religion, who, unnecessarily, publish the faults of Christians. We sometimes see professed

religion, who, unnecessarily, publish the faults of Christians. We sometimes see professed

6. Again, you see from this subject, that impenitent sinners, are often great hypocrites. They profess to be very much opposed to hypocrisy, and say that they like true religion; they desire to see persons sincere in what they profess: think true religion is a good thing; and are very much in favor of it. They pretend to be very friendly to God, and say that they love him. Now, in these professions, they are arrant hypocrites. Christ might say to them, "I know you, that you have not the love of God in you." "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles." "Ye are they that justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts." "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell."

7. You see from this subject, the manifest and barefaced hypocrisy, of those professors of religion, who, unnecessarily, publish the faults of Christians. We sometimes see professed Christians, as forward in speaking, in all companies, and on all occasions, of the faults, real or supposed, of the professed children of God, as infidels are. They will load down the winds, with their complaining of the imprudences and errors of those whose characters are nearly associated with all the endeared interests of religion. And this, they often do, when no such thing is called for, and where there can be no just pretense that God, or the interests of religion requires this service at their hands. They will even sometimes, to give these things the greater publicity, publish them in the newspapers, and all this under the shear pretense of doing God service and benefitting the cause of Christ. But this is the precise method, and the pretended motive of the Universalists in their slanderous publications against God, and his servants; and there is no more reason to believe that such professors of religion, have the true interests of Christ's kingdom at heart, than there is to believe that Universalists are actuated by a regard to the glory of God. Cases have occurred, in which professors of religion, have entertained passengers in steam boats, and in other public places, by retailing slanderous reports of revival men and measures. Vast prejudice, has been created, and immense evils have resulted from this infidel conduct of those who profess to love the blessed God. O shame, where is thy blush!

It is impossible, from the very laws of their mind, that they should engage in this work of death, this mischief of hell, if they truly loved the cause of Christ; and, to thus wantonly, hang up the cause, to reproach; by blazing abroad the failings, real or supposed, of those whose name, and character, and influence, are identified with the dearest interests, of Zion, is, as absolute demonstration, that they are hypocrites, as if they themselves should take their oath of it.

Finally. While sinners imagine that they love God already, it is not likely, that they ever will love him. Sinner, if you think that you love God already, you will never realize that you need a change of heart. If you really do love him, you certainly do not need a new heart, unless you would have a heart that does not love him. In pretending that you love God, you deny the very foundation of the doctrine of the new birth. But let me tell you, sinner, your delusion will soon be torn away. You cannot always deceive yourself with the imagination that you love God. You are going rapidly to eternity. There is, even now, perhaps, but a step between you and death. The moment that you appear in the presence of your Maker, and behold, the infinite contrariety there is betwixt your character and his; your delusion will vanish forever. You pretend to love God, while you know that you have no delight in his word, or worship, or service. Oh! What would heaven be to you; you cannot enjoy a prayer meeting, for one hour, and what would you do, in heaven employed in God's service forever and ever. Would heaven be heaven to you? Would you feel at home? Would you be happy there? What! Without the love of God in you. Away with this delusion: "for verily I say unto you except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

SERMON V.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY.

-- Romans viii. 7.-- "The carnal mind is enimity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither

indeed can be."

This lecture was typed in by Mike Todd.

THE law, spoken of here, is the moral law; or that law, which requires men to love God with all their heart, and their neighbour as themselves. The facts affirmed by the Apostle are, that the carnal mind is enmity against God, and for that reason, is not subject to the law of God that is, it does not obey the law of God, neither of course, can it obey this law, while it continues to be enmity against God. The apostle does not affirm, that a sinner cannot love God, but that a carnal mind cannot love God; for, to affirm that a carnal mind can love God, is the same as to affirm that enmity itself, can be love. In speaking from these words, I design

1st, to show, what is not meant by the carnal mind.

And, 2d. What the carnal mind, as used in the text, does mean.

3dly. That all men, who have not been born by the Spirit of God, have a carnal mind.

And, 4thly. That this carnal mind is enmity against God.

I. I am to show what is not meant by the carnal mind, as used in the text. • 1. It is not meant that any part of the substance of the soul or body, is enmity against God.

• 2. It is not meant, that there is any thing in the constitution, or substance of body or mind, that is opposed to God. The mind is not saturated, or soaked with enmity.

• 3. Nor is it meant, that the mind or body is so constructed, that, from the constitution of our nature, we are opposed to God.

• 4. It is not meant, that there are appetites or propensities that are constitutional, which are enmity against God.

• 5. Nor is it meant, that all unconverted men, feel sensible emotions of enmity, or hatred to God. Enmity may exist in the mind, either as a volition, or an emotion. When existing in the form of a volition, it is a settled aversion to his character and government, of such a nature, that while it may have an abiding influence over our

conduct, it may not have a felt existence in the mind.

When existing in the form of an emotion, it then constitutes what we call feeling; and its existence is a matter of consciousness. I said that enmity may exist in the form of a volition, or a settled aversion to God, and have an abiding influence over our conduct, leading us to treat God as an enemy, without rising into the form of an emotion, that may be sensibly felt, and be the object of consciousness. Emotions, exist in the mind, only when those objects are before it, that are calculated to produce them; and a principle reason why sinners do not more frequently exercise such emotions of hatred to God, as to be sensible of their enmity against him, is, that they seldom think of God. God is not in all their thoughts. And when they do think of him, they do not think justly, or think of him as he really is; they deceive themselves with vain imaginations, and hide from their own view his real character; and thus cover up their enmity.

II. I am to show what is meant by the carnal mind, as used in the text.

The proper translation of this text is, the minding of the flesh is enmity against God. It is a voluntary state of mind. It is that state of supreme selfishness, in which all men are, previous to their conversion to God.

It is a state of mind; in which, probably, they are not born, but into which they appear to fall, very early after their birth. The gratification of their appetites, is made by them, the supreme object of desire and pursuit, and becomes the law of their lives; or that law in their members, that wars against the law of their minds, of which the apostle speaks.

They conform their lives, and all their actions to this rule of action, which they have established for themselves, which is nothing more nor less, than voluntary selfishness; or a controlling and abiding preference of self-gratification, above the commandments, authority, and glory of God.

It should be well understood, and always remembered, that the carnal mind, as used by the apostle, is not the mind itself but is a voluntary action of the mind. In other words, it is not any part of the mind, or body, but a choice or preference of the mind. It is, a minding of the flesh. It is, preferring self-gratification, before obedience to God. The constitutional appetites, both of body and mind, are in themselves innocent; but, making their gratification the supreme object of pursuit, is enmity against God.

It is the direct opposite of the character and the requirements of God. God requires us to subordinate all our appetites, of body and mind, to his glory, and to aim supremely at honouring and glorifying him. To love him with all our hearts, to bring all our powers of body and mind, under obedience to the law of love: and whatever we do, whether we eat or drink, we should do all to the glory of God. Now the carnal mind, or the minding of the flesh, is the direct opposite of this. It is pursuing as a supreme end, that which is the direct opposite of the requirements, and character of God. It is a choice, a preference, an abiding temper, or disposition of the mind; which consists in a determination to gratify self, and to make this, the high and supreme object of pursuit.

III. I am to show, that, previous to conversion, all men are in this state of enmity against God.

The Bible speaks of men, as possessing by nature, one common heart or disposition. This text does not say, that the carnal minds of some men, are enmity against God; but that the carnal mind is enmityr against God. In another place, God says, "every imagination of the thoughts of their heart, (not hearts) is only evil continually." Another passage, says, "the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live." Indeed, unconverted men, throughout the Bible, are spoken of as having a common heart; and what the Bible asserts, is seen to be a matter of fact. Go throughout all the ranks of the human family from the sensitive female, that faints at the sight of blood, to the horrid pirate, whose eyes flash fire, and whose lips burn with blasphemy; and present to them, all, the claims of God, and the gospel of his Son, require them to repent, and give their hearts to God; and with one consent, they will plead their inability. Go to the refined, and unrefined; the learned and unlearned; the high and low; rich and poor; old and young; male and female; bond and free, of every country and of every clime; and not one of them can be persuaded to embrace the Gospel, without the interposition of the Holy Ghost. Now, how is it possible, to account for this notorious fact, but upon the principle, that however the external deportment of different individuals, may be modified by circumstances, however much the natural temper may be made to differ, as respects men, by education, by animal temperament, by the state of the nervous system, and a variety of other considerations; still as it respects God, they possess the same disposition, and will, all, with one consent, begin to make excuses for not loving and obeying him.

IV. I am to show, that this carnal mind, or minding of the flesh, is enmity against God.

In my former discourse, on the subject of depravity, I endeavoured to demonstrate, by an appeal to facts, that unconverted men indo not love God. • The first point to be established, under the fourth head of this discourse, is, that impenitent sinners hate God.

I shall pursue the same method, appeal to the same sources for proof, and go into the same field and gather facts, to establish the truth of this position, that I did in proof of the position that men do not love God. My appeal is to the well known laws of mind, as they are seen to develope themselves, in the transactions of every day. And, 1st. We are naturally pleased with those things that are displeasing to our enemies. Hatred is ill will. Therefore, whatever displeases or obliges our enemy, gratifies our ill will. It is a contradiction to say, that we hate an individual with a malevolent hatred, and yet have no satisfaction in what displeases him. It is the same as to say, that the gratification of our desires is not pleasing to us. We witness the developements of this law of mind, not only in our own case, but in the manifested feelings of those around us. See that man, if something has happened, greatly to disoblige his enemy, he cannot conceal the pleasure he takes in this event. If the same event has in some measure injured himself, and he is in some degree partaker in the common calamity, yet, if it has much more deeply injured, or completely ruined, his bitter enemy, he feels upon the whole, gratified with the event, and considers the

ruin of his enemy, as more than a compensation for his own loss, and does not mind bearing the portion that has fallen to him, inasmuch as it has overwhelmed the man that he so deeply hates. Now, whatever he may say, under whatever hypocritical pretence he may conceal the satisfaction that he feels in this event; yet it remains certain, that his hatred is gratified, that he really at heart, takes pleasure in an event which has gratified his malignant opposition to his enemy.

We see this same law of mind, developing itself towards God. Sinners manifest the greatest pleasure in sin. It is the element in which they live and move. They roll it as a sweet morsel under their tongue. They drink in iniquity like water. They even weary themselves to commit iniquity. They not only do these things themselves, but have pleasure in them that do them. The very things that are the most displeasing to God, are most pleasing to them. And the things that are the most pleasing to God, are most displeasing to them. They love what God hates, and hate what God loves. This demonstrates that they are in a state of mind which is the direct opposite, of the character and will of God. The whole bent, and current, and inclination of their minds are the direct opposite of God's requirements; and are enmity against him. This is matter of fact. Again. We are naturally gratified, to see the friends of our enemy forsake and dishonour him. If a man hate another, and the children, or friends of this enemy of his, do any thing to grieve, or dishonour, or injure him, in any way, he may speak of it, as if he regretted it; but if he pretends to regret it, he is a hypocrite. It is just as certain, that upon the whole, he rejoices in it, as it is that he hates him. He rejoices in it, because, it gratifies his hatred. You see this law of mind, manifesting itself with equal uniformity and strength towards the blessed God. When the professed friends of God forsake his cause, and do any thing to dishonour him, you may perceive that impenitent sinners are gratified. They will speak of it with exultation; and while Christians converse about it with sorrow, weep over it, and betake themselves to prayer that God will wipe away the reproach, it will become the song of the drunkard, and the wicked in barrooms, and in the corners of the streets, will laugh at it, and rejoice over it.

Again. We are apt to see and magnify the faults of the friends of our enemies. With what scrutiny, will politicians search after the faults of the friends and supporters of an opposing candidate. How eagle-eyed is that man in searching out all the failings of those that favour his enemy. How politicians, and others, will, not only see their real faults, but will greatly magnify them, and dwell upon them, until they fill their whole field of vision. They give their attention so exclusively to their faults, as to forget that they have any virtues. So enormous do their faults appear, that where they have the appearance of virtue, it is ascribed to duplicity and hypocrisy.

Now, you see this same spirit, often manifesting itself towards God. With what a searching and malignant gaze, are the eyes of unconverted men, fastened upon the professed friends of God. How eagerly they note their faults. How enormously they magnify them, and how apt are they to ascribe every appearance of virtue in them, to bigotry and hypocrisy.

Again. We are apt to misinterpret the motives, and put the worst construction upon the conduct of the enemies of our friends. If they are favouring the interests, and endeavouring to promote the happiness of one whom we greatly hate, we behold all their conduct through a jaundiced eye. The best things in them, are often ascribed by us, to the worst of motives; and those things in them, which deserve the most praise, are often, by us the most severely reprobated. Your acquaintance with your own hearts, and with the developements of the human character around you, will instantly supply abundant proofs of this remark. This feature of the human character, often, most odiously developes itself towards God. How frequently do we hear impenitent sinners, ascribing the most praiseworthy deeds of God's professed friends, to the most unworthy motives. How often are their acts of greatest self-denial, those things in which they most humbly serve, and most nearly resemble God, misrepresented, ascribed to the basest of motives, and made the very reasons, upon which they ground their pertinacious opposition to them. It is impossible to account for this upon any other principle than that of their enmity against God; for the persons against whom this enmity is vented, are often entire strangers to them; individuals against whom they can have no personal hostility. It is manifestly not enmity to them, any further then they resemble God, that calls forth these expressions of hatred, but to the cause in which they are engaged, to the master whom they serve.

Again. We naturally shun the friends of our enemies. We naturally avoid the society of one, who we know to be particularly friendly to our enemy; his company and conversation is irksome to us. We see this same spirit manifested by impenitent sinners toward the friends of God. They avoid them. Feel uneasy in their company. Their presence seems to impose restraints upon sinners, and they cannot abuse God with quite as much freedom when Christians are present. They are therefore glad to dispense with their company. How often do you observe impenitent sinners, in making up a party for a stagecoach, or railroad car, so arrange matters as to exclude a minister, or any engaged Christian from their company. They feel uneasy at his presence, and manifest the same temper that we should witness, if some distinguished friend of their greatest enemy were present with them. How can this be accounted for, on any other principle, than that of enmity against God. With these ministers, or professors of religion, they have, perhaps, very little personal acquaintance; have never had any misunderstanding with them, nor has any personal controversy existed between them. It must be on account of the cause in which they are engaged, and the master whom they serve, they wish to avoid them.

Again. We naturally admire magnify the virtues and overlook the vices, of the enemies of those we hate. How enthusiastic are politicians in their admiration of the talents, and wisdom, and virtues of those who take sides with them, and are opposed to the election of their political enemy. If any man has an enemy, he regards it as an evidence of wisdom, in any one else, to be opposed to the same man. He is inclined greatly to overrate the number, and the talents, and the influence of those who are opposed to his enemy. If he hears of a few that are opposed to him, and among them any

men of more than ordinary talents, he is apt to imagine that almost every body is opposed to him, and especially all the talented and virtuous part of the community, and to think that nobody favours him but the weak, the servile, and the interested.

It is just so on the subject of religion. How often do you hear impenitent sinners boasting of the talents, and the numbers, and the virtues of infidels, and of those that make no pretension to religion. Boasting of the excellent characters, high standing, and great influence of the leaders among the irreligious. While, at the same time, they depreciate both the numbers and the talents, of those that are the friends of God. They often consider them as a sickly, a bigotted, and a priest-ridden people: and this too, without any definite knowledge of their numbers, their characters, or their influence. What is this, but the outbreakings of enmity against God, and the cause which they love?

