01.01. Of the Original Purity of Human Nature

CHAPTER 1. OF THE ORIGINAL PURITY OF HUMAN NATURE.

0 my soul, what is that subject which thou art about to contemplate? Consider it well, it is important, copious, and what thou hast never had experience of. How then canst thou hope to form conceptions of it agreeable to its nature ? Canst thou expect to delineate the original beauties of the human mind, who hast been. unlovely, ever since thou wast, in the least degree, conscious of thy own acts I Is it likely that thou shouldest be able to represent the perfection of the intelligent creature, particularly Man, seeing thou hast never had a sight of the lovely image, either in thyself, or in another? The undertaking must be difficult to any depraved mind, and it certainly must be so much the more difficult to thee, by how much thou art less holy, and more degenerated than others are. But, my soul, be not discouraged, nor decline the work before thee, on that account; the labour possibly, may be of some advantage to others, and to thyself, it doubtless will be profitable ; for, the better thou shalt be acquainted with the original purity and perfection of thy nature, a juster sense thou wilt have of that vitiosity, which thou hast always been attended with, and therefore, it may reasonably be expected, that thou wilt learn humility, the evil nature of sin, and be stirred up to adore that divine favour, which hath provided for thee a new beauty that never can be lost. If these useful ends should be, on thy part, in any measure answered, thou wilt be well recompensed for all thy pains, were they far greater than thou are able to take in this momentous enquiry. And, therefore, proceed to consider what the excellency of thy nature was, in its primitive state; and be sure that thou fail not to give an impartial and fair representation of the original glory of the human mind, so far as thou shalt be enabled to obtain the knowledge of it, because thou naturally art the very reverse of it, in thy thoughts, desires, and affections. This, this is my firm resolution, and it is what I hope constantly to keep in view.

Man, as soon as he was created, became subject to a law. The relation between God and the creature necessarily supposes, the subjection of the creature to the will and rule of God. And the divine will hath the power and force of a law; acting contrary to that, is disobedience and rebellion.

Again, that law whereunto man was subjected certainly was perfect or it comprised the whole of his duty. For it is irrational and impious to imagine that God can be the author of an imperfect law. Infinite rectitude cannot fail of requiring what is holy in all its branches, and in its full extent.

Hence it follows that man was pure and holy in his creation-state, or possessed of power to do the complete will of God. For equity requires that the powers of the creature, as he is created by God, be sufficient to enable him to keep a law, which is to be the rule of his actions. No acts of obedience, in justice, can be demanded of the creature, which exceed his powers, as he is formed of his Maker. For, it is equitable that there be a proportion between the ability of the creature and the command under which he is placed; and, consequently, man, in his original state was perfect, and attended with no moral disorder or defect. If he was not so, he could not keep a perfect law; and to subject him to a law which lie could not obey, through a weakness natural to him, as created of his Almighty Ruler, would have been unjust. And, therefore, as the law was perfect, so was man, the subject of it. God cannot omit requiring of the creature what is holy, nor can He command acts of obedience of the creature., which are beyond that ability which He furnishes the creature with, in his creation.

Moreover, the Holy Scriptures assert the perfection of human nature in its original state. Uprightness is attributed to man, and it is declared that, God made him in His own image. Lo, this only have I found, that God made man, upright: (Ecclesiastes 7:29) that is to say, pure, and holy, and that perfectly so. Man had a perfection of knowledge, a holy disposition of mind, and perfect purity in his affections.

I. He had a perfection of knowledge; no ignorance attended him in his primitive state.

1. Man had a perfect knowledge of God, according to the nature of that law or covenant, whereby he was then directed to fear and serve Him. Without a perception of the Being, and infinite powers of Deity, no acts of adoration, reverence, trust, and love, can be exerted towards and on God our Maker. If, therefore, man was obliged in his primitive state, to worship his Creator, of which, surely, none can doubt, it must be supposed, that he was acquainted with his divine excellencies and glory. A blind devotion was not performed by man in innocence, nor did he worship he knew not what. Ignorance of God is the consequence of sin, and, therefore, man was not the unhappy subject of that ignorance and blindness, before his transgression.

