God; he was an infinitely lovely and excellent being. The world was his;-all nature was beautiful and glorious;all creatures seemed to praise him. The Bible was a new book. There was a Christ willing and able to save the vilest sinner. The gospel was free; the fault was all in the sinner." And I declare to the reader, that not one only, nor two, nor ten persons have I heard say, that their view of Christ's sufficiency was such, that they thought they could persuade their friends immediately to embrace him.

But while the new-born Christian had these views, what of himself? Did it occur to him, at the very first instant, that God was going to save him, and, therefore, that he loved God for it?

Was it his very first apprehension that he should be saved; and was that the cause of his joy and love? The idea is shocking, and from my soul, I believe, is revolting to every pious mind; nor do I believe there is a Christian on earth whose recollection of his own experience will confirm it. I readily grant, the Christian's first apprehension may be of the Saviour; but then it will be of him as the son of God. "If thou believest in thine heart that God has raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, thou shalt be saved." "But," said Christ to Peter,

“Thou art the Son of God;

"whom do ye say that I am?" thou art the king of Israel." "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Christ's person, character, and work, together, form the great object of faith; the assent of the understanding, and cordial consent of the heart to it, form the exercise. But the notion of appropriating faith, so called, i. e. that Christ died for me, and

laying this as the ground and motive of my love to Christ, and prior to it, and these points, in connexion with the doctrine of particular atonement, make out a dead faith and selfish love to the Christian, and an innocent unbelief to the sinner.

To perceive beauty, is to love. Whatever the soul's first apprehension of God is, it is attended with a coeval perception of his glorious excellence and beauty. I wish the candid and ingenuous reader to observe that acts, in no case, are the proper objects of love. A series of great actions indicate a great being; but it is not the actions, but the actor we love. But a good action done to me indicates no more goodness than as though it were done to some other man. I ought, in fact, to love God as much for doing good to my neighbour as to myself; and this I certainly shall do, if I love my neighbour as myself." If this be not correct, let its error be made out.

This brings into view an idea of what is usually termed disinterested love, against which a more unreasonable clamour has been raised, and justified by more ridiculous shifts, and more groundless and shameless arguments, than are usually seen * marshalled in the field of controversy. Be it admitted, though it is by no means always true, that the new-born soul's first apprehension is of Christ-his first exercise of love is towards Christ'; yet there is no otherwise an act of appropriation than what is implied in the perception," that the Saviour is infinitely glorious and excellent, willing, and all-sufficient to save; the chiefest among ten thousand, and altogether lovely." He looks up to God, and beholds him a God of love, ruling his kingdom with perfect goodness; that all creatures are safe; that all interests committed to him are secure. It does not, at this time, occur to him that he is born again, or shall be saved. His mind is filled with objects infinitely more glorious and majestic than any consideration of his own interest or salvation. And, although a great leader of the Triangular scheme has lately cautioned his hearers, from his pulpit, to be aware of that "base and absurd philosophy, which ought not to be dignified by the name of philosophy, which teaches men to leave their own hap