Again. We naturally hate to think of our enemies. The human mind is so constituted, that malevolent emotions distress it, and are the source of misery. Whenever our thoughts are intensely occupied in thinking of an individual whom we hate, those malevolent emotions will naturally arise, which are condemned by the conscience, and which of themselves constitute misery. For this reason, unless it be for the purpose of studying revenge, or in some way to gratify our hatred, we naturally turn our thoughts away from an object which we hate. And while, as I have shown in a former discourse, we naturally dwell upon a beloved object, we just as naturally abstract our thoughts from a hated one. Behold the developements of this law of mind in its action toward God. Sinners banish God from their thoughts. They are "unwilling to retain God in their knowledge;" and if at any time the thought of God is intruded upon them, they manifest uneasiness, and immediately divert their attention. If they are really convinced that they are sinners, and are in danger of his wrath, their selfish regard to their own happiness may lead them to reflection, and induce them to think of God, for the purpose of devising some means of escaping his just indignation.

Again. We dislike to converse about those that we hate; and unless it be for the purpose of calumniating them, and pouring forth our malignant hostility against them, we choose to remain silent and say nothing about them. You often hear a man say of his enemy, I desire not to talk about him. As I have shown, in the former discourse, we love to converse about our friends, because such conversation at once enkindles and expresses our love for them. Such conversation gratifies us. But we hate to converse about our enemies. For although there is a kind of gratification in giving vent to our enmity, it is at the same time the source and the essence of pain. Who has not witnessed the manifestations of this law of mind on the subject of religion? Who does not know that sinners are averse to talking about God? That they converse about him seldom, reservedly, and in a manner that shows they have no pleasure in it; but, on the contrary, that such conversation gives them pain?

Again. We are naturally pained to hear our enemy praised. Here is a party

of ladies and gentlemen assembled, and all of them but one, are particularly friendly to a distinguished and absent individual. This one is his, bitter enemy. His enmity, however, is unknown to the company, and they, of course, bring up their favourite as the subject of their conversation. They indulge themselves in enthusiastic commendations of their absent friend, and are delighted with the common bond of sympathy that exists among them upon this subject. But mark the embarrassment and distress of this enemy. While they, without heeding his agony, indulge themselves in the most lavish pouring forth of applause, this enemy is filled with the most irrepressible distress and indignation. He looks at his watch; takes out his snuff-box; walks to the window; tries to read a newspaper; turns up and down the room: tries to divert the attention of the company, and introduce some other topic of conversation. Now, suppose that one of the ladies turns to him and demands his opinion, remarking, that he seems to be absent-minded, and does not enjoy the conversation. If he is a gentleman, he may wish to be very civil to the lady, and endeavour to waive an answer to her question. But suppose she presses him, and wonders at his hesitancy, until his conduct attracts the attention of the other members of the party, when they all, with one consent, coincide with the lady, and insist upon an expression of his opinion. Now, an hundred to one, if, in spite of his good breeding, he does not manifest the enmity of his heart, and clearly exhibit to the company the deep malignity of his feelings.

Under similar circumstances, you may often witness the out breakings of enmity against God. Let a company of Christians, in a steamboat, or stage-coach, engage in conversation upon their favourite topic. Let them converse of Jesus Christ; and after a warm conversation, let them appeal to impenitent sinners in the midst of them, for an expression of their opinion. Or if, when in a proper place, they propose to conclude the interview with prayer, how often are they offended. Go and visit a family, some of whose members are Christians, and others not; sit down and converse warmly with the pious wife on the subject of religion, in the presence of her husband and unconverted family: what looks you will instantly perceive about the house. Perhaps one will go out at this door, and another at that, and if any of the impenitent remain, turn and direct your conversation to one of them; if it be the husband, perhaps he will almost forget that he is a gentleman, and abuse you to your face. Perhaps he will say, his religion is a matter between him and God. That he does not thank you for your impertinence. That it is none of your business, and that he does not thank you for coming there, to disturb him and his family upon the subject of religion. Now, why does he consider this a disturbance? Why does he look upon it as an impertinence? Why is he so displeased? Certainly he has no reason to fear that you will injure him, or his family. If he loved the subject, and loved God, is it not certain that he would thank you for your visit, and be pleased with the interview. And is it not proof to demonstration, that he hates God and religion, when he considers the kind introduction of the subject, as an intrusion, and a vexation.

Again. We are naturally pained and incredulous on hearing of the prosperity of our enemy. If we hear that our enemy is gaining friends, or

popularity, or property, or influence, it distresses us. We are inclined to disbelieve it. And, if there be any room for doubt, we are sure to hang a doubt on every point that admits debate. See that man, with his hypocritical face; he has heard of the prosperity of his enemy, and professes to rejoice in it. But if he believes it, he only mentions it on occasions where he cannot avoid it; and then, the spirit and manner of his conversation, if he pretend to rejoice in it, will, to a discerning mind, develope the deep hypocrisy of his heart. But if there be a possibility of calling the truth of it in question, you will find that he disbelieves it altogether. You will find him dwelling upon, and greatly magnifying, any little circumstance, that will render it improbable; while he depreciates, and casts into the shade, the weighty considerations, that demonstrate its truth. Who has not witnessed the exhibitions of this principle, on the subject of religion? Let a report of the prosperity of religion, and of great revivals, be circulated through the community, and see how Universalists, and other impenitent sinners, will manifest uneasiness, and try to disprove it all; will question the evidence, and try to pour contempt upon the report; and upon those that believe it. They do not believe that so many have been converted; you will see, say they, that the professed converts will all go back again, and be worse than ever. The reports, say they, are greatly exaggerated, and if there are any Christians in these revivals, there are probably ten hypocrites to one Christian. Such facts as these, speak for themselves. They manifest a state of mind that cannot be mistaken. It is the boiling over of enmity against God.

Again. We naturally hate efforts to promote the interests of our enemies. We are very apt to cavil at the measures which they use; call their motives in question; and find a great deal of fault with the spirit, and manner of their efforts; when we are opposed to the end which they have in view. If it be to promote the interests of our enemy, we are naturally watching for objections, and are captious, and ill-natured, in regard to their movements. We are apt to ridicule, and oppose such efforts; and any thing like zeal, in such a case, is looked upon by us, as enthusiasm and madness. Witness the conduct of impenitent sinners, on the subject of religion. If any efforts are made to promote the interests of the kingdom of God; to honour and glorify him, they are offended. They get up an opposition. They not unfrequently ridicule their meetings. Speak evil of those that are engaged in them. Denounce their zeal, as enthusiasm, and madness; and something for which they deserve the execration of all their neighbours. People may get together, and dance all night, and impenitent sinners do not think it objectionable. The theatre may be opened, every night, at great expense, and the actors and multitudes of others, may be engaged all day in preparing for the entertainment of the evening; and thus the devil may get up a protracted meeting, and continue it for years, and they see no harm in it: no enthusiasm in all this. Ladies may go, and stay till midnight, every evening. Poor people may go, and spend their time and money, and waste their health and lives, and ruin their souls; and there is no harm in all this. But let Christians do any thing like this, and exercise one tenth part of this zeal in promoting the honour of God, and the salvation of souls; why, it would be talked of from Dan to Beersheba. Sinners may go to a ball, or party, and stay nearly all night; but excessively indecorous it is for ladies

to go out to evening meetings. For Christians to have protracted meetings, and to pray till 10 o'clock at night. Abominable! Why, such things are spoken against in the newspapers. They are the subjects of remark and reprobation in steamboats, and stage-coaches, and bar-rooms, and wherever impenitent sinners are assembled. Politicians, may manifest the greatest zeal on the subject of politics. May hold their caucuses; post up their handbills; blaze away in the public journals; appoint their ward-committees; ransack every nook and corner; parade through the streetsar with their music; fire their guns, show their flags, transport their frigates through the streets on wheels, send their coaches up and down the streets with hand-bills posted on their sides, to bring men to the polls, hundreds of thousands of dollars may be expended to carry an election, and all this is well enough. But, O, let Christians but begin to serve God with such zeal, and make such efforts to build up his kingdom, and save the souls of men; and ten to one, if the wicked did not absolutely mob them, and cry out that such efforts would ruin the nation. They would brand such proceedings as the most arrant (throughgoing) enthusiasm, and downright madness. But is it because politics are of so much more importance than the salvation of souls? Is it, because no effort is necessary to arouse a slumbering world, and bring sinners to act, and think, and feel, as they ought on the subject of salvation. No, there is reason enough for the highest possible degree of Christian effort, and sinners know it very well; but their enmity against God is so great, that such efforts cannot be made without arousing all the hell there is within them.

Again. We easily believe an ill report, of one whom we hate. If a man hears any evil of an enemy, he believes it, on the slightest testimony. He does not care to inquire whether the report may be relied upon, but he eagerly listens to every breath of slander, yields the most unqualified credence, to almost any and every falsehood, that serves to blacken the reputation of his enemy. The reason of this is, his ill will is gratified with such reports, he hopes that they are true, and therefore easily believes them. How frequently do we see this feature of the human heart developing itself on the subject of religion. With what eagerness do sinners listen to every false and slanderous report, that may be circulated about the friends of God. It is surprising to see, what absurd and ridiculous things they will believe. They manifest the most unequivocal desire to believe evil of those who profess friendship to God. It is amazing, to see the enmity of their hearts manifesting itself to such a degree, that often, there is nothing too absurd, ridiculous, and contradictory for them to believe, if it only has a tendency to cast contempt and ridicule upon the cause of God.

Again. We naturally love to give publicity to any evil report about our enemies. We desire to have others feel towards them, as we do. It gratifies our malignant feelings, to hear and to circulate those reports that are injurious to the enemy we hate. Hear that man. He meets with a neighbour, and says, have you heard such and such a report of such an individual? No, I have not. Ah, I supposed that you knew it, or I should have said nothing about it. Now hear him go into the whole subject, and relate, and aggravate every circumstance, of which he has heard, and comment upon them as he goes along; at length he closes, by saying I hope you will not mention this,

but it is a matter of fact. And now he goes abroad, and falls in with another neighbour and relates the same to him, as a great secret; hopes he will say nothing about, but thinks the fact cannot be disputed.

Every where he goes, he takes this course; he hopes the thing will not get abroad, to the injury of the poor man. Tis a mournful event. He is truly sorry, that any such thing has happened. In all this he is a hypocrite, and he knows it. He is glad the event has happened, and he delights to publish it. He seems to covet the exclusive privilege, of being the bearer of the first intelligence to every door. How often do we witness the developements of this principle against God. If something takes place, that is disgraceful among the professed friends of God, and injurious to the interests of religion, how ready sinners are, to give it universal publicity.

They will talk about it. Publish it on all occasions; blaze it abroad in the public prints, and send it in every direction upon the wings of the wind. If any one becomes deranged, in connexion with a revival of religion, alas, what an ado is made about it. Thirty thousand citizens of the United States may be murdered every year by strong drink. The groceries may fill bedlam with maniacs. Homicide, and suicide, and all manner of abominations may be the result of rum selling, and yet the indignation of sinners is not aroused. But if some nervous individual becomes deranged, in view of his abominable crimes against his Maker, in connexion with a revival or a protracted meeting; the press groans under the burden of the doleful complainings that are poured out upon the public ear. • But, Secondly. Under this 4th general division of the subject, I observe that impenitent sinners hate God with a MORTAL HATRED.

That is, were it in their power, they would destroy his very existence. Probably, very few sinners, are sensible that they have this degree of enmity, and may feel shocked at the assertion. Nevertheless, it is true. There are several reasons why they may never have known, that such was the state of their hearts. It is probable, that most of them, have never dared to indulge any such feelings. Another reason, why they never have desired to destroy God, is that they have never thought it possible to destroy him. There are many things which sinners have never designed or desired to do, because they have never thought it possible. Did either of you ever design to be a king. Did you ever entertain a thought of being a king. Have you ever felt any ambition to be a king. Probably you never did. And for the very reason, that you have never thought it possible. Suppose a throne, a crown, and a sceptre, were put within your reach; and the robe of royalty was tendered to your acceptance; do you not think that you have pride and ambition enough, under such circumstances, to desire to be a king. And suppose when you had accepted the crown, and swayed the sceptre over one nation, you had the opportunity of extending your empire, and making your dominion universal, over all nations; do you not believe, that you would , instantly desire to do it. And now, suppose that when all the governments of this world were subject to your sceptre; suppose an opportunity should offer for you to extend your dominion over the entire universe of worlds, and should you conceive it possible to subject God

himself to your controul; are you too good, under such circumstances, to aim at exercising dominion over all the universe and over God himself. Sinners, who would trust the best among you. You know not your hearts, if you suppose that under such circumstances, there would be any limit to your ambition.

But again. Sinners do not realize the greatness of their enmity against God, because, as yet, God lets them go unpunished, and they do not believe, that he will send them to hell for their sins. If God will let them have their own way, as long as he does not interfere, to punish them for their sins, or disturb them in their courses of iniquity, their enmity remains comparatively at rest. But who among them would not rise up and murder him, were it in their power, if he should attempt to punish them for their sins.

No, they would sooner wish him in hell, than consent that he should deal with them in justice.

But again. It is evident, that the enmity of sinners against God isn MORTAL, from the fact, that they are in rebellion against him, and in league with devils, to oppose his government, and undermine his throne. Sinners do not obey him. The whole weight of their influence and example is opposed to his government. They do every thing that the nature of the case admits to annihilate his authority, and destroy his government. Rebellion, is always aimed at the life of the sovereign, and it is impossible for sinners, to be more absolutely in rebellion against God, than they are.

But again. The question has been tried. God has once put himself as much in the power of men, as, in the nature of things, was possible. The second person in the Godhead, took to him human nature, and put his human nature within the power of men. And what was the result? They rested not, till they had murdered him. Do you say, that those were the Jews. That you are of a different spirit? This has always been the favorite plea of sinners.

The ancient Jews, persecuted and murdered the prophets. The Jews of Christ's day, professed to honor the prophets, built their sepulchers, and insisted that, if they had lived in the days of the prophets, they would not have persecuted them. But they persecuted and murdered Christ; and Christ himself informs them, that by persecuting him, they showed that they approved the deeds of their fathers. Now sinner, suppose you lived under a government that was a monarchy. Suppose your fathers had rebelled against the rightful king, and placed an usurper upon the throne; and that you, their children, although you did not participate in the original rebellion, yet now, you maintain the same ground which they took, support the usurper, and refuse obedience to your rightful sovereign. Now, is not this, in law and in equity; is it not to all intents and purposes, justifying the conduct of your fathers; becoming a partaker in their crimes, incurring the same guilt, and deserving the same condemnation. Suppose, you did not originally murder Christ; still, is it not a fact, that you now refuse to obey him, as your rightful sovereign, that you support the authority of

Satan, who has usurped the government of this world by refusing to repent; by withholding your service, and your heart from Jesus Christ. Do you not, to all intents and purposes, become a partaker in the crime of those who murdered him. He claimed their obedience; and they arose and imbrued their hands in his blood. He claims your obedience, you utterly refuse it; and thus show, that you approve the deeds of the Jews. And that, were he in your power, sooner than submit to his authority, you would murder him again. This conduct makes you in the eye of common law, a partaker in their crime. In the eye of conscience, of reason, and of common sense; in the eye of God, and in the judgment of heaven, and earth and hell, you are guilty of the blood of Christ, and prove to a demonstration, that were it in your power, you would dethrone and murder the Almighty.

Again. Thirdly. Sinners hate God supremely. That is, they hate him more than they do any thing, and every thing; any body; and every body else in the universe. Do not startle at this, as if it were a rash and extravagant assertion. It is a sober, but an awful truth. Look at this. All other enmity can be overcome by kindness. The greatest enemy you have on earth, may subdue your enmity by kindness, and win you over to become his friend. But how is it, that all the kindness of God, infinitely greater kindness than any human being has had it in his power to show you, has not overcome your enmity, but you still remain in rebellion against him.

