Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

a

person obnoxious to its condemning power, etc. Fallen man, therefore, cannot love God, but as he is revealed in a Mediator,” etc. See, to the same purpose, pp. 268, 270. It is remarkable that Mr. B. should repeatedly assert in his “ Glad

Tidings,” that if a sinner were made in the least degree holy, a friend to God and his law, previous to his pardon and justification, he would stand in no need of free pardon and justifi. cation by the righteousness of Christ alone, for he has some. thing of his own to recommend him to the favor of God; and on this ground only, condemn the author he mentions as perverting the gospel, because he asserted that sinners must approve of the law of God, etc., antecedent to their believing in Christ; and at the same time wholly neglect the reasons which that author gave, that the sinner, though renewed to holiness, could not by this be recommended to the favor of God, but stood in as much need of free pardon wholly on account of the atonement of Christ, as he would do were he not thus renewed. It is remarkable, I say, that he should say and do all this, when he had, in his “ Reign of Grace," asserted the contrary, over and over again, viz., that no degree of holiness of the sinner can avail in the least degree for his pardon and justification. See pp. 96, 175, 176, 178, 183, 188, 189, 190, 191, 202, 226, 276, 277, 278, 317, 374, 375. Had he recollected this, and believed, when he wrote his “Glad Tidings," he would not have censured the author he mentions, as he has done, without knowing that he really censured himself, at least, as much.

He grants and asserts, that all men who are not justified by the righteousness of Christ are guilty, unrighteous, wicked, and accursed. (pp. 175, 176, 178.) And why may not sinners in this state, and of this character, be properly denoninated ungodly, though regenerate? If so, the word on which he so much relies is given up, and Mr. Scott and others are to be justified in their interpretation of Rom. iv. 5, 6.

Mr. B. asserts, that previous to pardon and justification, a sinner must become poor in spirit, and approve of the gospel, (pp. 8, 66, 94, 100;) must be sensible he deserves damnation, (p. 103;) must believe, trust in Christ, and receive him, and the blessings of the gospel ; must look to Christ for salvation, etc. (pp. 132, 137, 143, 144, 157, 214, 215, 252, 329, 336, 339, 353, 354.) And yet he constantly insists upon it that no terms or conditions are proposed as necessary to take place antecedent to the sinner's justification; and that the sinner, previous to his justification, and until he is justified, is under the power of pride and enmity against God, and is actuated by the temper, and bears the very image, of the devil. (p. 190.) Is it possible to reconcile these glaring inconsistencies?

What Mr. B. says, (p. 106,) I think, if it has any meaning, asserts that sanctification is not that by which Christians obtain evidence of their justification, and is as absurd as any position of

- or of any Antinomian. What is said of the thief on the cross, (pp. 135, 136,) though taken alone it be true, yet viewed in connection with his scheme, appears to me to be a loose, unmeaning, selfcontradictory harangue.

Mr. Booth's assertions (pp. 171, 172) are inconsistent with an unholy, unregenerate sinner's believing the gospel, and with desiring and receiving the blessings of it; for how can that be the object of faith which is not seen or willingly received, which is not desired or relished? But I am tired of attending to the inconsistencies and absurdities of this author. And perhaps I have said too much. Let them who do not see the errors and inconsistence avail themselves of the advantage of all the good things to be found in his “ Reign of Grace."

I have read Mr. Scott, and think him orthodox, so far as he

goes, in his notion of the warrant and nature of faith in Christ. But he says some things which seem to be a little inconsistent, or at least want to be more fully explained. Perhaps Mr. B. will take no public notice of him, since he has opposed him so tacitly, without mentioning his name, or expressly quoting him. I believe it will be wise in Mr. B. to be silent.

I am not satisfied that Mr. Scott clearly distinguishes between selfish affections and disinterested exercises of religion, and think there is reason to believe he does not, both from his making no remarks on this head upon what Mr. B. advances in his “ Glad Tidings," and especially from what he says respecting American divines : “ That sometimes they seem to intimate that an almost total disregard to our own happiness is essential to true grace. They do not clearly distinguish that wise and holy self-love, which God originally planted in our nature, from that carnal, apostate, and foolish self-love, which is the consequence of the fall.” (pp. 3, 4.) If by holy self-love he means any thing distinct from disinterested benevolence, and which is not necessarily included in it, as it seems he does, he must mean that which is in the nature of it sin; and consequently does not properly distinguish selfish religion from that which consists in disinterested affection, or between true and false religion. It is presumed that his neglect to make proper distinctions on this head has led him to censure some American divines as “making many unscriptural distinctions, and advancing positions which obscure the glory of the gospel.” Of this, however, we and the public might have been better able

to judge, had he condescended to tell what were those mischievous positions and distinctions. In the mean time, it is thought that his publicly naming a particular minister as guilty of all this, without informing him or the public what his crime is, by particularly stating the positions and distinctions he has advanced, is rather magisterial, ungenerous, and injurious. But we must allow good English divines to have a spice of what we, on this side of the water, call British pride.

He cannot reasonably impute the question which he mentions, with a degree of horror, as found in the Theological Magazine, to Hopkins, or to any American divine. But if he could, what harm is there in asking the question ? He has not told us. Had he looked into the next number of that Magazine, he would have seen the question answered, and might have informed the public whether it be answered right or wrong

My system has been more generally read and approved in America than was expected; and but little public opposition has been made to it.

