it, that if any one had told them they were Christians, they would have spurned the idea, and would have said, " you flatter

دو

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, "whom do ye say that I am?" "Thou art the Son of God; 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 disin terested 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

piness and interest out of the question," yet it is a truth which every Christian should know and feel, that a view of the glory of God shining in the face of Jesus Christ, breaking forth on the mind of the sinner, and especially for the first time, will leave him little room to think of his own dear self, or of his interest or salvation.

Job seemed to have a great deal of that base and absurd philosophy when he said, "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee, wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." David, also, had much of that philosophy when he exclaimed, "when I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and stars, which thou hast made, Lord, what is man, that thou art mindful of him?" &c.

In that solemn hour a sense of the vileness and desert of sin falls

s upon the renewed soul with the weight of mountains; he is amazed at the mercy that has preserved him, and he exclaims, with all the feelings of his heart, and energies of his soul," God would be lovely if he should cast me off for ever." How little is he inclined, at that time, or any other time, to seize upon some divine promise, and boldly and arrogantly threaten to keep Christ to his word. I use this phrase because it was very recently used by another Triangular, who boldly exhorted his Christian hearers to keep Christ to his word, i. e. to make him fulful his promises.

Alas! whither does this strain of Antinomianism tend? What havock it has already made, and what ruin it threatens! But is there need to exhort mankind to be more selfish? is there ground to fear that they will not interpret the bible sufficiently favourable to their own characters and state? Shall they be exhorted, if I may so say, to toe the mark, and challenge the Saviour to come and meet them upon his peril? Let that great master in Israel be assured, that he need be under no apprehensions lest his hearers shall not be sufficiently alive to their own interest and happiness. They will do that in obedience to man's ruling passion.

* Dr. Mason.

I have dwelt long on this subject; have gone carefully over that ground pointed at with so much scorn, and regarded with so much terror. It amounts to this; that a man under the influence of clear views of God and his government, and of his own exceeding vileness, all which he may have without any certain evidence of his own good estate, may fully acquiesce in, the justice of God-may see that God would be just in casting him off, and may feel as though he could love and adore God, if he in fact should do it. Some writers, called Hopkinsian, may have dwelt particularly on this point, but it is a matter which has no necessary connexion with Hopkinsianism-is found in old writers as well as new. Devils who are now suffering the wrath of God, are under the same obligation to love and adore him as the angels of light in heaven. If because he is punishing them, they have a right to hate and abhor him, then they certainly do right in making war on his kingdom.

The reason why such a clamour is raised against this idea is, because men cannot endure the thought that the glory and honour of God should be preferred to the happiness of a wicked

man.

No Hopkinsian on earth ever held, or pretended, that a willingness to be damned constitutes a habitual exercise of the Christian; for it is not the will of God that a real Christian should be damned; it would be revolting against God's will, and every Christian knows it; but the willingness. contended for is restricted to those moments, while, as yet, the regenerate man has no certain evidence that he is a Christian, or that God will save him, yet still he loves God, and is, of course, willing that God's will shall be done. I believe I am understood, and if so, I have only to say, that on this ground, the Hopkinsian is willing to be at issue with his adversary.

If it be admitted that a man can love God before he has evidence that God will save him, the point is settled; that he ought so to do, nay, that those ought so to do who know he never will save them, few will dare to deny and this, I think,

to the discerning mind, shows what the proper motive of love to God is. Saints and angels do, in fact, love God for the same reason for which wicked men and devils are bound to

love him, viz. because he is infinitely excellent and worthy to be loved.

Whether a Christian can feel willing to be an enemy to God for ever, has no connexion with this entire discussion, since the willingness to suffer, of which I have been speaking, relates wholly to the penalty of God's law, and not to a transgression of it. The breath and words, therefore, spent on that idea are wholly wasted, and the terrible blows often given to it, are dealt out to a shadow.