Again. A mere change of circumstances in any other case of enmity, will change the heart. Here are two political opponents, between whom an hereditary enmity exists. Their fathers were enemies. They have always been enemies. They have both believed and spoken, all evil of each other. Now, let a change of politics bring them both upon the same side of a political question, and they instantly become friends. Let them have an opportunity to play into each other's hands; let both their hearts, be set upon the election of the same candidate; see how cordially they will co-operate. How warmly they will take each other by the hand. They will walk, and sit, and dine together; attend political meetings; defend each other's reputation, magnify each other's virtues; and throw the kind mantle of charity over each other's vices. And all this they will do heartily. Their real feelings towards each other are changed. Their hearts are really changed towards each other, and they can truly say, whereas we formerly hated, now we love each other. All this has been effected, merely, by a change of circumstances, without any interference by the Holy Ghost. Let the President of the United states appoint his greatest political opponent to the first office in his gift, and he makes him his friend. Suppose the greatest anti-Jackson man in this city, who has said and done the most of any man in the United States, to prevent his election, should be reduced to poverty, and had no means of support, for himself and family. Now suppose, when the news of his extremity should reach the president, he should appoint him to a post of high honour and emolument, would not this change his heart? Would he complain that he could not become the president's friend, until the Holy Ghost had changed his heart? No. Such kindness would be like pouring coals of fire upon his head, would melt him down in an instant; would change the whole current of his soul. How then, does it happen, that all the offers of heaven, and all the threatenings

of hell, that all the boundless love, and compassion manifested in giving his only begotten, and well beloved Son to die for you; when mercy stoops from heaven with bleeding hands, and offers to save, and hell roars from beneath, and threatens to devour; when God approaches you, with a world of moving, melting motives, gathered from earth, and heaven, and hell, and rolls their mountain-weight upon you; that these considerations will never change your heart, unless made effectual by the Holy Ghost?

Again. If men did not hate God supremely they would INSTANTLY REPENT.

Suppose, that when you go home tonight, at the deep hour of midnight; when you are all asleep in an upper apartment of your house; you are awaked by the cry of fire: you look up, and find your dwelling wrapt in flames around you. You leap from your bed, and find the floor under your feet just ready to give way. The roof over your head is beginning to give way, and ready to fall in upon you, with a crash. Your little ones awake, and are shrieking and clinging to your night-clothes. You see no way of escape. At this moment of unutterable anguish and despair, some one comes dashing through the flames with his hair and clothes on fire, seizes you in your distraction with one hand, and gathers his other long and strong arm around your little ones, and again rushes through the flames at the hazard of his life. You absolutely swoon with terror. In a few moments, you open your eyes in the street, and find yourself supported in the arms of your deliverer. He is rubbing your temples with camphor, and fanning you, to restore your fainting life. You look up, and behold in the scorched and smoky features of him who rescued you, the man whom you have supremely hated. He smiles in your face, and says, fear not, your children are all alive; they are all standing around you. Now, would you, could you look coldly at him, and say, O I wish I could repent, that I have hated you so much. I wish I could be sorry for my sin against you. Could you say this? No. You would instantly roll over upon your face, and wash his feet with your tears, and wipe them with the hairs of your head. This scene, would change your heart in a moment, and ever after, the name of that man would be music in your ears. If you heard him slandered, or saw him abused, it would enkindle your grief and indignation. And now, sinner, how is it, that you complain, that you cannot repent of your sins against God? Behold his loving kindness, and his tender mercy. How can you look up? How can you refrain from repentance? How can you help being dissolved in broken-hearted penitence at his blessed feet? Behold his bleeding hands! See his wounded side! Hark! hear his deep death-groan, when he cries "it is finished," and gives up the ghost for your sins. Sinner, are you marble, or adamant! Has your heart been case-hardened in the fires of hell, that you don't repent? Surely nothing but enmity, deep as perdition, can be proof against the infinitely moving inducements to repentance.

But perhaps you will say, that you do not like to hear about hell and damnation, that you love mercy, and if ministers would present the love and mercy of God, and present God as a God of mercy, sinners would love him. But this is all a mistake. Sinners are as much opposed to the mercy of God, as they are to any of his attributes. This is matter of fact, and the

experience of every day. Hark, what is that din and outcry? Whence are those cries of crucify him! crucify him! that load down the winds, and break upon our ears, from the distance of more than 1800 years? Why, God has revealed his mercy and all the world are in arms against it: Jesus Christ has come, upon the kind errand of salvation, and the world is filled with uproar, to murder him. Mercy, is the very attribute of God, against which mankind are arrayed. For thousands of years, the sword of vindictive justice has slept in its scabbard, and God has been unfolding and holding out the attribute of mercy. All the opposition in the world, to God, and to religion, is aimed particularly at his mercy. What is Christianity? What is the Bible? What are revivals of religion? What are all those things that have called forth so much of the opposition of earth and hell, but so many exhibitions of the mercy of the blessed God. When justice ascends the throne, the cavelling mouths of sinners will be stopped. Justice, will soon hush the tumult, and loud opposition of sinners, against their Maker. Then, every mouth shall be stopped, and all the world shall be found guilty before God. But now, is the dispensation of his mercy; and all earth is up in arms against it: and why are you such a hypocrite, as to pretend to love the mercy of God. If you love it, why do you not accept it? If you love a God of mercy, why have not all the moving manifestations of it, that have passed before you, melted you down and subdued your heart?, O sinner, sinner, speak no more proudly. Boast not yourself, that you love any attribute of God, for if, while you remain impenitent, you say you love him, you are a liar, and the truth is not in you. I will conclude this discourse with several remarks.

1st. You see, why it is, that Universalists and other sinners, are so disturbed, with revivals of religion. It is because God comes so manifestly forth in the exercise of his mercy. They cannot bear, such an exhibition of God. It disturbs all the sediment, and lurking enmity of their hearts. These professed friends of God and men, as soon as God displays himself, and men become the recipients of his mercy, are greatly offended by it.

2d. You see the importance of preaching clearly, and frequently, the enmity of sinners hearts against God. There is, and has been, for ages, in most instances, a striking defect, in exhibiting this most important subject. Ministers seem to have been afraid to charge men with being the enemies of God. I never heard this doctrine declared in my life, in such a way that I understood it, previous to my own conversion. Many ministers, seem to have regarded total depravity, as consisting in nothing more than the absence of love to God.

The church, does not seem to have realized, or believed, that the carnal mind is absolutely enmity against God. Although there is no other truth, more abundantly taught in the word of God, or more unanswerably evident, from matter of fact; yet how few sinners have been made to see and believe it. I have in hundreds of instances, conversed with persons who have set under the preaching of the Gospel all their days, and who never had been made to see this fundamental truth of the Gospel.

It is a truth, upon which is founded, the necessity of the new birth; of the spirit's influences, and without understanding and believing it, how are we to expect the world to be converted to God.

Again, 3d. From this subject, it is manifest, that if sinners should take their oath, that they hate God, it would not make it at all more evident. If all the men in the universe should take their oath that the sun shines at noonday, it would not add a particle to the evidence that the sun shines, or render it any more certain, in itself, or evident to others. It is a simple matter of fact, of which we can have no higher testimony than our own senses. So, it is matter of fact, that sinners are the enemies of God. They act it out, before all men. It is as evident, as that they have an existence, and how it ever came to be questioned, or ever forgotten, or overlooked, is, to me, most mysterious.

4th. As I remarked in the morning. There are many professors of religion, who could not make it more evident that they are the enemies of God, if they should take their oath of it. They speak against revivals, and those engaged in promoting them. They give publicity to the faults, real or supposed, of those who are the friends of God. Retail slander, and manifest their opposition to God, in so many ways, that their hypocrisy and enmity against God are perfectly manifest.

5th. Those persons, who have not known, by their own experience, that they have been enemies of God, have not been converted, nor so much as truly convicted. What have they repented of? Have they repented merely of their outward sins? This is impossible, unless they have understood, and condemned the fountain of iniquity, from which these abominations have proceeded. The head and front of their offending is, that they have been the enemies of God. Nay their minding of the flesh, has been of itself, enmity against God. And now, do they talk of having repented, when they have never so much as known, that, in which their chief guilt consists. Impossible!

6th. Those sinners that deny that they are the enemies of God, are never likely to be converted, until they confess their enmity. "He that covereth his sins, shall not prosper, but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them, shall have mercy." There are many persons, who will confess themselves sinners, but will deny that they are the enemies of God. Thus they cover up the great amount of their sins; acknowledge their outward acts of wickedness, but deny the enmity from which they flow. While they do this, God will never forgive them.

7th. These discourses exhibit a very different view of total depravity, from that which regards depravity, as physical, or constitutional, or as belonging to the substance of the body or mind. They exhibit all depravity as voluntary, as consisting in voluntary transgression. As the sinners own act. Something of his own creation. That, over which, he has a perfect control, and for which he is entirely responsible. O, the darkness, and confusion, and utter nonsense, of that view of depravity, which exhibits it, as something lying back, and the cause of all actual transgression. Something

created in the sinner, and born with him. Some physical pollution, transmitted from Adam, through the agency of God or the devil, which is in itself sinful, and deserving the wrath of God, previous to the exercise of voluntary agency on the part of the sinner. This is absurd and impossible.

It is not only absurd and impossible, but is virtually charging all the sin in the world upon God, and if it is firmly believed, renders repentance in every such case a natural impossibility. While the sinner supposes himself to be condemned, not only for his conduct, but for his nature; and while he believes that his conduct is the natural and necessary result of a depraved constitution; and that his nature must be changed, before he can obey his Maker, it is manifestly impossible for him, to blame himself for his sins. He must cease not only to be a reasonable being, but to have common sense, before he can justify God, and condemn himself, upon these principles. No wonder that men who maintain such a view of depravity as this, should also maintain that sinners are unable to repent. It is true, that upon these principles of depravity, and with these views, sinners cannot repent of themselves, nor can God make them repent. The only way in which God can bring a sinner to repentance, is, by correcting his views: by showing him what sin is; and causing him to see, that it is for his conduct, and not for his nature, that he is to repent; and that his conduct and not his nature needs to be changed. To teach physical, or constitutional depravity, is not only to teach heresy and nonsense: but it leads the sinner inevitably to justify himself, and condemn God; and renders repentance, while the sinner believes it, impossible.

8th. You see, why sinners find it so hard to be religious. The total difficulty, consists in their unwillingness to yield up their selfishness.

9th. It cannot be pretended, with any show of reason, that these discourses amount to any denial of moral depravity. I have purposely denied physical depravity; but certainly these discourses maintain moral depravity; that for which the sinner is to blame; that of which he must repent, in all its length and breadth. It would seem, that in the estimation of some, a denial that the nature is in itself depraved, is a virtual denial of all depravity. In other words, they seem to think it a virtual denial of the guilty source of all actual transgression. I have endeavoured to show, that the cause of outbreaking sin, is not to be found in a sinful constitution, or nature; but in a wrong original choice; in which the sinner prefers self-gratification to the will of his Maker; and which choice, has become the settled preference of his soul; and constitutes the deep fountain, from which flow the putrid waters of spiritual and eternal death. I am unable to see by what figure of speech, 16 that is called moral depravity, which either consists in a depraved constitution, or is the natural result of it. Why should it be called moral depravity? Certainly it can have no such relation to moral law, as to deserve punishment. It is indeed marvelous, that in the 19th century, it should be thought heresy, to call sin a transgression of the law, and insist that it must be the act of a voluntary agent. Has it come to this, that those who virtually deny all moral depravity, and virtually charge all the sins of the world upon God; are gravely to complain of heresy in those who maintain moral depravity in all its length and breadth, but who deny

physical or constitutional depravity? What next? If it be heresy, to say that sin is a transgression of the law, certainly the apostle was not orthodox.

10th. From this subject it is plain, either, that sinners must be annihilated, or converted, or forever lost. With a mind that is enmity against God, it is impossible that they should be happy. Infidels have no cause to sneer at the doctrine of the new birth. If there were no Bible in the world, the doctrine of total, depravity, as exhibited in these discourses, would be abundantly manifest, as a matter of fact. And it cannot be denied, that except men pass through just that change of mind, which is in the Bible, called the new birth, or a change of heart, they must, self-evidently, be annihilated, or damned to all eternity.

11th. Sinners are not almost Christians. We sometimes hear persons say, of such an impenitent sinner, that he is almost a Christian. The truth is, the most moral impenitent sinner in the world, is much nearer a devil, than a Christian. Look at that sensitive young lady. Is she an impenitent sinner; then she only needs to die, to be as very a devil as there is in hell. Any slight occurrence, that should destroy her life, would make her a devil. Nay, she needs no positive influence to be exerted upon her, to make a fiend of her; only remove all restraints, and the very enmity of hell boils over in her heart at once. Let God take from under her his supporting hand. Let him cease, but for a moment, to fan her heaving lungs, and she would open her eyes in eternity, and if she dared, would curse him to his face.

12th. How impossible, it would be, for sinners, to enjoy heaven, if permitted to go there in their present state of mind. Only break down the body; let the mind burst forth into the presence of God; let it look abroad, and behold his glories, and see holiness to the Lord, inscribed on every thing around them; let them listen to the song of praise; let them perch upon the loftiest battlement of heaven, let them hear the song of holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, and so great would be their enmity, if unconverted, that, if permitted, they would dive into the darkest cavern of hell, to escape from the presence of the infinitely holy Lord God.

13th. While sinners remain in impenitence, they yield to God no sort of obedience, any more than the devil does. Their carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. In this state of mind, until the supreme preference of their mind is changed, until they have given up minding the flesh, and obey God, it is in vain to talk of obedience. The first act of obedience that you ever will or can perform, is to cease minding the flesh, and give your heart to God.

14th. You see the wickedness and folly of those parents who think their unconverted children friendly to religion. You cannot teach them a greater heresy, than that they are friendly to religion, or to God. I have often heard professing parents say, that their children were not enemies to religion. No wonder that such children were not converted, under such teaching as this. It is just the doctrine that the devil desires you to teach them. You only give your children the impression that they are friendly to religion already, and they will never know, why they need a new heart. While in

this state of mind, and labouring under this delusion, they cannot so much as be convicted, much less converted.

15th. You see from this subject, the folly, and the falsehood of saying, of an impenitent sinner, he is a good-hearted man; when the fact is, that his heart is enmity against God.

Lastly. You see, how necessary it is, that there should be a hell. What shall be done with these enemies of God, if they die in their sins. Heaven is no place for you. It would doubtless be worse to you than hell, if you were allowed to go there. A hell, is deserved by sinners, and is evidently needed for those who die in enmity against God. And now, sinner, you see your state, you must be convinced of the truth of what I have said. Remember that your enmity is voluntary. It is of your own creation. That which you have long cherished and exercised. Will you give it up? What has God done, that you should continue to hate him? What is there in sin, that you should prefer it to God? Why, O why, will you indulge, for a moment longer, this spirit of horrible rebellion, and enmity against the blessed God? Go but a little further, cleave to your enmity but a little longer; and the knell of eternal death shall toll over your damned soul, and all the corners of despair will echo with your groans.

SERMON VI.

WHY SINNERS HATE GOD.

-- John xv. 25.-- "They have hated me without a cause."

This lecture was typed in by Paul J. DiBartolo

These are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. In my two former discourses on total depravity, I have endeavored to demonstrate, that all impenitent sinners, hate God supremely. And having, as I suppose, established this doctrine beyond controversy by an appeal to matters of fact; it now becomes a very solemn and important question, why sinners hate God?

If sinners have a good reason for hating God, then they are not to blame for it; but if they have no good reason, or if they hate him when they ought to love him; then they have incurred great guilt by their enmity to God.

In speaking from this subject, I design

1st. To show what is not the reason of their hatred.

2nd. What is the reason of it.

3rd. That they hate him, for the very reasons, for which they ought to love him.

I. I am to show, what is not the reason of their hatred. • 1st. It is not because God has so constituted them, that they have a physical, or constitutional aversion to God. The text affirms that sinners have hated God without a cause. Not that there is no reason why they hate him; but no good reason. Not that there is strictly no cause for their hatred; for every effect must have some cause; but there is no just cause. If God had so created man, that he was under a physical necessity of hating his Maker, this would not only be a cause, but a just cause for hating him. If God had incorporated with the very substance of his being, a constitutional aversion to himself; this would be a sufficient cause, not only for the sinner's hating him, but a good reason why all other beings should hate him.