Some have thought, that he had a knowledge of the Trinity, and it is not improbable. For, though that is not attainable by reasoning on the operations of God’s hand, we may fairly suppose that man received by ,immediate and supernatural revelation, the knowledge of some truths, and why may we not conclude, that, the knowledge of this mystery was conveyed to him in that way? To the end he might, in his acts of devotion, pay those honors to the Divine Three, which are the due of each.

Since ignorance of God is every-where represented as an unhappiness to men, it is unreasonable to think that man originally was unacquainted with Him.

2. We cannot rationally suppose that he was a stranger to his duty, either in the matter, manner, or extent of it. If he had not known what acts his Maker required of him, it would have been impossible for him to behave himself agreeably to His will. Obedience to any authority necessarily supposes the knowledge of what is enjoined. For, if a subject happens to act as the law requires, who has no knowledge of what is enacted, properly speaking, his acts would not be obedience to the legislator, because he could have no respect to his will in those acts, or intention of shewing his submission to his authority in what he acted, which always enters into the nature of real obedience to a superior, in what he commands. And, consequently, man must know what he ought to practice, and in what manner, and with what views, the duties required of him were to be performed; for otherwise, he could not be obedient to the will of his Maker in what he did. And, unless he had had this knowledge of what it was, the will of God he should practice, if he had failed of his duty or acted contrary to it, no uneasy consciousness could possibly have taken place in his mind, upon such failure, and unlawful acting. Conscience cannot accuse of offence, farther than a perception of what ought to be done, and what ought to be avoided, extends. It must, therefore, be concluded, that man was acquainted with his duty, in the whole compass of it. As his understanding was not blinded by any contracted prejudices, so no natural defect attended it. His mind was then capable of discerning the objects which claimed his love, and of seeing those objects which it became him to turn from and avoid. His rejection of the highest good, and his choice of evil, were not the effects of ignorance. If he could have pleaded that in his excuse, we may be certain he had not failed of it, for he discovered an inclination to lessen his crime, if that had been possible ; but he offers nothing of this kind to extenuate his guilt. This leads me to observe,

3. He knew wherein his happiness consisted. If man in his first estate had been insensible of the excellency of that good, unto which he was entitled so long as he preserved his integrity, his folly had not been so great in forfeiting of his title to it ; neither could he have taken pleasure in that good, while he had it in possession; for delight from good enjoyed, arises from a perception of the nature of that good; and, consequently, pleasure in it, cannot exceed that measure of acquaintance the mind hath with it, in its excellency. We cannot therefore suppose, that A dam was ignorant of his happy circumstances, in his creation-state. If he was then happy, he must have been sensible wherein his felicity consisted.

4. He was not ignorant of that misery which a breach of the law would bring him into. He perfectly knew that sin against his Maker would certainly be followed with consequences fatal to himself His perfect reason could not but discern that rebellion against his Sovereign would expose him to his righteous displeasure. Ignorance ,is to this, cannot be pleaded in his excuse. He dared to rebel, with a full knowledge of the dreadful effects of an act of rebellion, according to the appointment of God in the law.

II. His disposition was such as God approved of. It is irrational to imagine that the mind of man was not the subject of any habits, good or evil, as he was created of God; for that supposes, that he was neither holy nor unholy. The disposition of his mind, as he came out of God’s hand, could not be sinful, for that would make God the author of sin; and, consequently, he had no aversion to holiness, nor inclination to evil, or his will was not under the influence of any evil bias. He then must have a good and holy disposition. Adam was created good in a moral sense, or else God gave being to a creature, which the purity of his own nature would necessarily incline him to disapprove of, and prevent him holding fellowship with, than which nothing more absurd can be supposed. For my part, I can as soon believe that man rose into existence of himself, as that God formed him with such dispositions as men universally give evidence have place in their minds. The absurdity of such an imagination, I cannot but think must be evident to every one who is not void of all consideration, and is not absolutely a stranger to himself. Is it rational to suppose that God made man with such instability, such inclinations, such irregularity and disorder in his passions, as are now found with all men? It may be questioned, whether that man thinks at all, (if he speaks truth,) who says that he hath no experience, nor ever had, of any such depravity in him, as it is pretended every man is now the subject of. For it is hardly possible that reason can be exercised without a discernment, in some measure, that our reasonable nature is not, at present, such as it would be well if it was.-With respect to some, who confidently assert that they have no disposition to evil, it may partly be owing to ignorance of themselves, of the nature of holiness and of sin; but perhaps, much more to perverseness and obstinacy: they may hardily deny what they know to be true, rather than give any advantage to a principle which they are obstinately determined to oppose and run down at any rate. That human nature is now corrupt, is so plain a truth, that I cannot be persuaded that any man retains consciousness, who hath no perception of the dismal fact in himself. And is it not most absurd to imagine that God created man such as he now is ? It is not so great a dishonor to God, to deny that he is the author of the being of man, as it is to assert that He created him such as he now is, in the temper and disposition of his mind. And to suppose that He formed him without either good or evil inclinations, or without a direction in his will, either to what is good, or to what is evil, is senseless and irrational.