You have my hearty wishes and prayers, dear sir, that you may be greatly blessed and useful in the important station in which you are placed, and be enabled to maintain and propa. gate the truths of Christianity, in the midst of the opposition with which you may be surrounded.

I shall be gratified by your writing me, whenever your more important business shall permit.

I am, with much esteem and cordial affection, your much obliged friend and servant,

S. HOPKINS. Rev. DR. RYLAND.

LETTER TO DR. RYLAND, Of Northampton, England, in Reply to Dr. Ryland's Theological Queries, and sent Seventeen Days before Dr. Hopkins's Death.

NewPORT, September, 1803. Dear Sir: Last May I received yours of February 21st., with a MS. copy of Mr. Marsham's journal, and a number of valuable pamphlets, for which I am much obliged to you; particularly for plainly stating some difficulties and objections in your mind respecting several doctrines advanced on this side the water.

When your letter came to hand, I was not able to write or read, being brought very low by sickness, from which I did not recover for a considerable time. In the mean time, I received a letter from Mr. Fuller in answer to my objections which you sent to him, as made by me, to a position of his in his Bedford sermon, in my letter to you; to which I have replied, and enclose it to you unsealed; which, when you

have read, you will please to seal and send to him.

You object to what I and my brethren in America hold with respect to the operation of the law on the renewed mind and the exercises respecting it, antecedent to a particular attention to the gospel, and understanding and embracing it; at least, of hoping to be saved by it, since they, antecedent to regeneration, and when regenerated, have had as much opportunity to think of and understand the gospel as the law. What of our writings you refer to, I cannot say, so cannot undertake a particular vindication of any of them, but take leave to make the following observations on the subject :

The law of God must be understood, and approved or loved as perfectly right, good, and excellent, before the gospel can be embraced, liked, or even understood. There must be such an operation of the law on the renewed mind as to slay the person, or cause him, in some sense, to die the death which it denounces, before he can have any sensible relief from the gospel, or understand it. And how long the regenerate person shall continue in this hopeless state, under the operation of the law, till it shall have done its proper and necessary work, and before the gospel is particularly attended to and embraced, none can tell. In some, the whole may take place in a minute, or less, so that the person may not make any distinction, or perceive which is first or last; but, if really connected, the operation of law must be first, whether perceived or not, and that connection may be more evident and satisfactory when the work of the law appears to be most sensible, and distinct, and thorough. And, that it may be so, the renewed person may be held some time - an hour, a day, or longer — in attention to his state, according to law, and his mind be so intent upon the glory of God, and his law, as to admit of no particular view or thought of the gospel. And this may be wisely and kindly ordered by God, and the renewed mind be holden from attending to the gospel, till the law has effectually, and in the best manner, wrought death in him. And God, who has the total and most perfect government of the mind, and of every thought, orders the length of time the renewed mind shall continue wholly attentive to this glorious law, and what it implies, without particular attention person obnoxious to its condemning power, etc. Fallen man, therefore, cannot love God, but as he is revealed in a Mediator,” etc. See, to the same purpose, pp. 268, 270. It is remarkable that Mr. B. should repeatedly assert in his “ Glad Tidings," that if a sinner were made in the least degree holy, a friend to God and his law, previous to his pardon and justi. fication, he would stand in no need of free pardon and justifi. cation by the righteousness of Christ alone, for he has something of his own to recommend him to the favor of God; and on this ground onlij, condemn the author he mentions as perverting the gospel, because he asserted that sinners must approve of the law of God, etc., antecedent to their believing in Christ; and at the same time wholly neglect the reasons which that author gave, that the sinner, though renewed to holiness, could not by this be recommended to the favor of God, but stood in as much need of free pardon wholly on account of the atonement of Christ, as he would do were he not thus renewed. It is remarkable, I say, that he should say and do all this, when he had, in his “Reign of Grace," asserted the contrary, over and over again, viz., that no degree of holiness of the sinner can avail in the least degree for his pardon and justification. See pp. 96, 175, 176, 178, 183, 188, 189, 190, 191, 202, 226, 276, 277, 278, 347, 374, 375. Had he recol. lected this, and believed, when he wrote his “Glad Tidings," he would not have censured the author he mentions, as he has done, without knowing that he really censured bimself, at least, as much.

He grants and asserts, that all men who are not justified by the righteousness of Christ are guilty, unrighteous, wicked, and accursed. (pp. 175, 176, 178.) And why may not sinners in this state, and of this character, be properly denomi. nated ungodly, though regenerate? If so, the word on which he so much relies is given up, and Mr. Scott and others are to be justified in their interpretation of Rom. iv. 5, 6.

Mr. B. asserts, that previous to pardon and justification, a sinner must become poor in spirit, and approve of the gospel, (pp. 8, 66, 94, 100;) must be sensible he deserves damnation, (p. 103;) must believe, trust in Christ, and receive him, and the blessings of the gospel ; must look to Christ for salvation, etc. (pp. 132, 137, 143, 144, 157, 214, 215, 252, 329, 336, 339, 353, 354.) And yet he constantly insists upon it that no terms or conditions are proposed as necessary to take place antece. dent to the sinner's justification ; and that the sinner, previous to his justification, and until he is justified, is under the power of pride and eninity against God, and is actuated by the temper, and bears the very image, of the devil. (p. 190.) Is it possible to reconcile these glaring inconsistencies?

« ForrigeFortsæt »