• 2nd. The sinner's hatred of God, is not caused by any hereditary, or transmitted disposition to hate him. A disposition to hate God, is itself hatred. Disposition, is an action of the mind, and not a part of the mind itself. It is therefore absurd, to talk of an hereditary, or transmitted disposition to love or hate God, or anything else. It is impossible that a voluntary state of mind should be hereditary, or transmitted from one generation to another.

If any of you understand by disposition, a propensity, or temper; not an action, which is not a voluntary state of mind; but a quality, or attribute, that is part of the mind itself, I say,

• 3rd. That the sinner's hatred, is not caused by any such attribute, or property, that makes a part of the mind, and which in itself has a natural and necessary aversion to God.

• 4th. There is no just cause, in the constitution of our nature, for opposition to God. The nature of man, is as it should be. Its powers are as God made them. He has made them in the best manner, in which infinite power, and goodness and wisdom could make them. They are perfectly adapted to the service of his creator; and if we survey all the exquisite mechanism, and delicate organization of the body, and scrutinize all the properties, and powers, and capabilities, of the mind, we can find no just cause of complaint; but on the other hand, infinite reason to love, and adore the great architect, and exclaim with the Psalmist, "I am fearfully and wonderfully made."

• 5th. There is no just cause for the sinner's hatred, in that wise and benevolent arrangement, by which all men have descended from one common ancestor; and under which divine arrangement, we are naturally, (not necessarily) influenced; and our characters modified by the circumstances under which we have our being. Our being so constituted, as naturally to influence each other, and be highly instrumental in modifying each other's character, is a wise and benevolent arrangement, of the highest importance to the universe: but like every other good thing, is liable to great abuse; and by how much the more powerful our influence is, to promote virtue when we do right, by just so much the greater is our influence, to promote vice, when we do wrong.

• 6th. Again. There is no cause for the sinner's hatred, in the moral government of God. His commandments are not grievous; nor impossible to be obeyed; nor calculated to produce misery when obeyed: but on the contrary, "his yoke is easy, and his burden is light." His commandments are easily obeyed; and obedience naturally results in happiness. If God had established a government, the requirements of which, were so high, that it was extremely difficult to yield obedience to his laws. If the laws were so obscure and intricate, and difficult to understand, that an honest mind were in great danger of mistaking the real meaning of his requirements; or if his laws were arbitrary, unnecessary, and capricious; or if they were guarded by unjust and cruel sanctions: if any of these things were true, sinners would have a just cause to hate God. But not one of them is true.

• Again. Sinners have no just cause for their hatred, in the requirements of the Gospel. If the conditions of salvation, held forth in the Gospel, were arbitrary, capricious, or unjust; if it were impossible to comply with them; if the terms of salvation were put so high, that men have not natural power to obey them, and fulfil the conditions upon which their salvation is suspended. If God commanded them to repent, when they had no power to repent; if he required them to believe, when they had no power to believe; and threatened to send them to hell, for not repenting and believing; in any, and in all these cases, sinners would have just reason to hate God. But none of these things are true. The conditions of the Gospel, so far from being arbitrary, are indispensable in their nature, to salvation, so far from being put so high, that it is impossible, or even difficult to comply with them; they are brought down as low as they possibly can be, without rendering the sinner's salvation impossible. Repentance and faith, are indispensable to fit the soul for the enjoyment of heaven; and if God should dispense with these conditions, and consent that the sinner should remain in his sins, it would render the sinner's damnation certain.

• Again. Not only are the conditions of salvation necessary in their own nature, but it is easy to comply with them. Much easier than to reject them. Our powers of mind, are as well suited to accept, as to reject the Gospel. The motives to accept, are infinitely greater than to reject the offers of mercy. So weighty, indeed are the motives to comply with the conditions of the Gospel, that sinners often find it difficult to resist them, and they are under the necessity of making almost ceaseless efforts to maintain themselves in impenitence and unbelief.

• Again. There is no just cause for hating God, in his providential government of the world. There is no reason to doubt, that God, so administers his providential government, as to produce upon the whole, the highest, and most salutary, practicable influence in favor of holiness. It is manifest that his moral laws, are guarded by the highest possible sanctions: that all has been done, which the perfection of moral government could do, to secure universal holiness in the world. So it is true, beyond all reasonable doubt, that his physical or providential government, is administered in the wisest possible manner.

It is doubtless administered solely for the benefit , and in support of moral government. It is so arranged, as to bring out and exert the highest moral influence, that such a government is capable of exerting. Many sinners talk, as if they supposed God might have administered his governments, both moral, and providential, in a manner vastly more judicious, and more

highly calculated to secure perfection in the conduct of his subjects. They seem to think, that because God is almighty, he therefore can work any conceivable absurdity, or contradiction. That he can secure perfection in moral agents, by the exercise physical omnipotence; and that the existence of sin in our world, is proof conclusive, that, although on some accounts, he is opposed to sin, yet upon the whole, he prefers its existence to holiness in its stead. They seem to take it for granted, that the two governments which God exercises over the universe, moral, and providential; might have been so administered, as to have produced universal holiness throughout the universe. But this is a gratuitous, and most wicked assumption. It is no fair inference from the omnipotence and omniscience of God; and the assumption is founded upon an erroneous view of the nature of moral agency, and of moral government.

• Again. There is no just cause for hatred, in any thing that belongs to the character of God. There is nothing hateful or repellant to any just mind, in any view that can be taken of the character of Jehovah. But on the contrary, his character comprehends every conceivable, or possible excellence.

• Again. There is no just cause for hatred, in the conduct of God. There is no inconsistency, between his conduct, and his professions. Some people seem to have conceived of God, as a sly, artful, hypocritical being, who says one thing, and means another. Who professes great abhorrence of sin, yet so conducts himself, and the affairs of his kingdom, as necessarily and purposefully to produce it. Who commands men to keep his law, on pain of eternal death, and after all, prefers that they should break it. Who commands all men to repent, and believe the Gospel, yet has made atonement but for the elect. Who, while he requires them to repent, has so constituted them, that he knows they are unable to repent; professes greatly to desire the salvation of all men, and yet has suspended their salvation upon impossible conditions. Indeed, many seem to represent the conduct, and professions of God, at everlasting variance with each other; and as making up a complicated tissue, of contradiction, absurdity, and hypocrisy. But all such representations, are a libel upon his infinitely fair and upright conduct.

• Again. There is nothing unkind, or unnecessarily severe, in the conduct of God, towards the inhabitants of this world. There has been a great deal of complaint of his conduct, among sinners; they have often complained of the injustice of his dealings, and have sometimes inquired, what they had done, that he should chastise them with such severity. But all such complainings only prove their own perverseness, and can never fasten any just suspicion upon the conduct of God.

II. Sinners do hate God, because they are supremely selfish; and he is, as he ought to be, infinitely opposed to their supreme object of pursuit.

The first thing that we discover, in the conduct of little children, is, the desire of self-gratification. At what period of their existence, their desire becomes selfishness, it is impossible for us to say. That a proper desire to gratify an appetite for food, and drink, and all our constitutional appetites, is not sinful, is manifest. These appetites, have no moral character; and their proper indulgence, is not sinful. But whenever their indulgence is inordinate, or whenever the indulgence of our appetites, comes in collision with the requirements of God; whenever, and wherever we indulge our constitutional propensities, when we are under an obligation to abstain from an indulgence, in every such case, we sin;

for in all these cases we are selfish; we make our own indulgence, the rule of our duty, instead of the requirement of God. We consent to indulge ourselves, at the public expense, and in a way that is inconsistent with the glory of God, and the highest good of his universe. This is the essence, and the history of all sin. Now, at whatever period of our existence, we first prefer self-gratification, to our duty to God, when we first make self-gratification the supreme object of choice; at what particular moment self-gratification comes to be the ruling principle of our conduct, and the highest aim of our lives, it is perhaps impossible for us to determine.

But whenever this may be, this is the commencement of our depravity. It is our first moral act. It constitutes our first moral character. Every thing, that has preceded this, has had no moral character at all. The Bible assures us, that this occurs so early in our history, that it may be said, that "the wicked are estranged from the womb. That they go astray, as soon as they be born, speaking lies." This language is not, of course, to be understood literally, because we do not speak at all, as soon as we are born: but the wicked speak lies, as soon as they do speak. Behold, says the Psalmist, "I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." This language also, is certainly figurative; for it cannot be possible, that the substance of a conceived fetus should be sin! This would contradict God's own definition of sin. He says, "sin is a transgression of the law;" but the law prescribes a rule of action, and not a mode of existence. If the substance of a conceived fetus is sin: if the child itself, previous to birth, is a sin, than God has committed it. All that can possibly be meant, by this, and similar passages without making utter nonsense of the word of God; without arraying different passages in everlasting contradiction to each other, is, that we were always sinners from the commencement of our moral existence. From the earliest moment of the exercise of moral agency. And to insist upon the literal understanding of such passages as these, is the most dangerous perversion of the Bible. Adopt the principle of interpretation, that insists upon these passages being understood literally, and apply it, in the exposition of the whole Bible, and you will prove, not only that sin and holiness, are substances, but that God is, a material being. Indeed, here has been the great error, on the subject of depravity. This grand rule of interpretation, that all language is to be understood, according to the nature of the subject to which it is applied, has been overlooked, and the same meaning has often been attached to the same word, whether applied to matter, or to mind. For instance, to set aside God's definition of sin, as consisting entirely in the transgression of law, and bring in those figurative expressions, that would seem, unexplained by God's own definition, to represent sin, as consisting in something else, than voluntary transgression; is to array the Scripture in irreconcilable contradiction to itself, by overlooking one of the most important rules of Biblical interpretation.

It is to trifle with the word of God. It is tempting the Holy Ghost. It is a stupid, not to say a willful perversion of the truth of God. Now, the great reason why sinners are opposed to God, is not, that there is any defect in their nature, rendering their opposition physically necessary, but because he is irreconcilably opposed to their selfishness. He is infinitely opposed to the supreme end of their pursuit, that is, to their obtaining happiness, in a way, that is inconsistent with HIS glory, and the happiness of other beings.

The supreme end, at which they aim, is to promote their own happiness, in a way that is inconsistent with the public good. To this he is infinitely opposed. As they have an unholy end, in view, the means which they use , to accomplish this end, are, of course, as wicked as the end. God is therefore, as much opposed to the means, which they use, as to the end, which they are endeavoring to accomplish by those means. These means make up the history of their lives. They are all designed, directly, or indirectly, to affect the all absorbing

object, at which the sinner aims; the promotion of his own happiness. God is therefore, as he ought to be, sincerely and conscientiously, and infinitely opposed to every thing they do or say, while in a state of inpenitency. They would make every thing subordinate to their own private interests. He insists upon it, that they shall seek their happiness, in a way that is consistent with, and calculated to promote the happiness of the whole. This is after all the only way in which, in the very nature of things they can be happy. He accordingly sets himself with full purpose of heart, to defeat every attempt which they make to obtain happiness in their own way. He is the irreconcilable adversary of all their selfish schemes. He embitters every cup of selfish joy, "turns their" selfish "council headlong; and brings down their violent dealing upon their own pate."

Thus you see that sinners hate God, because he is so holy. While they remain selfish, and he is infinitely benevolent, their characters, their designs, their desires, and all their ways are diametrically opposed to his, and his to theirs. They are direct opposites; and until they change, it will always be true as he has said, "I loathe them, and they abhor me."

Holiness, is a regard to right. God requires upon infinite penalties, that every moral being in the universe should do and feel and say, that which is perfectly right; less than this, he cannot require without injustice. But sinners are unwilling to do right. They would be at liberty to consult their own private interest in every thing, and they of course consider God as an enemy, because he insists upon their unqualified obedience to the law of right, however perfectly it counteracts their selfish schemes.

Again. Sinners hate God because he is so good. He is good and does good, and moves on in the promotion of the public interest in a way that often overturns and scatters to the winds, all their selfish projects and Babel-towers upon which they are attempting to climb to heaven. His heart is so set upon doing good, that in the prosecution of his great design, he has often overthrown families and nations that stood in his way; and once, he overwhelmed a world of sinners in a flood to prevent their mischief, and bring the world back into such a state, that, through the introduction of the law and Gospel, he might reclaim mankind, and save a multitude from hell.

Again. Sinners hate God, because he is impartial. They view their own interest as of supreme importance, and are laying themselves out to make everything in the universe bend to it. They would have the weather, the winds, and the whole material and moral universe, conform to the great object they have in view, to consummate and perpetuate their own happiness. But as God has an end in view entirely diverse from theirs; as his object is to promote the general happiness, and the happiness of individuals, only so far as is consistent with the happiness and rights of other beings, he continually thwarts them in their favorite projects. The very elements of the material universe, are so arranged and governed, as often to make shipwreck of their fondest hopes, and annihilate for even their most fondly cherished expectations.

But this is not all. Sinners hate God because he threatens to punish them for their sins. He will not compromise with them; he insists upon their obedience, or their damnation. He requests their repentance and reformation, or the everlasting destruction of their souls. Now, either alternative is supremely hateful to an impenitent sinner. To repent, heartily to confess that God is right, and he is wrong; to take God's part against himself; to give up the pursuit of his own happiness, as the supreme object of desire; to dedicate himself with all he is and has to the service of God and the promotion of the public interest; is what he is utterly unwilling to do; and inasmuch as God insists upon it, will make no compromise, but

demands unqualified and unconditional submission to his will, or the eternal damnation of his soul; the sinner is entirely unreconciled to either. He considers God as his infinite and almighty adversary, and makes war upon him with all his heart.

III. I am to show, that sinners hate God for the very reasons for which they ought to love him.

They are the very reasons for which all holy beings do love him. His opposition to all sin, and to all injurious conduct of every kind; his high regard to individual, and general happiness; and in short, all the reasons for which selfish beings are so much opposed to him, are the foundation of obligation to love him, and are the reasons why reasonable beings, that have any regard to the moral fitness of things, feel it right, and infinitely obligatory in them, to love their Maker. He deserves to be loved for these reasons, and for no other. And it is for these, and no other reasons that sinners hate him. They do not hate him because he deserves their hatred, but because he deserves their love. It is not because he is wicked, but because he is good. It is not because they have any good reason to hate him, but because they have every possible reason to love him. I mean just as I say. Sinners not only hate God, in spite of infinitely strong reasons for loving him; but for these very reasons. Not only is it true, that these reasons for loving him do not prevent their hating him, but they are the very reasons for which they hate him.

I shall conclude this discourse with several remarks.

1st. From this subject you can see the ridiculous hypocrisy of infidels. It is very common for them to profess in their investigations and inquiries after truth, to be impartial. They insist upon it that Christians are already committed, and are therefore incapable of giving Christianity a candid and unbiased examination. Christians, they say, cannot make up a judgment to be relied upon, because they are already committed in favor of Christianity. But infidels seem to suppose that they are in circumstances to make up an unbiased and enlightened judgment; and to examine and decide without prejudice. But this is utterly absurd. They are not on neutral ground, as they suppose themselves to be. They are committed against the Bible. That they are the enemies of God, is demonstrated by their conduct, entirely irrespective of the Bible. That their lives are such as no good being can approve; such as God if he is holy must abhor, is a plain matter of fact. It needs no Bible to prove this. Now, here is a book claiming to be a revelation from God, demanding of them holiness of heart and life; and threatening them for their sins with eternal death. Now, is it not absurd? Is it not ridiculous and hypocritical, for these enemies of God, committed as they are against God, and against this revelation; to set themselves up as the only impartial judges?