III. His affections were untainted, and no disorder attended him in his passions. No temptation arose from vanity seated in the inferior powers of his soul, which is the case with man in his fallen state. Neither were his passions tumultuous and rebellious against his reason; so that his sin could not be occasioned by the impurity of his affections, nor the impetuosity of his passions. No unlawful love, delight, or aversion were implanted in the nature of man by the great Author of his being. And, therefore, the dictates of his reason did not meet with control from corruption in his affections, while he continued innocent. And, consequently, obedience to the law of his Maker was not rendered difficult by any unruliness in the passions of his soul. Disorder there, was the effect, and not the cause of his apostacy. The arguments are various by which this doctrine of the original purity of man is proved.

1. God created him in his own image and likeness. And this image must intend moral rectitude. Intelligence or reason, though it is necessarily included, it is not the principal thing designed by that divine likeness; for if rationality was this image, it could never be lost. Sin, which defaces this beautiful image, does not deprive men or devils of intelligence. The nature of both will eternally continue rational. It is impossible that either can sink into brutality. Thought and consciousness are inseparable from the nature of both. And, therefore, the image of God must be something distinct from reason. Indeed, reason only can be the subject of it ; but reason is not the thing itself To suppose that mere reason is God’s likeness is an imagination unworthy of a reasonable nature, with how much confidence so ever, some pretending unto a superior degree of reason, assert that it is. This is a glaring evidence of their deep corruption, depravity, and of their being unacquainted with the true glory of an intelligent nature, even in theory. No censure too great can be passed on an opinion so senseless, and reproachful to our Maker.

2. Whatever the law requires of men now, that was in human nature originally. Doth not the law demand love to God with our whole hearts? It does. Can we be supposed to love Him, without a true knowledge of Him, in His being, nature, and perfections ? No; for such love is not a blind passion ; but a holy affection, raised in the mind b a perception of His infinite excellencies. Ignorant devotion is every whit as good in itself, as undiscerning affection towards the Deity. Again, the law requires us to fear and reverence our Maker. And can there be a reverence of God, without the knowledge of Him? No. We may have a dread of something unknown, and revere a nature that we axe taught is excellent; but unless we have some ideas of the power and excellency of that nature, we are afraid of we know not what, and pay veneration to a being or nature possessed of some supposed excellencies, but such as we are strangers unto. So the idolatrous Athenians worshipped God. They had this inscription on one of their altars, To the unknown God. And some men, if I understand them, would lead us into a belief of the possibility of the human mind exerting acts of love, fear, and reverence of God, without the knowledge of Him. Since the law requires these things of men, of all men, certain it is that human nature in its primitive state, was the happy subject of a true knowledge of God, in His nature, and infinitely glorious perfections; of a holy affection to God, and of a disposition to reverence and fear Him. Nor is any intelligent nature like unto God, which approves not of goodness, truth, and righteousness. The moment an intelligent creature ceases to love and delight in these things, he is strip of his glory, and becomes depraved in his understanding, will, and affections.