They can sit down to the investigation of the subject without bias. They are on neutral ground. They feel no such prepossessions as to misguide their judgment. The fact is; admitting that Christians are as much prejudiced in favor of Christianity, as infidels say they are; still, unless infidels will admit that Christians are perfect, that they are wholly sinless, and entirely devoted to God; it will appear after all, that Christians are not so liable to be prejudiced in favor of Christianity, as infidels are against it. Infidels are entirely opposed to God, and all impenitent sinners, as I have shown in the two former discourses, are totally depraved; and until Christians are entirely perfect, they will not be so completely biased in favor of God, as sinners are in favor of the devil. They will not until then of course, be so liable to misjudge in favor of the Bible, as sinners will be against it.

Christians, being upon the whole in favor of God, and therefore feeling a strong attachment to the Bible, and yet, having much remaining sin about them; and therefore liable to feel many objections to the strictness of its claims; are in the best circumstances, and in the most favorable state of mind of any beings in the world, to judge impartially. They are not so wicked as to reject what they see to be true, nor so obsequiously disposed, as blindly to submit to every thing that pretends to have a claim upon their obedience without investigation. By this I do not mean that Christians are better qualified to judge of the truth of the Christian religion, than if they were perfect; but I do mean to repel the absurd assertions of infidels, that the Christian's faith, is nothing more than a blind credulity. There never was at any time, piety enough in the church, to bear the restraints of pure Christianity, if the evidence in its favor, did not come upon them, with the power of demonstration.

2nd. From this subject you can see, that the wicked conduct of sinners is no proof that their nature is sinful. The universal sinfulness of men, has been supposed to conduct to the inevitable conclusion, that the nature of man must be in itself sinful. It has been said that in no other way, can the universal sinful conduct of men, be accounted for. It has been maintained, that an effect must be of the same nature of its cause; and that as the effects or actions of our nature are universally sinful, that therefore the nature or cause must be sinful.

But if the effect must be of the same nature of its cause, if the cause must have the same nature of the effect, then God must be a material being, for he is the cause of the existence of all matter, and therefore he must himself be material. The soul of man must also be material. It acts upon his material body, and causes his body to act upon other material things around him, and as it is constantly effecting material changes on every hand, the soul must be material. This would, indeed, be a short hand method of disposing of the existence of all spirits. But who will after all admit of this mode of argumentation, and adopt as a serious and grave truth, the absurd dogma that the character of an effect, decides in all cases the character or nature of its cause.

The universally sinful conduct of men is easily and naturally accounted for, upon the principles of this discourse. They universally adopt in the outset, the principle of selfishness as their grand rule of action, and this from the very laws of their mental constitution, vitiates all their moral conduct, and gives a sinful character to every moral action.

If it be asked how it happens that children universally adopt the principle of selfishness, unless their nature is sinful. I answer, that they adopt this principle of self gratification or selfishness; because they possess human nature, and come into being under the peculiar circumstances in which all the children of Adam are born since the fall: but not because human nature is itself sinful. The cause of their becoming sinners, is to be found in their nature's being what it is, and surrounded by the peculiar circumstances of temptation to which they are exposed in a world of sinners.

All the constitutional appetites and propensities of body and mind, are in themselves innocent; but when strongly excited are a powerful temptation to prohibited indulgence. To these constitutional appetites or propensities, so many appeals of temptation are made, as universally to lead human beings to sin. Adam was created in the perfection of manhood, certainly not with a sinful nature, and yet, an appeal to his innocent constitutional appetites led him into sin. If adult Adam, without a sinful nature, and after a season of obedience and perfect holiness, was led to change his mind by an appeal to his innocent constitutional propensities; how can the fact that infants, possessing the same nature with Adam and

surrounded by circumstances of still greater temptation, universally fall into sin, prove that their nature is itself sinful? Is such an inference called for? Is it legitimate? What, holy and adult Adam, is led, by an appeal to his innocent constitution to adopt the principle of selfishness, and no suspicion is, or can be entertained, that he had a sinful nature; but if little children under circumstances of temptation aggravated by the fall are led into sin, we are to believe that their nature is sinful! This is wonderful philosophy; and what heightens the absurdity is, that in order to admit the sinfulness of nature, we must believe sin to consist in the substance of the constitution, instead of voluntary action; which is a thing impossible.

And that which stamps the inference of a sinful nature with peculiar guilt is, that in making it we reject God's own declaration that "sin is a transgression of the law," and adopt a definition which is a perfectly absurd.

3rd. From the view of depravity presented in these discussions, it is easy to see in what sense sin is natural to sinners; and what has led mankind to ascribe the outbreakings of sin to their nature; as if their nature was itself sinful.

All experience shows, that from the laws of our constitution we are influenced in our conduct directly or indirectly by the supreme preference of our minds. In other words, when we desire a thing supremely, it is natural to us to pursue this object of desire; we may have desires for an object which we do not pursue. But it is a contradiction to say that we do not pursue the object of supreme desire. Supreme desire is nothing else than a supreme or controlling choice, and as certain as the will controls the actions; so certainly, and so naturally, shall we pursue that object which we supremely desire. The fact therefore, that sinners adopt the principle of supreme selfishness, renders it certain and natural, while their selfishness continues to be predominant, that they will sin, and only sin, and this is in strict accordance with, or rather the result of the laws of their mental constitution. While they maintain their supreme selfishness, obedience is impossible. This is the reason why "the carnal mind, or the minding of the flesh, is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be." No wonder therefore, that sinners, whose supreme preference is selfish, should find it very natural for them to sin, and extremely difficult to do anything else than sin. This being a fact of universal observation, has led mankind to ascribe the sins of men to their nature; and a great deal of fault has been found with nature itself; when the fact is, that sin is only an abuse of the powers of nature. Men have very extensively overlooked the fact; that a deep seated, but voluntary preference for sin, was the foundation and fountain and cause of all other sins. The only sense in which sin is natural to men is, that it is natural for mind to be influenced in its individual exercises by a supreme preference or choice of any object. It will therefore, always be natural for a sinner to sin, until he changes the supreme preference of his mind, and prefers the glory of God and the interests of his kingdom to his own separate and opposing interests.

4th. Here you can see what a change of heart is. Its nature, its necessity, and the obligation of the sinner immediately to change it. You can see also that the first act which the sinner will, or can perform, that can be acceptable to God, must be to change his heart, or the supreme controlling preference of his mind.

5th. Perhaps someone will object and say if infants are not born with a sinful nature, how then are they saved by grace? But I ask in return, if they are born with a sinful nature, how are they saved by grace? Does God create an infant a sinner, and then call it grace to save him from the sinfulness of a nature of his own creation? Absurd and blasphemous. What!

represent the ever blessed God as either directly creating a sinful nature, or as establishing such an order of things that a nature in itself sinful would by physical necessity descend from Adam, and then call that grace by which the infant is saved! (not from its conduct, but from its nature!)

But let us look at this. Here are two systems; the one maintains that infants have no moral character at all, until they have committed actual transgression. That their first moral actions are invariably sinful, but that previous to moral action they are neither sinful nor holy. That as they have no moral character they deserve neither praise nor blame; neither life nor death at the hand of God. God might annihilate them without injustice, or he may bestow upon them eternal life as a free and unearned gift.

The other system maintains that infants have a sinful nature which they have inherited from Adam. The scriptures maintain that all who are ever saved of the human family, must be saved by grace; and those who maintain the system that the nature of infants is itself sinful, suppose that upon their system alone is it possible to ascribe the salvation of infants, who die before actual transgression to grace. But let us for a few moments examine these systems. Grace is evidently used in different senses in the Bible. It is sometimes synonymous with holiness. To grow in grace, is to grow in holiness. Its most common import seems to be that of unmerited favor. It is sometimes used in a wider sense, and includes the idea of mercy or forgiveness. Now, when infants die previous to actual transgression, it is impossible to ascribe their salvation to grace, in any other sense, than that of undeserved, or unearned favor. If they have never sinned, it is impossible that they should be saved by grace, if we include in the term grace, the idea of mercy or forgiveness. To assert that a child can be pardoned for having a sinful nature, is to talk ridiculous nonsense: and it is only in the sense of undeserved favor, excluding the idea of mercy or pardon, that an infant, dying before actual transgression, can be said to be saved by grace. In this sense, his salvation is by grace. He has never earned eternal life; he has never done anything, by which he has laid God under any obligation to save him, and God might, without any injustice, annihilate him. But if it please him for the sake of Christ, as I fully believe it does, to confer eternal life upon one whom he might without any injustice annihilate, it is conferring upon him infinite favor. But let us look at the other system for a moment. This denies that infants have a sinful nature, and rejects the monstrous dogma that God has created the nature sinful, and then pretends to save the infant from a nature of his own creation by grace, as if the infant deserved damnation for being what God made it. Those that hold this scheme insist that there is as much grace in the salvation of infants, upon their view of the subject, as upon the impossible dogma of a sinful nature. The fact is, that the very existence of the whole race of man, is a mere matter of grace; having reference to the atonement of Jesus Christ. Had it not been for the contemplated atonement, Adam and Eve would have been sent to hell at once, and never have had any posterity. The race could never have existed. There never could have been any infants, or adults (Adam and Eve excepted,) had it not been for the grace of Christ in interposing in behalf of man by his atonement. it was doubtless in anticipation of this, and on account of it, that Adam and Eve were spared and the sentence of the law not instantly executed upon them. Now every infant owes its very existence to the grace of God in Jesus Christ, and if it dies previous to actual transgression, it is just as absolutely indebted to Christ for eternal life, as if it had been the greatest sinner on earth. On neither of these schemes, does the grace which saves infants include the idea of pardon - but on both of them they are saved by grace, inasmuch as they owe their very existence to the atonement of Christ; and in both cases are delivered from circumstances under which it is certain had they lived to form a moral character, they would have sinned, and deserved eternal death. To think, therefore, of objecting to the view of depravity that I have given in these discourses,

that it denies the grace of God in the salvation of infants, is either to misconceive, or willfully to misrepresent the sentiments that I have advocated. I desire to ask, and I wish that it may be answered, if it can be; wherein there is any more grace displayed in the salvation of infants, upon the one system than upon the other. Will it be said that if the nature of infants be sinful, grace must change their nature, and that there is this difference; that although in neither case does the infant need a pardon, yet in the one case his nature needs to be changed, and not in the other? But if his nature needs to be changed. I deny that this is an act of grace; if God has made his nature wrong and incapable of performing any but sinful actions, he is bound to change it. It is consummate trifling to call this grace - to cause a being to come into existence with a sinful or defective nature and then call it grace to alter this nature and make it as it should have been at first, is to trifle with serious things and talk deceitfully for God.

6th. Again. The hatred of sinners is cruel. It is as God says, "rendering hatred for his love." He is love, and this is the reason and the only reason why they hate him. Mark, it is not because they overlook the fact that he is infinitely benevolent. It is not merely in the face of this fact, that for other reasons they hate him; but it is because of this fact. It is literally and absolutely rendering hatred for his love. He is opposed to their injuring each other. He desires their happiness and is infinitely opposed to their making themselves miserable. He is infinitely more opposed to their doing any thing that will prove injurious to themselves, than an earthly parent was to that course of conduct in his beloved child, which he foresaw would ruin him. His heart yearns with infinitely more than parental tenderness. He expostulates with sinners and says, "O do not that abominable thing that I hate." "How shall I give thee up Ephriam? How shall I deliver thee Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? My heart is turned within me, and my repentings are kindled together."

He feels all the gushings of a father's tenderness, and all the opposition of a father to any course that will injure his offspring, and as children will sometimes hate, and revile their parents for opposing their wayward courses to destruction, so sinners hate God, more than they hate all other beings, because he is infinitely more opposed to their destroying their souls.

7th. The better God is, the more sinners hate him. The better he is, the more he is opposed to their selfishness: and the more he opposes their selfishness, while they remain selfish, the more they are provoked with him.

In my second discourse on depravity, I showed that men hate God supremely. The only reason is because his excellence is supreme excellence. His goodness is unmingled goodness, and therefore their hatred is unmingled enmity. If there were any defect in his character, men would not hate him so much. If God were not perfectly ,yea infinitely good, men might not be totally depraved, I mean, they might not be totally opposed to his character; but because his character has no blemish, therefore they sincerely, cordially, and perfectly hate him.

8th. Again. The more he tries to do them good, while they remain impenitent, the more they will hate him. While they retain their selfishness, all his efforts to restrain it, to hedge them in, to prevent the accomplishment of their selfish desires; the more he interposes to tear away their idols; to wean them from the world, the more he embitters every cup of joy with which they attempt to satisfy themselves, the more means he uses to reclaim, and sanctify and save; if their selfishness remain unbroken, the more deeply and eternally will they hate

him.

9th. This conduct in sinners is infinitely blame worthy and deserves eternal death. It is impossible to conceive of guilt more deep and damning than that of sinners under the Gospel. They sin under circumstances so peculiar, than their guilt is more aggravated than that of devils. Devils have broken the law and so have you sinners. But devils never rejected the Gospel. They have been guilty of rebellion and so have you. But they have never rejected the offer of pardon and spurned, as with their feet, the offer of eternal life through the atoning blood of the Son of God. If you sinners do not deserve eternal death, I cannot conceive that there is a devil in hell that deserves it. And yet, strange to tell, sinners often speak as if it were doubtful whether they deserve to be damned.

10th. It is easy to see from this subject, that saints and angels will be entirely satisfied with the justice of God in the damnation of sinners. They will never take delight in the misery of the damned, but in the display of justice, in the vindication of his insulted majesty and injured honor, in the respect which punishment will create for the law and character of God, they will have pleasure; they will see that the display of his justice is glorious, and will cry halleluia, while "the smoke of their torment shall ascend up for ever and ever."

SERMON VII.

GOD CANNOT PLEASE SINNERS.

-- Luke vii. 31-35.-- "And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are

they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and

ye have not wept. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye

say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified

of all her children."

This lecture was typed in by Michael and Pam Burns.

It would seem, as if God designed, in his dealings with men, to leave them without excuse. He uses such a variety of instrumentality to reclaim and save them, that it appears as if he meant to try every possible means of winning them away from death, that he may give them eternal life.

John the Baptist, was an austere man: he seems to have had very little intercourse with the people, except in his public capacity as a prophet. His message seems to have been that of reproof and rebuke in a high degree. His diet was locusts and wild honey; and he seems to have practised a high degree of austerity, in all his habits of living. He did not visit Jerusalem as a public teacher, but continued in the wildest parts of Judea, to which places the people flocked, to listen to his instruction. His habits of life; his style of preaching; his abstaining in a great measure from intercourse with the people; led his enemies to say, that

he had a bad spirit; and that so far he was from being a good man he was possessed with the devil.

After the Scribes and Pharisees had declined receiving his doctrine, under the pretense that he had a devil: Jesus Christ began his public, and in his habits of life, and intercourse with the people, differed widely from John the Baptist. Instead of confining himself to the wilderness of Judea, he visited most of the principle places, and especially spent considerable time at Jerusalem as a public teacher. He was affable in his deportment; mingled with great ease, and holy civility, with almost all classes of persons, for the purpose of instructing them in the great doctrines of salvation. He did not hesitate to comply with the invitations of the Pharisees, and great men of the nation to dine with them; and on all occasions was forward in administering such reproof, and instruction, as was suited to the circumstances and characters of those with whom he associated. But when the Pharisees listened to his doctrines, they were filled with indignation, and seized hold of the easy and gentlemanly manner in which he accommodated himself to all classes of people that he might give them instruction, and objected to him that he was a gluttonous man, a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. They objected to John, that he was morose and sour, that he had a denunciatory spirit, and was therefore possessed with the devil: and to Christ they objected, that he was on the opposite extreme; that he too was affable and familiar with all classes of people: that he was not only a gluttonous man, and a win-bibber; but that he was the friend of publicans and sinners. It was this inconsistency in them, that drew forth from Christ the words of the text. An evident allusion is made, in the words of the text, to Eastern customs; to their seasons of festivity and dancing on the one hand; and to their loud lamentation and mournings, on funeral occasions, on the other. It is common, as every one knows, for little children to copy, in their plays, those things which they see in adult persons. When they witness seasons of festivity, piping, and dancing, they get something that will answer as an instrument of music, and go forth piping and dancing, in imitation of what they have seen. So on the other hand, when they have witnessed funeral occasions, on which, mourning men and women, as is common in the East; by their loud wailings, have excited great lamentations among the spectators; they too, have attempted to copy this also. The conduct of the Scribes and Pharisees is compared to children, who sit in the marketplaces, and complain of their little playfellows as morose and sour, and not willing to play with them, play what they would. When they imitated festivity and dancing, their playfellows were solemn and reserved, and did not seem disposed to merriment. And when they attempted to play something that was more agreeable to their humour, and mourned and wailed unto them as if at a funeral, then they were disposed to be merry. We have piped unto you (say they), and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. And when Christ had thus represented the testy conduct of these children, he presses his hearers with the application, "for John the Baptist came neither eating bread, nor drinking wine, and ye say he hath a devil. The Son of Man is come, eating and drinking, and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children."

In speaking from these words, I design, to illustrate the following proposition---That God Cannot Please Sinners.

Some people are apt to imagine that it is a misrepresentation of God's character that creates so much opposition to him in this world. Sometimes, it is true, that his character is greatly misrepresented, and when his character is thus misrepresented the consciences of men are opposed to him; but they are no better pleased when his character is truly represented; for then, their hearts are opposed to him.

It is matter of fact, that only needs to be stated, to be admitted, that upon the subject of religion, the heart and the conscience of impenitent sinners, are opposed to each other. That which their hearts love, their consciences condemn, and that which their consciences approve, their hearts hate. Their consciences approve the character of God, as it is; but to this character their hearts are utterly opposed, as I have shown when treating upon the subject of total depravity, in No. 5 of this series. If the character of God should be so altered, as to conciliate and please their wicked heart; their conscience would condemn it.

In illustration of the proposition, "that God cannot please sinners." I observe in the • 1st. Place, that sinners do not like the holiness of God, nor would they like him if he were unholy.

To the holiness of God their hearts are bitterly opposed. To deny this is as absurd as it is false. To maintain that an impenitent heart is not opposed to holiness, is the same as to maintain that an impenitent heart is not impenitent. Impenitence is the love of sin. But sin and holiness are direct opposites. To say then, that an impenitent heart is not opposed to holiness, is to say that opposites are not opposites. God is infinitely holy, and therefore the impenitent heart is wholly opposed to him. But suppose he was infinitely sinful; would sinners be better pleased with him than they are at present? No. They would then make war upon him because he was so wicked. Their consciences would then condemn him, and although their hearts would be conciliated, their conscience, and their better judgment would be utterly opposed to him. Men are so constituted, that they cannot approve the character of a wicked being. No man ever approved of the character of the devil: and wicked men are opposed to both God and the devil, for opposite reasons. They hate God with their hearts because he is so holy; and in their consciences condemn the devil, because he is so wicked. Now suppose you place the character of God at any point between the two extremes of infinite holiness and infinite sinfulness; and sinners would not, upon the whole, be better pleased with him than they are now. In just as far as he was holy, their hearts would hate him. In just as far as he was wicked, their consciences would condemn him. So that he does not please them as he is, nor would he please them if he should change.

• Again. Sinners do not like the mercy of God; in view of the conditions upon which it is to be exercised, nor would they like him if he were unmerciful.

If they liked his mercy with its conditions, they would accept forgiveness; and would no longer be impenitent sinners. This is matter of fact. But if he were unmerciful, then they would certainly be opposed to him.

• Again. They do not like the precept of his law, as it is, nor would they approve of it if it were altered. When they behold its perfection, their hearts rise up against it. But if it were imperfect, and allowed of some degree of sin, their consciences would condemn it. Let the precept of the law remain as it is, or alter it as you will; and sinners are and will be displeased. The law now requires perfect holiness; and for this reason the sinner's heart is entirely opposed to it. But suppose it required entire sinfulness; then his conscience would utterly condemn it. Let it be of a mixed character, and require

some holiness, and some sin; and in as far as it requires holiness, their heart would hate it; and in as far as it required sin, their conscience would condemn it. So upon the whole, they would be as far from being satisfied, as they are now.

• Again. Sinners do not like the penalty of the law as it is; nor would they approve of it, if it were altered. The heart of sinners rises into most outrageous rebellion, when the penalty of eternal death is held out to their view. But if the penalty were less, their consciences would condemn it. Then they would say the penalty was not equal to the importance of the precept. That as the importance of the precept was infinite; it is a plain matter of common sense that the penalty is infinite. That God was under an obligation in justice, to apportion the penalty to the importance of the precept. Furthermore, they would say that God had not done all the nature of the case admitted, to prevent the commission of sin. That he had not presented the highest motives to obedience, that could be presented; nor such motives as the nature of the case demanded: that therefore he was deficient in benevolence, and even wanting in common honesty and justice. Now, place the penalty of this law at any point between eternal death and no penalty at all, and the sinner is not satisfied.

If you make it less than eternal death, you offend his conscience; and if you let it remain as it is, you offend his heart.

• Again. Sinners do not like the Gospel as it is, nor would they be better satisfied, if it were altered.

1st. They do not like the rule of conduct which it prescribes, now would they be satisfied if it prescribed any other rule. It requires that men should be holy, as God is holy: and requires the same strictness and perfection, as does the moral law. But this is a great offence to their hearts. Suppose it prescribed a different rule of conduct, and lowered its claim as to suit the sinful inclinations of men; then their consciences would oppose it.

What, they would say, is the Gospel to repeal the moral law? Does it make Christ the minister of sin? Is it arrayed against the government of God, and does it permit rebellion against his throne? What sort of Gospel is this? To this their consciences would entirely object.

Again. Sinners do not like the conditions of the Gospel, now would they be satisfied, if they were altered. The conditions are, repentance and faith: but to these, the sinner's heart is opposed. To hate his sins; to trust in Christ, for salvation; is asking too much, to obtain the consent of his heart. But suppose the Gospel offered to pardon and save, without repentance and faith: tho this the sinner's conscience, and his common sense would object. What, he would say; shall the Gospel offer pardon while they continue their rebellion? Shall men be saved in their sins? It is absurd and impossible. And shall men be saved without faith in Christ? Shall they be received and pardoned, while they make God a liar? Shall they go to heaven without believing there is a heaven? Shall they escape hell when they do not believe there is a hell? Shall they ever find their way to everlasting life, when they have no confidence in the testimony of God; and will not walk in the only way that will conduct them there?

Impossible. A Gospel that pretends to save on such conditions must be from hell.

Now suppose you let the conditions of the Gospel remain as they are, or alter them in any possible way; and the sinner is not satisfied. They commend themselves to his conscience as they are, but they are a great offence to his heart. Alter them, so as to conciliate his heart, and you offend his conscience; and while the sinner remains impenitent, there is no conceivable alternation that would please him.

The fact is, that sinners are at continual war with themselves. Their hearts and consciences are in perpetual opposition to each other. One view of a subject will please their hearts, and offend their consciences; and another view of it, will satisfy their consciences, but arouse the enmity of their hearts; and while they are in this state, it is plainly impossible to please them.

Again. Sinners do not like the means of grace, as they are, nor would they be satisfied, if any other means were used to save them. They do not like the doctrines that ministers preach, when they preach the truth, now would they be satisfied if they preached error.

If they come out with the pure doctrines of the Gospel, and bear down upon the hearts and consciences of men with the claims of God, their hearts arise in instant rebellion. This say they, is an abominable doctrine. But if the minister lets down the high claims of the Gospel, their conscience is dissatisfied; and the sinner if he is well instructed says, that the minister is afraid to tell the truth; that he is daubing with untempered mortar; that he is deceiving the people and leading them down to hell.

Now, whether the minister preaches the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; or error, and nothing but error; or a mixture of truth and falsehood; in just as far as he preaches the truth; the sinner's heart opposes: and whenever he preaches what the sinner knows to be error, his conscience condemns it. So let the minister preach what he will; while the sinner is impenitent, he will not upon the whole be satisfied.

Again. Sinners do not like the manner of ministers preaching as it is, nor would they be satisfied if their manner was different. If the minister's manner is rousing, and pointed; pungent and impressive; the sinner's heart rises up against it. If it is lazy and cold and dry, his conscience condemns it. In the first case, the sinner says, he is an enthusiast, and a madman, that he appeals to the passions, and excites a great deal of animal feeling; that he frightens the women and children, and will drive people to madness. In the latter case, he says that he preaches the people all to sleep. That he is prosing, and dull, and does not believe the Gospel himself. Now let the minister's manner be wholly right, or wholly wrong, or a mixture of right and wrong; and the sinner is not satisfied. In so far as the manner is right, his conscience takes sides against it: and while the sinner is so inconsistent with himself, it is vain to hope to please him.

Again. Sinners do not like the lives of ministers, as they are, nor would they be satisfied if they lived differently. If the minister is determined to know nothing among his people, save Jesus Christ and him crucified: if he make religion his entire business; and introduce his message on all occasions; the sinner's heart is filled with indignation: Says he is a great bigot; full of superstition; or a canting hypocrite; that he is not sociable, and affable as a minister ought to be; that he takes no interest in the common concerns of men; that he is entirely unacquainted with human nature; that he is always intruding his religion upon every body: and he thinks, for his part, that a minister would do a great deal more good, to be a little more like other people. But if on the other hand, the minister associates with the world like other people; takes an interest in the passing occurrences of the day: if he interests himself in politics; reads secular news, and books: relates anecdotes, and is cheerful, and companionable; and at home among his people, on all occasions; then the sinner's conscience condemns him. O he says, I don't see that he is any better than any body else; he is not what a minister should be, but is fond of politics, and as much interested in the business of this world, as other people are. I like to see a minister confine himself to the duties of his office. Now, let the minister live as he will; wholly right, or wholly wrong, and the sinner is displeased. But suppose there be a mixture of consistency and inconsistency, or right and wrong, in a minister's life; then they say, he is not at all what he should be; that he is sometimes very hot, and sometimes very cold; that he is sometimes all religion, and sometimes no religion; that sometimes his conversation is all upon religious subjects, and sometimes all upon the world; they think this inconsistency calculated to do a great deal of hurt: for their part, they like to see a minister consistent and be always the same. Now, it is evident, that while the sinner is so inconsistent with himself, he will be displeased with the lives of ministers, let them live as they may. As far as the minister lives as he ought, the impenitent heart, loathes him; and in as far as he lives as he ought not; the conscience condemns him.

Again. Sinners do not like the conduct of Christians, as it is, nor would they be satisfied if it were different. When Christians are very much engaged in religion, have a great many meetings, and make great efforts to save souls of men, the hearts of sinners are very much disturbed. They call them enthusiasts, and hypocrites, and think they had much better attend to their worldly business, lest their families should come upon the town. They do not thank them for their impertinence in visiting from house to house, and intruding their religion upon all their neighbors: and if Christians are opposed to balls and parties, and all kinds of sinful amusements; then they say they are morose and sour, and misanthropic; are opposed to all the sympathies, and courtesies of life; and that they want to render every body else, as morose, and sour, and unhappy in themselves--that they had better be engaged in something else, than in muttering their prayers, running to meetings, and exhorting their neighbors to repent, as if nobody had any religion but themselves. But, if on the other hand, Christians say but little about religion, attend meeting but seldom, except on the Sabbath; engage as deeply in business as worldly men; and appear to enjoy parties of pleasure, and time-killing amusements; now they say, these professors of

religion are all hypocrites: what do they more than others? They care nothing about the souls of their neighbors. They neither warn, nor exhort them; nor live as if they believed there was a heaven or a hell. If these are Christians, I want no such religion as this. So that is Christians live right or wrong, sinners are not satisfied. Of if there is a mixture of good and evil in their lives, they are no better pleased. If sometimes Christians are awake, and at other times asleep; if sometimes they do their duty, and at other times neglect it; sinners say, that their inconsistency is a great stumbling-block; that they don't like this periodical religion; that is one day all zeal, and the next all coldness and death. The truth is, if they are engaged, the sinner's heart is disturbed; and if they are cold, his conscience gives sentence against them. If they are neither cold nor hot, in just as far as they are warm, their hearts oppose; and in as far as they are cool, their consciences condemn; and who can please them?

Again. Sinners are displeased if the church exercise discipline, and turn out unworthy members; and they are also displeased, if they do not do it. If a church suffer disorderly and wicked persons in their communion, their consciences are opposed to this. They say these church members are all hypocrites, to sanction such conduct as this. What! Have fellowship with such persons? The church can never prosper while they retain in their communion such hypocrites. By having fellowship with them, they show that they approve their deeds. But, if on the other hand, the church rise up and excommunicate these offending members, then their hearts are disturbed. They maintain that the church are persecuting some of its best members. They think that the proceedings of the church are very uncharitable to deal thus with persons, who for aught they can see, are as good as any persons in the church. Cases of this kind have occurred, where the excommunicated members have been advised, by the ungodly, to prosecute the church for slander. The truth is, that while sinners continue to be so inconsistent with themselves, nothing, upon the subject of religion, can please them. What is right offends their hearts; and what is wrong offends their consciences.

I shall conclude this subject with several remarks:

1st. From what has been said, you can see why it is that sinners find it impossible to rest in any form of error, until their consciences become seared as with a hot iron. It is affecting to see, how many persons there are, who are making continual efforts to hide themselves behind some refuge of lies. These errors are congenial to their feelings, and they want to believe them: and in the excitement of debate, or in view of some glowing exhibition of their error, when it is exhibited, as if it were sober truth, they feel as if they did believe it; and while the excitement lasts they seem to rest in it. But when the tumult of feeling subsides, and an enlightened conscience can gain a hearing, it gives forth the sentence of condemnation against their favorite heresy. Conscience comes forth and writes "falsehood" upon the very head and front of it. This leads the heart to mutiny, and an internal struggle and war is created, from which it would seem that the sinner can only escape by working himself into such an excitement, as to lose sight of Scripture, and reason and common sense: and thus in the wild uproar of his tumultuous feelings drown the voice of conscience, and for the time being feel measurably quiet in his sins. Thus you will see Universalists, and

errorists of almost every description courting debate; they seem to be unhappy unless they can be engaged in some exciting conversation that will drown the voice of conscience. But until by utter violence they have put conscience to silence, they can never rest quietly in any form of error when they have been rightly instructed. It is in vain for them to expect to bring an enlightened conscience to take sides against truth, and against God. God has not left himself without a witness in the sinner's breast; and however much his warring passions, and his desperate heart, may mutiny against high heaven, he may rest assured, that conscience will write out, and sign and seal his death-warrant; and often in anticipation of coming retribution, hand him over to the executioner of eternal justice.

Again. You can see, from this subject, why it is that sinners will at one time praise, and at another censure the same thing. There is a sinner goes to hear a minister preach who daubs with untempered mortar; whose velvet lips utter the honied words of deceitfulness and guile; who puts darkness for light, and light for darkness; who makes falsehood appear like truth, and truth like falsehood; and whose flowing eloquence is like one who has a pleasant voice, and can play well upon an instrument. He conceals the sinner's danger. He says nothing of his guilt. "He strengthens the hands of the wicked that he shall not turn from his wicked way, by promising him life."O, says the sinner, what a charming preacher. His feelings are enlisted; he is almost in a rapture. He goes home pouring forth the most enthusiastic commendations of the sermon. But let his feelings subside; let him have time for reflection; and when he has thought, he will change his tune: and when speaking the sober dictates of his conscience, he will condemn the preacher and his sermon, as calculated to bewitch and deceive, rather than to reform and save.