3. Man in his original state was the object of the approbation of his Maker. This cannot be denied, without the absurdity of supposing that God gave existence to a creature, which He could not look upon with satisfaction and pleasure. Now, if God approved of man when He had made him, he must be the subject of such qualities in his reasonable nature, as were Pleasing to Him. For bare intelligence is not the object either of God’s approbation or disapprobation. A reasonable nature, which is the subject of perfect holiness, is the object of God’s delight; and a reasonable nature depraved and vicious, is the object of his displeasure; and, consequently, man originally was the the happy subject of good habits, or of integrity, righteousness, and a perfection of nature ; for then nothing could be wanting in him, to render him the fit object of the approbation of his Creator.

4. Regeneration, or our new creation, is the implantation of, or giving being unto, holy principles in our minds; that is, making the heart good, in order unto the performance of good works. And this is called the image of God, and it is said to consist in righteousness and true holiness. And, consequently, the divine image is not intelligence; but purity and holiness in an intelligent nature. Wherein a true knowledge of God, according to the nature of the covenant under which man is, and love to Him, fear of Him, and a disposition to obey Him, axe included.

5. Man was happy in his original state. He not only was free from pain and misery, but he enjoyed delight. And the pleasure he had before his apostacy, was of a pure and holy nature, such as God approved of. If his mind was not the subject of perfect knowledge, according to the nature of that covenant under which he then was; if his will had not been disposed to obedience . if his affections had not been holy and pure, what pleasure could he possibly take in those truths which were contained in the law, whereunto his obedience was required? Happiness necessarily supposes delight, and delight as necessarily supposes an agreeableness between the disposition of the soul, and the objects from which its pleasure springs. Man was happy in innocence, he, therefore, enjoyed pleasure, and that pleasure was pure and holy. He, then, must know truth, and approve of it.

6. Man, in innocence, enjoyed a sense of divine favour, according unto the nature of the covenant which was then made with him. This seems to me so evident a truth, and so consonant to reason, that I think it cannot well be called in question. And if it is true that Adam in that state enjoyed communion with his Maker, surely he must then be the subject of heavenly knowledge and true holiness. For if not, his mind would not have been disposed unto fellowship with God, and he must have been incapable of taking any pleasure therein. A depraved intelligent nature is averse to communion with God; and a mind which is not the subject of a holy disposition, can have no inclination unto intimacy with him. If any suppose that a reasonable nature, destitute of such a disposition, may be inclined to communion with the Father of spirits, they must be strangers to that happiness because it includes a perception of what God is, of the creature’s relation to Him, and that all its felicity springs from Him, and an adoration of His infinite perfections. Hence, it necessarily follows, that the mind of man, originally, was not only free from corruption; but, also, that it was the happy subject of pure and holy principles, which were concreated with it : for where real holiness is not, it is impossible that communion with God can be enjoyed.

7. If man by acts of obedience had acquired good habits, he would have been the author of his chief excellency, and not God, which it is blasphemous to imagine. God indeed gave him a reasonable nature; but its ornament an beauty would not have been a divine gift ; the supposition of which is intolerable arrogance and insolence against the Author of our beings; and, therefore, man was certainly created pure and holy. A mind which is the subject of good dispositions, is better than a mind that is not. The acquirement, therefore, of such dispositions, by a mind destitute of them, must be esteemed an acquisition of greater glory than it before possessed; and, consequently, man’s highest excellency must have been the effect of his own labor, and not of the bounty of his Creator. This reasoning is what I think cannot be answered by those who deny original righteousness. But holy acts can never arise in a mind destitute of holy habits. If A dam, therefore, was not created with a holy disposition, he could not have acquired it, because, without it, be could not perform holy acts.