Again. Let him hear a minister who brings the truth of God to bear with the most impressive pungency upon the hearts and consciences of men, and his heart rises in rebellion; and while under the excitement, he will pour out execrations upon the minister and his sermon, and declare that he will never hear him preach again. He is ready to quarrel with every body that will justify the sermon or the preacher. But let him have time to cool; let the lawless perturbations of his bosom cease. Let conscience gain a hearing, and you will find him speaking a different language. Let the same preacher have an appointment in his neighborhood, and you will find him at the house of God. He will say, after all, I may as well go; the man preached the truth, and I may as well hear it as not. Though I was angry at his doctrine, I cannot but respect his honesty; I will go once more and hear what he has to say. Now in one of these cases the sinner speaks the language of his heart; and in the other the language of his conscience.

II. From this subject, you can see, that a minister whose preaching pleases the hearts of sinners, cannot commend himself to their consciences in the sight of God. Many ministers seem to aim at conciliating the feelings of the impenitent part of their congregation. They seem to consider it an evidence of their wisdom and prudence, that their preaching has so much favour with the ungodly. Now let these sinners be converted, and they will lose their confidence in such a minister. Their consciences, if enlightened, have never been satisfied with him. They have praised his preaching, and loved to hear him, because he has commended himself to their hearts, and not because he has commended himself to their consciences. If then, they are ever truly converted, and their hearts are brought over to take sides with their conscience, it is highly probable that they will go away and join some other congregation, if another is within their reach; and where in such cases they do not do this, there is reason to fear that they are not truly converted. But where a ministry preaches to the conscience, and sinners get angry and go away, if ever they are converted they will desire to come back again, and set under the preaching that used so to disturb them while in their

sins.

III. From this subject, you can see, that where Christians try to gain influence with sinners, by bringing down their religion so as to conciliate their feelings while in their sins, they will never by this kind of influence do the sinner any good. For while by this course they please the heart of sinners their consciences condemn them; and while their consciences condemn the course they take, it is impossible that this course should do them any good.

Many persons are attempting to gain influence with people in high life, by imitating them, and conforming their lives and habits, and equipage, to their taste and mode of living. In this way they seem to think that they shall gain access to them, and influence over them. But it is certain, that the access and influence they will thus gain, will never do the sinner any good; because this whole course of conduct, by which this influence is gained, is condemned by the sinner's conscience. It is not a religious, but a worldly influence, that is thus gained. It is not a sanctified, but a sinful influence. And instead of giving the person's character who takes this course, weight, as a Christian, it has directly the opposite effect; and destroys the confidence of the sinner, that he is a Christian. By taking this proud and worldly course to gain influence, he may conciliate the sinner's feelings, and commend himself to his heart, but the sinner's conscience repels and condemns him.

IV. God, so speaks and conducts, as to commend himself to every man's conscience. The sinner's heart is entirely opposed to God; but God pursues such a course, as not to leave himself without a witness in the sinner's breast. Conscience will testify for God. Now, it is certain, that the sinner's heart must be reconciled to God, or he is eternally miserable; his judgment and conscience, will always bear witness that God is right; and unless the heart is brought over to take sides with conscience, it is self-evident that the sinner must be damned.

V. Ministers, and Christians should take the same course that God does. Should so live and speak, as to commend themselves to the sinner's conscience.

If we live so as to have the sinner's conscience on our side, however much he may hate us now, it is certain, that he must love us, or he must be damned. If we have done that which his conscience approve, he must be reconciled to us, or God will never be reconciled to him.

VI. You see from this subject, why it is that where persons are converted, they often manifest the greatest attachment to those Christians whom they most hated, previous to their conversion. Those Christians that lead the most holy lives, are most apt to be hated by impenitent sinners; and it often happens, that the more they reprove and warn and rebuke them; the more sinners will hate them. But if those sinners become truly converted, you will always see that they have the most confidence in those very persons; the reason is, their hearts are changed. Their conscience took part with the faithful Christian before; and now they are converted, both heart and conscience approve his character.

VII. You see, from this subject, why it is that when persons are converted, they manifest the least attachment for, and the least confidence in, those professors of religion with whom they were most intimate while in their sins. Those persons with whom they were most pleased, while in this state of impenitency; were agreeable to them, not because they had so much piety, but because they had so little. Not because they did their duty to them so faithfully, but because the neglected it. Now when they are converted, they cannot have

much confidence in the piety of those professors with whom they used to have this kind of worldly intimacy. They cannot, for their lives, help suspecting that they have no piety. In some cases a husband or wife, who was a professor of religion, has so lived, and so concealed their light as to please their unconverted companion. If, in such a case, the husband or wife becomes truly converted, rest assured, there will be but little Christian confidence between the young convert, and the old professor in this case. In some cases, husbands have said, after their conversion, that they have very little confidence in their wife's religion, because she never manifested religion enough to disturb them in their sins.

VIII. You see, from this subject, that temporising with sinners; letting down, concealing, or evading the claims of the Gospel, can do them no good. To attempt to please them, while in their sins, is but to ruin them, if we succeed. Their hearts must be changed; and the only way to effect this, is by taking the deepest hold upon conscience, that is possible. Instead of expecting to change the heart, by concealing the offensive features of the Gospel, we need only expect to change it, by spreading out before the conscience, the claims of God, in all their length and breadth. The heart is to be brought over, through instrumentality of conscience, and the more fully the claims of God are represented to the conscience, the more likely the sinner is to be converted.

To conceal the truth from conscience, and attempt to win the sinner over by a lovely song; is but to lull him with a syren's voice, until he plunges into eternal death.

IX. You see from this subject, why it is that convicted sinners often manifest the greatest opposition, just before they submit to God. It is often the case, that the more conscience is pressed, the more the sinner is fretted, and the more he will rebel; and when the conscience is thoroughly enlightened, and has obtained a firm footing, so as to exert its utmost power upon the heart; a desperate and outrageous conflict often ensues; and in the madness of his exasperated feelings, the sinner is sometimes almost ready to blaspheme the God of heaven. And it is often observed, that sinners will be the most high-handed in the outbreakings of their enmity, while conscience is taking its most thorough lessons, from the truth and Spirit of God. But when feeling has in a measure exhausted its turbulence, the power of truth, presented by the Spirit of God, exerts upon the heart such tremendous power, through the conscience, as to make the sinner quail ---throw down his weapons, and submit to God.

X. From this subject, you can see the long-suffering of God in sparing sinners. How amazing it is, that he spares them so long, notwithstanding all their unreasonable fault-finding and rebellion. Nothing that he does pleases them, and nothing that he can do would please them. What would you think of your children, if they should conduct in such a manner towards you. Suppose they had never obeyed you, and had never so much as meant to obey you. When you have conducted in such a way as to commend yourself to their consciences, their hearts opposed you; and when you have commended yourself to their hearts, their consciences opposed you; so that upon the whole you have not, and cannot please them. They are always displeased, and murmuring at whatever you do. O how little patience would the kindest earthly parents have with their children, when compared with the long-suffering of the blessed God.

XI. You see that it is of no use for God to try to please you, sinner, while you are in your sins. He cannot please you if he would, and he would not please you if he could while you remain in sin. Sinners often seem to imagine, that if God was such a being, as they would have him, they should love him. They do not realize, that if they framed a God to suit their hearts, they would fail of appeasing their consciences. Sinner, your conscience approves of

the character of God as it is. If his character could be altered in any conceivable degree, it would upon the whole please you no better than it does now, while you are in your sins; for if you could alter his character so as to satisfy your heart, you would only outrage your conscience; and the only possible way for you to be happy is, to change yourself, instead of expecting or desiring that God should change.

XII. The necessity of a change of heart is self-evident. It is a fact of universal experience that the consciences and hearts of sinners are opposed to each other; and this is true even where the light of the Gospel has never shone. That men in following the inclination of their hearts, have violated their consciences, is known and acknowledged by every nation under heaven. This they have acknowledged in the most public manner by the expiatory sacrifices which they have offered to appease their offended gods. However absurd and foolish their ideas of God have been, yet their sacrifices show that they have violated their consciences; and there is probably not a man on earth who can honestly say, that in the indulgence of his heart he has not violated his conscience.

An enlightened conscience will never change. Its testimony will be louder and louder in favour of truth for ever. There must be a change or there can be no inward peace; and this change must plainly be in the heart, and not in the conscience.

XIII. It is in vain for sinners to wait for God to use means that suit them better, before they are converted.

Most sinners are waiting to hear some different kind of preaching; and sometimes they will pass through one revival after another, because the means, as they think, are not adapted to their case. Sometimes they hear preaching that pleases their hearts, but then their consciences are not enough impressed, to do them any good. And then again, they hear preaching that impresses their consciences; but their hearts rise up in rebellion.

Now if they could only hear some preaching, or God could use some means, that they would please both their conscience and their heart, they think they should be converted. But such means cannot possibly be used while the heart, and conscience are opposed to each other. Sinner, there is no use in your waiting. To expect God, or any body else, to satisfy you before you are converted, is vain; and if you wait for such an event you will wait, until you are in the depths of hell.

XIV. Sinners ought not to desire that means should be used to please their hearts, while they are in their sins. If any preaching, or means, make you feel pleasantly; if your heart is delighted with it, rest assured, that these means will do you no good. They will only deceive you, and make you overlook the necessity of a change of heart.

XV. You can see the nature of hell torments.

Sinners are often thrown into great agony in this life, by the internal struggles, and janglings of their consciences and hearts. Now let them go into eternity with their hearts unchanged. Let the full blaze of eternity's light be poured upon their consciences; and with a heart at enmity against God, what horrible rebellion, what insupportable conflicting, and quarreling with self, and with God, will the sinner experience.

With a conscience that sternly takes the part of God; and a heart that supremely hates him, what a fire of hell will such a conflict kindle up in the sinner's breast.

Lastly. Sinners should not follow their feelings, but obey the voice of conscience. In other cases, where sinners find their feelings, opposed to their better judgement, they will often set down their foot, and resist the current of their feelings. They will say, I am not going to be carried away, and throw up the reins to my feelings, I must exercise my judgment. I must act like a reasonable being. But oh, on the subject of religion, how perfectly men give themselves up to their wicked hearts. Sinner, you ought this moment to come forth promptly, and act like a man, and say you will not go another step in the way of death. Why throw up the reigns, and give loose to passion? Why drive with such furious haste to hell? Why suffer yourself to be carried hither and thither, by every gush of feeling, and by every breathe of emotion that passes over the surface of your soul? Why sinner, if you do not exercise your reason; if you do not listen to the voice of conscience; if you do not gather up the reigns; gird up your loins, and address yourself to the work of your salvation like a man. If you do not make up your mind to resist the whole tide of your carnal feelings, and put yourself under the clear blaze of heaven's light; and when conscience gives forth its verdict, unless you will promptly obey, you must die in your sins; and now will you here, in the house of God, while your character, and danger are before you; while mercy waits to save, and death brandishes his weapon to destroy, while heaven calls, and hell groans; while the spirit strives, and Christians pray, will you have the moral courage; the decision of character, the honesty, and manhood, to resolve on immediate submission to Jesus Christ?

SERMON VIII.

CHRISTIAN AFFINITY.

-- Amos iii. 3.-- "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

This lecture was typed in by Michael and Pam Burns.

In the holy scriptures, we often find a negative thrown into the form of an interrogation. The text is an instance of this kind: so that we are to understand the prophet as affirming that two cannot walk together except they be agreed.

For two to be agreed, implies something more than to be agreed in theory, or in understanding: for we often see persons who agree in theory, but who differ vastly in feeling and practice. Their understandings may embrace the same truth, while their hearts and practice will be very differently affected by them. Saints and sinners often embrace in theory the same religious creed, while it is plain that they differ widely in feeling and practice.

We have reason to believe that holy angels and devils apprehend and embrace intellectually the same truths, and yet how very differently are they affected by them!

These different effects, produced in different minds by the same truths, are owing to the different state of the heart or affections of the different individuals. Or, in other words, the

difference in the effect consists in the different manner in which the person receives these truths, or feels and acts in view of them. It is to be observed also, that the same things and truths will affect the same mind very differently at different times. This too is owing to the different state of the affections at these times. Or rather this difference consists in the different manner in which the mind acts at these times. All pleasure and pain---all happiness and misery---all sin and holiness---have their seat in, and belong to, the heart or affections. All the satisfaction or dissatisfaction, pain or pleasure, depends entirely upon the state of our affections at the time, and consists in these affections. If it fall in with, and excite, and feed pleasurable affections, we are pleased of course; for in these pleasurable affections our pleasure or happiness consists. The higher, therefore, these affections are elevated by the presentation of any thing or any truth to our minds, the greater our pleasure is. But if the thing or truth do not fall in with our affections it cannot please us; if it be aside from our present state of feeling, and we refuse to change the course of our feelings, we shall either view it with indifference, our affections being otherwise engaged, or if it press upon us we shall turn from and resist it. If it be not only aside from the subject that now engages our affections, but opposed to it, we shall and must (our affections remaining the same) resist and oppose it.

We not only feel uninterested or displeased and disgusted when a subject different from that which at present engages our affections is introduced and crowded upon us, but if any thing even upon the same subject that is far above or below our tone of feeling is presented, and if our affections remain the same, and we refuse to be enlisted and brought to that point, we must feel uninterested, and perhaps grieved and offended. If the subject be exhibited in a light that is below our present tone of feeling, we cannot be interested until it come up to our feelings; and if the subject in this cooling and to us degraded point of view is held up before our mind, and we struggle to maintain these high affections, we feel displeased because our affections are not fed but opposed. If the subject be presented in a manner that strikes far above our tone of feeling, and our affections grovel and refuse to arise, it does not fall in with and feed our affections, therefore we cannot be interested; it is enthusiasm to us; we are displeased with the warmth in which we do not choose to participate, and the farther it is above our temperature the more we are disgusted.

These are truths to which the experience of every man will testify, as they hold good upon every subject, and under all circumstances; and are founded upon principles incorporated with the very nature of man. Present to the ardent politician his favorite subject in his favorite light, and when it has engaged his affections touch it with the fire of eloquence, cause it to burn and blaze before his mind, and you delight him greatly. But change your style and tone---let down your fire and feeling---turn the subject over---present it in a drier light---he at once loses nearly all his interest, and becomes uneasy at the descent. Now change the subject---introduce death and solemn judgment---he is shocked and stunned; press him with them, he is disgusted and offended.

Now, this loss of interest in his favorite subject is the natural consequence of taking away from before the mind that burning view of it that poured fire through his affections; this disgust that he feels at the change of the subject, is the natural consequence of presenting something that was at the time directly opposed to the state of his feelings. Unless he chooses to turn his mind as you change the subject he cannot but be displeased.

A refined musician is listening almost in rapture to the skilful execution of a fine piece of harmony---throw in discords upon him; he is in pain in a moment. Increase and prolong the dissonance, and he leaves the room in disgust. You are fond of music; but you are at present

melancholy---you are in great affliction---you are inclined to weep---the plaintive tones of an Eolian harp softly upon your ear, and melt around the heart---your tears flow fast---but now the din of trumpets, drums, and cymbals, and the piercing fife in mirthful quicksteps breaks upon your ear, and drowns the soft breathings of the harp---you feel distressed---you turn away and stop your ears. The plaintive harp touched you in a tender point, it fell in with your feelings; therefore you were gratified. The martial music opposed your state of feeling, you were too melancholy to have your affections elevated and enlivened by it; it therefore necessarily distressed you.