8. Indifference to good and evil I think cannot have place in a reasonable nature. Indifference in the mind can only respect things indifferent, which are neither good nor evil, if the mind is supposed to be conversant about objects whose nature is not indifferent. That intelligent nature certainly is not what it ought to be, in whose account, it matters not whether truth or falsehood is embraced, whether right or wrong is chosen and pursued. When the mind gives the preference to what is right and fit, and is disposed to that, before its contrary, it is good ; but when it is the subject of a disposition to what is unfit, and makes choice of it, then it is depraved. The supposed indifference of the human mind towards its duty, or the contrary of it, agrees not with the experience either of good or bad men. It is not found in the soul of any man in this world, nor can attend any human mind in the next world; and to conceit that Adam was created of God, that which neither a good man nor an evil man is, is a fond and ridiculous imagination. That he could not create him with vicious dispositions all must grant, and, consequently, he made him with good dispositions, because it is impossible that indifference to holiness or sin, should ever be found in a reasonable nature. a creature disposed neither to good nor to evil, never had real existence ; but is only a supposed being in the foolish imaginations of some perverse men. The just and natural conclusions arising from these things axe, viz., That man in his original state was the happy subject of moral perfection; not only free from all vitiosity and disorder in his reasonable nature, but possessed of positive holiness, the object of the approbation of God who made him, and made him good, in a moral sense ; for otherwise, he had not been a fit object of divine approbation. That his knowledge was complete, or that he was perfectly acquainted with all the momentous truths contained in that law or covenant, under which he then was. That he had a disposition to good, or a liking to truth, righteousness, and holiness. That he was capable of holding fellowship with his Maker, and actually enjoyed a sense of His favor. That, therefore, pleasures pure and holy sprung up in his mind, from an apprehension of an interest in the good will, care, and bountiful kindness of his Creator. For he not only was entertained with a sight of the pleasing wonders that surrounded him above, and on the earth beneath, especially in that fertile spot of it whereon he was placed; but also with an apprehension of the glory of the Author of the universe, in that way, wherein he had then displayed it. Adam, therefore, was not only free from pain, uneasy consciousness and misery ; but possessed happiness in a positive sense, full satisfaction, joy and delight pure and holy, and such as God designs to a pure and perfect mind. Hence it is apparent that no vain thoughts naturally sprung up in the mind of man, no unlawful desires arose in his soul from an evil bias in his will, nor were any natural tendencies then found in his affections towards objects trifling, vain, and hurtful, through impurity seated in them. His unclouded and perfect reason, which clearly discerned what was the matter of his duty, and dictated him to the practice of it, met with no opposition from disorder in his affections for they were as pure as his mind was discerning. Reason in a state of innocence, as it was at no loss relating to the fitness or unfitness of the part it was to act, in any instance; so it had no rebellious inclination to subdue and conquer, in order to acting that part it knew to be becoming and fit. God did not place man in such a difficult and disadvantageous situation. He certainly had all the advantages which were necessary to facilitate the practice of what his Maker required him to do. This cannot be scrupled without a reflection both on the wisdom and goodness of his Creator. For infinite wisdom and goodness must needs direct to the formation of the creature free from all such corrupt inclinations, as would render his duty a task difficult for him to perform. If man had found himself to be the subject of any such dispositions from the first moment of his existence, as were repugnant to his reason, he would never upon his apostacy have been silent on that head ; but would certainly have pleaded it, as some extenuation of his crime. For, it is evident, that he had an inclination to have done this on some pretence or other, if it had been possible. And this would have been a much more plausible plea, than the shameful one he used with his Maker, Lawgiver, and Judge: "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." He discovered an inclination to impute his crime to the Author of his being, or to prove that He was the occasion of it. And such is the impious and daring conduct of his wretched descendants in too many instances. Because men find themselves to be the subjects of such desires, or tendencies of mind, as they know to be unfit, and repugnant to reason, they easily excuse themselves for errors in practice, and with frontless assurance insist upon it, that it will be cruelty in their Maker to call them to an account for those defects and blemishes in their behavior, which are unavoidable in their present circumstances. We, therefore, may conclude, with the greatest certainty, that infinite wisdom would take care to prevent all occasion of such like cavilling in the formation of man, that he might not have it to say that his duty was difficult to be performed, by reason of an unsuitable turn in his will, and tendency in his affections, as he was created of God.

And, surely, it is reasonable to conclude, that Adam performed devotional acts with holy reverence and sacred delight. He could not but give tributes of’ praise to God his Maker, for his superabundant beneficence and favour towards him, whereby he was furnished with everything not only needful to hip, sustentation, in those happy circumstances wherein he was placed; but with whatever he could desire for the entertainment and delight of his innocent and heavenly mind, and constituted ruler and lord over the numerous ranks of creatures the world contains. Above all, his grateful soul was doubtless possessed of adoring thoughts of the wisdom, goodness, and power of his great Creator, and of the interest he had in his approbation, protection, and kindness. And his principles, natural to him, directed him to implore the continuance of the care, aid, and guidance of his Almighty Former, wherein his guiltless soul could not be attended with any dread of his terrors nor with the least suspicion of a want of a favorable regard to him, in the mind of that infinitely good Being who made him. And, therefore, what serenity, what satisfaction, what pleasures must fill the breast of man in his primitive state, who had a free access to his Maker, a sense of his favor, and was absolutely free from all fear of his displeasure ! 0 what a happy state must this have been!

Besides, his pure and holy mind. was not reluctant and indisposed to religious services, nor wandering and sluggish in the performance of them ; for man was then not the subject of any aversion to holiness and communion with God. And, therefore, divine worship must be a branch of duty, wherein man took a peculiar pleasure in his original state. Perfect love to the infinitely glorious Object of his worship, sweetly engaged all the powers of his soul unto acts of adoration, thanksgiving, and praise. As his understanding discerned the infinite excellencies of his Creator, and his will was free from all evil bias, it adhered to Him, and his affections being untainted, embraced and delighted in God his Maker. As has been observed, whatever the law requires of all men now, that was in man originally; the law commands us to worship our Maker, in a pure, holy, and reverential manner, without reluctance, wandering, and mixture of vanity in our thoughts, desires, and affections; and, consequently, innocent man performed service of that noble and heavenly kind. If he had not, he never could have claimed a title to God’s approbation and favor; but, on the contrary, must have fallen under His displeasure and censure ; for if God receives not that glory from the creature, which is due unto His holy and great name, He cannot but resent it. And since the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, in acts of love to Him, and in acts of obedience to His righteous will, certain it is, that Adam in a manner perfectly devout and holy, worshipped his great Creator.

Hereby we may be induced to enter upon a pleasing contemplation of the happiness of the lovely pair, in the delightful garden of Eden. Two pure minds were perfectly united in love, between which no strife or contention could arise, to the disturbance and vexation of either. Adam, on his part, to whom we may allow a superiority over the innocent and beautiful fair., he certainly was all affection and kindness to her, nothing of a stern and angry disposition appeared in his air, language, or in any of his actions towards her. His commands, when he gave her any, were no other than such as proceeded from perfect reason, sweetness of temper, and the truest affection. And the woman, on her part, was all submission to her gentle ruler and loving companion, for whom she was formed, and to whom she was given by her Maker, to attend him, and unite with him, in all acts of adoration and praise, to the Former of them both. Perfect harmony, unmixed delight, and untainted piety reigned in the breast of each. And the man, we may suppose, pronounced orations on the wisdom, power, and beneficence of the great Creator, in her hearing ; and that she, not less capable of discerning the bright display of these divine perfections in the wonderful works of creation, discovered an approbation of all he expressed, as what perfectly, corresponded with her own ideas on those important subjects, and unto both transporting!

Socinian and Arminian writers deny this original perfection and happiness of man, because, they think, his apostacy cannot be explained, if he was the subject of purity and holiness. They imagine that his mind, though it was not tainted with moral evil, yet that it was not the subject of those dispositions before mentioned, and, consequently, that lie could not be so happy a creature as we conclude he was. But,

1. It is not a sufficient reason for the denial of the truth of anything which reason leads us to conclude is true, that difficulty attends the explication of some other thing, which fact proves is true also. It doubtless is more rational to conclude upon the truth of what reason dictates to us must be true, than to deny it, because somewhat afterwards occurs which we cannot explain, and show how the latter can consist with the former. Reason plainly proves the truth of mans original purity and rectitude, and fact proves the possibility of his sinning against his Maker, though He formed him holy and happy. It is open folly in men, whose understanding is much limited in the explication of things which they have a power of discerning the truth of, to deny the truth of anything, merely because they find themselves unable to explain how another thing is true, which fact undeniably proves to be so.

2. The greatest perfection which a creature can be the subject of, raises him not above a possibility of acting an unwise and sinful part ; for his nature cannot be rendered immutable. It is inseparable from the nature of a creature, as a creature, to be liable to change. As it is of the nature of God to be unchangeable, who necessarily is what he is, and to whom it is impossible ever to be in his nature other than he is. Deity alone is above the possibility of a change. And, therefore, unto what height so ever you raise the perfection of the creature man, in his original state, you place him not above the possibility of a mutation. That cannot be without blasphemy, or making him equal unto God, in what He always challenges, as a peculiar property of His nature. "I am the Lord, I change not." He is the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

3. I apprehend that it is not merely on account of this difficulty, that these men deny the doctrine of man’s original holiness; but for another reason also, viz., man’s apostacy, though he was perfectly holy, proves the necessity of the super-addition of divine grace immutably to preserve the pure creature in a state of perfection. This is what they are unwilling to grant, because they will have it, that the continued happiness of the creature depends on his acts, without a determining influence from the grace of God. If they were to allow of such an influence on the mind of a perfect creature, they could not consistently insist upon it, that such an influence on the mind of an imperfect creature destroys its free agency, which is what they constantly and vehemently urge against it.

4. Since mutability, or a possibility of change, is true of the most holy creature, that creature may sin and involve himself in ruin, if God withholds confirming grace from him. And this was the case with man in innocence: his nature was holy, but not immutably so; and as God withheld his determining influence from Adam, and left him to the mutability of his own will, he made an unhappy choice. Obedience to the law was not beyond the powers of his nature, for God did not require impossibilities of him; but the holy habits of his mind were insufficient infallibly to influence it unto acts of obedience. Power to obey the divine command is one thing, that he had; and power to preserve the will infallibly, in a continued choice of duty, is another and farther thing; this latter be had not; and God withholding from him confirming grace, which is necessary unto the creature’s invariably choosing to practice its duty, or continuing rightly to use that power it bath, he violated the law of his Maker. Ability to perform acts of duty, a perfect creature bath; but ability infallibly to persevere therein, he bath not, because his mind is mutable in its liature, and, consequently, how holy so ever the creature is, he is not raised by his inherent principles above a possibility of sinning against God. And there is reason to conclude that he certainly will, without supernatural grace, from the fall of angels, and the apostacy of man, who were created pure and holy.

5. Those who deny the irresistible, or the effectual operation of God on the human mind, because they fear that such an influence destroys its free agency, must be obliged, according to their opinion, to maintain, that the saints in heaven continue happy, by virtue of inherent principles, and not in consequence of a determining act of the divine will upon their wills, to prevent their making at any time an evil choice; which is highly derogatory to the glory of divine grace. They allow indeed, that God makes the saints perfectly holy but they must assert that they preserve themselves in a state of holiness and happiness for ever. And they will not grant, that man, originally, was the subject of that perfection, purity, and holiness, which it is reasonable to conclude he was, lest an argument should be formed from thence, in confirmation of the necessity of such an influence from God on the perfect creature, in order, infallibly to preserve his holiness and happiness, so cautious are they of yielding any thing to the prejudice of their dunghill idol, free-will. That must stand, whatever falls. That is their governing principle, and their whole scheme of divinity is so framed, as not to injure in the least degree this Diana of theirs. By this govern themselves in forming their sentiments of man before his fall, of human nature as fallen, of men unconverted, of men converted, and of the saints in heaven. Of so extensive an influence is this unworthy, filthy brat of their own begetting ; and so enamored are they with it, that they care not what is lost, so that that is but safe. They are determined to do homage to this favorite principle, at the expense of every thing else. Perhaps some would propound a question relating to this subject, and enquire thus;. Why should evil habits have greater influence on the mind than good habits? or, why should evil habits prevent holy acts arising in the mind, since good habits, whereof the mind of man it is supposed was the subject, did not prevent a sinful act in him? I answer,

1. Sin is the consequence of mutability in the nature of a creature. If good habits infallibly determined the will to the choice of good, the creature’s continuance in a state of happiness would be independent of an act of the divine will, and its influence upon the will of the creature, which it is impious to imagine the possibility of. And, therefore, good habits can have no such influence on the will of the creature, as infallibly to determine it to make a wise and fit choice. But though the most perfect creature may, possibly, change for the worse, because of its natural mutability, it by no means follows that a sinful creature may effect a change in itself for the better, or perform holy acts.

2. If a creature which is the subject of evil habits only, could will holiness, it would then be in the power of the sinful creature to raise itself out of its miserable state, and regain that happiness which it lost by sin but that is impossible. The creature is the cause of its misery; but God alone is the author of its salvation and recovery. I suppose that all such will acknowledge the truth of this reasoning, who are persuaded of the inseparable connection between holiness and happiness. If the sinful creature may become holy of itself, I think it is certain, that it may by an innate power, become happy also.

3. Evil may be chosen under a false notion, or under the appearance of good. But holiness cannot be chosen except as holiness, and because of its excellency. Such a choice the depraved creature cannot make, for two reasons; One is, his understanding discerns not the excellent nature of holiness. The other is, his mind is enmity against it, as holiness, and, consequence it cannot be the matter of his choice.

4. The law denounces wrath and misery against the sinner, and, therefore, it is impossible that an apostate creature should ever recover its holiness, and regain its happiness. When it doth the former, it also will the latter ; for no holy creature will ever be rendered miserable, by infinite Holiness and infinite Goodness.

Hence we may observe,

1. If man was overcome by temptation, when he had no corrupt habits in his mind, but had holy dispositions in his soul, how foolish is it to think that, now he is depraved, he stands not in need of powerful, special, and effectual grace from God to make him holy, and preserve him in the midst of the numerous temptations, which continually, and in every condition attend him ! If the natural mutability of his will, in a state of perfection, rendered it so easy for Satan to conquer and slay him, is it not absurd to imagine that he can defend himself, now his heart is possessed of enemies more dangerous by far, which are always disposed to join with him in whatever temptations he presents? It certainly is. The fall of our first parents ought to teach us humility, and a constant dependence on divine grace for our safety, unto which it is wholly owing.

2. Sovereign goodness alone provides for, and secures the lasting felicity of angels and men. Angels owe their standing unto favor beyond what is clue unto a creature. God is not obliged to preserve the will of any creature from making an improper choice, by his determining influence upon it. Holiness is the intelligent creature’s due, in his creation, on the footing of equity ; but none have a farther claim upon God. If, therefore, he affords, additional aid in order to prevent his creatures from sinning, through the mutability of their wills, it is the mere effect of his sovereign goodness. Unto this the saints owe their security in heaven. Invariable happiness rests on a certain and infallible cause, which the will of the holiest creature is not. Immutability can no more take place in the will of a creature, than any other perfection can, which is peculiar to the nature of God.

3. What a low notion the Socinians and Arminians have of rectitude, righteousness, and the image of God! I must needs say, that though they pretend to be zealous for holiness above others, their false notions about it, is one of the principal objections I have against their sentiments. This I know, that as there was more in man, in innocence, than they will allow of, so more is required to be in men, in order to the enjoyment of happiness hereafter, than they judge necessary hereunto. A man may carry to hell along with him, that which they call a preparation for heaven. And I am sure, if their experience, as to holiness, is not beyond their notions of it, they will never come there.

4. How greatly was the sin of man aggravated? It was committed against knowledge, and under great advantages, through the beneficence of the object against whom it was directed, after warning given, and an explicit declaration of the consequence of his transgression. In his crime there was presumption, unbelief, horrid ingratitude, and rebellion against the most just, the most kind, and the most beneficent Ruler. How dreadful, therefore was his offence ! No circumstance was wanting in it, which could aggravate it.

5. Since God shewed him mercy, as we have reason to conclude he did, what encouragement may we collect from hence, to hope for favor, under the deepest sense of our unworthiness.

6. How should we adore the rich mercy and grace of God, which hath provided for the recovery of lapsed men ! He was under no more obligation to rebellious man, than to apostate spirits. And, therefore, he might as justly have left men, who are the sinful descendants of Adam, eternally to perish, as he has those angels that sinned. Can we seriously think of this without wonder, admiration, and praise ! If we have any spiritual sense, and gratefulness in our minds, we cannot.