Your heart is glowing with religious feelings---you are not only averse to the introduction of any other subject at this time, but are uninterested with any thing upon the same subject that is far below the tone of your affections. Suppose you hear a cold man preach or pray; while he remains cold and you are warm with feeling you are not interested, for your affections are not fed and cherished unless he comes up to your tone; if this foes not happen you are distressed and perhaps disgusted with his coldness. This is a thing of course. Suppose, like Paul, "you have great heaviness and continual sorrow in your heart" for dying sinners; that "the Spirit helpeth your infirmities, making intercessions for you, according to the will of God, with groanings that cannot be uttered; "in this state of mind you hear a person pray who does not mention sinners---you hear a minister preach who says but little to them, and that in a heartless, unmeaning manner; you are not interested, you cannot be, feeling as you do, but you are grieved and distressed. Suppose you are lukewarm, and carnal, and earthly in your affections; you hear one exhort, or pray, or preach, who is highly spiritual, and fervent, and affectionate; if you cling to your sins, and your affections will not rise; if through prejudice, or pride, or the earthly and sensual state of your affections, you refuse to kindle and to grasp the subject, although you admit every word he says, yet you are not pleased. He is above your temperature, you are annoyed with the manner, and fire, and spirit of the man. The higher he rises, if your affections grovel, the farther apart you are, and the more you are displeased. While your heart is wrong the nearer right he is, the more he burns upon you; if your heart will not enkindle, the more you are disgusted.

Now, in both these cases, they, whose affections stand at or near the same point with him who speaks or prays, will not feel disturbed but pleased. Those that are lukewarm will listen to the dull man, and say, "'Tis pretty well." Their pleasure will be small, because their affections are low; but upon the whole they are pleased. Those who have no affections at the time will of course not feel at all. All who have much feeling will listen with grief and pain. These would listen to the ardent man with great interest. Let him glow and blaze and they are in a repture. But the carnal and cold-hearted, while they refuse to rise, are necessarily disturbed and offended with his fire.

From these remarks we may learn, • First, why persons differing in theory upon doctrinal points in religion, and belonging to different denomination, will often, for a time, walk together in great harmony and affection. It is because they feel deeply, and feel alike. Their differences are in a great measure lost or forgotten while they fall in with each other's state of feeling; they will walk together while in heart they are agreed.

• Again---We see why young converts love to associate with each other, and with those other older saints who have most religious feeling; these walk together because they feel alike.

• Again---We see why lukewarm professors and impenitent sinners have the same

difficulties with means in revivals of religion. We often hear them complain of the manner of preaching and praying. Their objections are the same, they find fault with the same things, and use the same arguments in support of their objections. The reason is, that at that time their affections are nearly the same; it is the fire and the spirit that disturbs their frosty hearts. For the time being they walk together, for in feeling they are agreed.

• Again---We see why ministers and Christians visiting revivals, often, at first, raise objections to the means used, and cavil, and sometimes takes sides with the wicked. The fact is, coming, as they often do, from regions where there are no religious revivals at the time, they frequently feel reproved and annoyed by the warmth and spirit which they witness. The praying, preaching, and conservation, are above their present temperature. Sometimes, prejudice on account of its being amongst a different denomination from them, or prejudice against the preacher or people, or perhaps pride or envy or worldliness, or something of the kind, chains down their affections that they do not enter into the spirit of the work. Now, while their hearts remain wrong, they will, of course, cavil; and the nearer right any thing is, the more spiritual and holy, so much the more it must displease them, while their affections grovel. (We do not mean to justify anything that is wrong and unscriptural in the use of means to promote revivals of religion. Nor do we pretend that everything is right, that may, and often does, give offence. We know that many things may exist, and while human nature remains as it is, will exist in revivals, that are to be lamented, and ought, as carefully as possible, to be corrected. But we do hold it as a certain truth, that while any heart is wrong, any thing that falls in with it, and pleases it, must be wrong also, as certainly as that one false weight can be balanced only be another just as false: and while a heart in this state, the best things will be the most certain to offend. And if this heart, remaining wrong, could be brought in view of a state of things as perfect as heaven, it would blaspheme, and be filled with the torments of hell. The only remedy is to call upon him to "repent and make to him a new heart," and when he has done this, right things will please him, and not before.)

• Again---We see why ministers and private Christians differ about prudential measures. The man who sees and feels the infinitely solemn things of eternity, will necessarily judge very differently of what is prudent or imprudent, in the use of means, from one whose spiritual eye is almost closed. The man whose heart is breaking for perishing sinners, will, of course, deem it prudent, and right, and necessary, to "use great plainness of speech," and to deal with them in a very earnest and affectionate manner. He would deem a contrary course highly imprudent, and dangerous, and criminal. While he who feels but little for them, and sees but little of their danger, will satisfy himself with using very different means, or using them in a very different manner, and will, of course, entertain very different notions of what is prudent. Hence we see the same person having very different notions of prudence, and consequently practising very differently, at different times. Indeed, a man's notions of what is prudent as to means and measures in revivals of religion, will depend, and, in a great measure, ought to depend, on the state of his own affections, and the state of feeling with which he is surrounded. For, what would be prudent under some circumstances, would be highly imprudent in others. What would be prudent for a man in a certain state of his affections, and under certain circumstances, would be the height of imprudence, in the same person, in a different state of feeling, and under other circumstances. It is, in most cases, extremely difficult to form, and often very wrong publicly to express, an opinion condemning a measure as imprudent, (which is not condemned by the word of

God,) without being in a situation to enter into the feelings and circumstances of the individual and people at the time the measure was adopted. If Christians and ministers would keep these things in mind, a great many uncharitable and censorious speeches would be avoided, and much injury to the cause of truth and righteousness would be prevented.

• Again---We see why lukewarm Christians and sinners are not disturbed by dull preaching or praying. It does not take hold on their feelings at all, and therefore does not distress nor offend them. Hence we see that if, in a revival of religion, when cold and wicked hearts are disturbed with plain and pungent dealing, a dull minister is called upon, and preaches to the people, the wicked and cold-hearted will praise his preaching. This shows why, in seasons of revival, we often hear sinners and lukewarm Christians wish that their minister would preach as he used to; that he would be himself again. The reason of this is plain; he did not use to move them, but now his fire, and spirit, and pungency annoy them, and disturb their carnal slumbers.

• Again---We may here learn how to estimate the opinions of ministers and Christians, and our own opinions, when our affections are in a bad state. How does such a man approve of what was said or done? What is his opinion as to means and measures?&c. are questions often asked, and answered, and the answer depended upon as high authority, without any regard to the state of that man's affections at the time. Now, in most cases, we do utterly wrong to place much confidence in our own opinions, or in the opinions of others, as to prudential measures, unless we have evidence of the right state of our or their affections; for it is almost certain, that should our affections alter, we should view things in a different light, and consequently change our opinion. Christians would do well to remember and adopt the resolution of President Edwards, "that he would always act as he saw to be most proper when he had the clearest views of the things of religion."

• Again---We learn why churches are sometimes convulsed by revivals of religion. In most churches there are probably more or less hypocrites, who, when revivals are in a measure stripped of animal feeling, and become highly spiritual, are disturbed by the fire and spirit of them, and inwardly and sometimes openly oppose them. But when a part only of the real Christians in a church awake from their slumbers and become very spiritual and heavenly, and the rest remain carnal and earthly in their affections, the church is in danger of being torn in sunder. For as those who are awake become more engaged, more spiritual and active, the others, if they will not awake, will be jealous and offended, and feeling rebuked by the engagedness of others, will cavil, and find themselves the more displeased, as those that are more spiritual rise farther above them. The nearer to a right state of feeling the engaged ones arrive, the farther apart they are; and as they ascend on the scale of holy feeling, if others will not ascend with them, the almost certain consequence will be that these will descend, until they really have no community of feeling, and can no longer walk together, because they are not agreed. This state of feeling in a church, calls for great searchings of heart in all its members, and although greatly to be dreaded and deeply to be lamented, when it exists, is easily accounted for, upon these plain principles of our nature, and is what sometimes will happen, in spite of the sagacity or angels to prevent it.

• Again---We see why ministers are sometimes unsettled by revivals. It will sometimes happen, without any imprudence on the part of the minister, that many of his church and congregation will not enter into the spirit of a revival. If his own affections get

enkindled, and he feels very much for his flock and for the honor of his master, he will most assuredly press them with truth, and annoy them by his spirit, and pungency, and fire, until he offends them. If they feel wrong, the more powerfully and irresistibly he forces truth upon them, so much the more, of course, unless their feelings alter, he will offend them, and in the end, perhaps, find it expedient to leave them. All this may happen, and be as right and necessary in a minister as it was for Paul to leave places and people, when divers were hardened, and contradicted, and blasphemed, and spoke evil of this way before the multitude.

Another case may occur, where the church and people may awake while the shepherd sleeps and will not awake. This will inevitably alienate their affections from him, and destroy their confidence in him. In either of these cases, they may find themselves unable to walk together, because they are not agreed. In the former case, let the minister obey the command of Christ, and "shake off the dust of his feet, for a testimony against them." In the latter, let the church shake off their sleepy minister; they are better without him than with him. "Wo to the shepherds that do not feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye feed not the flock. Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord God, Behold I am against the shepherds, and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock, neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them." Ezek. 34:2,3,9,10.

President Edwards says---

"Though ministers preach never so good doctrine, and be never so painful and laborious in their work, yet if they show to their people that they are not well affected to this work, but are doubtful and suspicious of it, they will be very likely to do their people a great deal more hurt than good. For the very frame of such a great and extraordinary work of God, if their people were suffered to believe it to be his work, and the example of other towns, together with what preaching they might hear occasionally, would be likely to have a much greater influence upon the minds of their people to awaken and animate them in religion, than all other labors with them. Besides, their minister's opinion will not only beget in them a suspicion of the work they hear of abroad, whereby the mighty hand of God that appears in it, loses its influence upon their minds; but it will also tend to create a suspicion of every thing of the like that shall appear among themselves, as being something of the same distemper that is become so epidemical in the land. And what is this, in effect, but to create a suspicion of all vital religion, and to put the people upon talking against and discouraging it, wherever it appears, and knocking it on the head as fast as it rises. We, who are ministers, by looking on this work from year to year with a displeased countenance, shall effectually keep the sheep from their pasture, instead of doing the part of the shepherds by feeding them; and our people had a great deal better be without any settled minister at all, at such a day as this.

"We who are in this sacred office had need to take heed what we do, and

how we behave ourselves at this time; a less thing in a minister will hinder the work of God, than in others. If we are very silent, or say but little about the work, in our public prayers and preaching, or seem carefully to avoid speaking of it in our conservation, it will be interpreted by our people, that we who are their guides, to whom they are to have their eye for spiritual instruction, are suspicious of it; and this will tend to raise the same suspicions in them; and so the aforementioned consequences will follow. And if we really hinder and stand in the way of the work of God, whose business above all others it is to promote it, how can we expect to partake of the glorious benefits of it? And, by keeping others from the benefit, we shall keep them out of heaven; therefore those awful words of Christ to the Jewish teachers, should be considered by us, Matthew 23:13. "Wo unto you, for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." If we keep the sheep from their pasture, how shall we answer it to the great Shepherd, who has bought the flock with his precious blood, and has committed the care of them to us? I would humbly desire of every minister that has thus long remained disaffected to this work, and has had contemptible thoughts of it, to consider whether he has not hitherto been like Michael, without any child, or at least in a great measure barren and unsuccessful in his work: I pray God it may not be a perpetual barrenness, as hers was."

• Again---We may see that carnal professors and sinners have no difficulty with animal feeling. It is not uncommon in revivals of religion to hear a great deal of opposition made to what they term animal feeling. That much of this kind of feeling is sometimes excited in revivals of religion is not denied, nor is it strange, nay, it is impossible that real religious affections should be excited to any considerable degree, without exciting the animal sympathies and sensibilities; and to wonder at this, or to object to a revival on this account, is palpably absurd. But, in most cases, it is not the animal feeling that can give offence, for so far as these feelings are concerned, there is a perfect community of feeling between saints and sinners, and carnal and spiritual Christians. Sinners have as much animal feeling as saints: cold professors have as much of the animal as warm and spiritual Christians. So far, then, as animal feeling goes, they can all sympathize, and indeed we often see that they do. Adopt a strain of exhortation or preaching that is calculated to awaken mere sympathy and animal feeling, and you will soon see that there is a perfect community of feeling amongst cold and warm hearted Christians and sinners; they will all weep and seem to melt, and no one will be offended, and I may add, no one will be convicted or converted. But change your style, and become more spiritual and holy in your matter, and throw yourself out in the ardent and powerful manner, in direct appeal to the conscience and the heart---their tears will soon be dried, the carnal and cold hearted will become uneasy, and soon find themselves offended. So far as animal feeling goes, they walk together, for in this they are agreed; but as soon as feeling becomes spiritual and holy, they can go together no farther; for here they are not, (and while sinners remain impenitent, and cold hearts remain cold,) they cannot be, agreed.

• Again---We may see why impenitent sinners cannot like pure revivals of religion. It is because God is in them. They hate God, and this is the reason why God commands them to make to themselves a new heart. This is the reason, and the only reason, why sinners need a new heart. Now, while they are under the influence of "a carnal mind, which is enmity against God," they do, and must, self-evidently, hate everything like

God, precisely in proportion as they see it to bear his image. Hence we see, that the more a revival is stripped of animal feeling and of everything wrong, the more it will necessarily offend wrong hearts. The more of God, and the less of human imperfection, there is to be seen in them, the more they will and must excite the enmity of carnal hearts.

• Again---We learn how to estimate apparent revivals where there is no opposition from the wicked. If persons under the dominion of a carnal mind do not oppose, it must be owing to one of three causes. 1st. Either they are so convicted that they dare not openly oppose; (and even then they are opposed in heart;) or, 2dly, there is nothing of the Holy Spirit in them; or 3dly, which often happens, from an injudicious application of means to the sympathies of the multitude, the operations of the Holy Spirit are kept out of the sinner's view and covered up in the rubbish of animal feeling. Any thing that keeps out of the sinner's view the work of the Holy Spirit, tends to prevent opposition. And every thing that exposes to the sinner's view the hand of God, will certainly excite the opposition of his unregenerate heart. That excitement, therefore, which does not call out the opposition of the wicked and wrong hearted, is either not a revival of religion at all, or it is so conducted that sinners do not see the finger of God in it.

Hence we see, that the more pure and holy the means are that are used to promote a revival of religion, the more they are stripped of human infirmity and sympathy, and the more like God they are, so much the more, of necessity, will they excite the opposition of all wrong hearts. For, while a man's heart is wrong upon any subject, it is self-evident that he cannot heartily approve of what is right upon that subject; for this would involve a contradiction. It would be the same as to say that he could feel both right and wrong upon the same subject at the same time.

Hence it appears, that other things being equal, those means, and that preaching, both as to matter and manner, which call forth most of the native enmity of the heart, and that are most directly over against wrong hearts, are nearest right (Let it not be thought that we advocate or recommend preaching, or using other means, with design to give offense. Nor that we suppose that the gospel cannot be preached, and that means cannot be used in a wrong spirit, and in a manner that is highly objectionable, and may justly give offence. All such things are to be condemned. But still we do insist that holy things are offensive to unholy hearts, and while hearts remain unholy, they cannot be pleased but with that which is unholy like themselves. The understanding my approve, the conscience may approve, but the heart will not, and, remaining unholy, cannot approve of that which is holy. If, therefore, a sinner who is under the dominion of a "carnal mind," which is "enmity against God," is pleased with preaching, it must be either because the character of God is not faithfully exhibited, or the sinner is prevented from apprehending it, in its true light, by inattention, or by being so taken up with the style and manner as to overlook the offensiveness of the matter. If, therefore, the matter of preaching is right, and the sinner is pleased, there is something defective in the manner; either a want of earnestness, or holy unction, or something else, prevents the sinner from seeing, what preaching ought to show him,

that he hates God and his truth).

Hence, we see the folly of those who are laboring to please persons whose affections are in a wrong state upon religious subjects. They cannot be pleased with any thing right and holy while their hearts are in this wrong state, for this we have just seen would involve a contradiction.

This shows why so much wrong feeling stirred up in revivals of religion.

It is the natural effect of pure revivals to stir up wrong feeling in wrong hearts. Revivals of religion on earth, stir up wrong feeling in hell; they will disturb the same spirit, and stir up the same feelings, whenever they come in contact with rebellious hearts, whether in the church or out of it. Whenever the Holy Spirit comes, or is seen to operate, the opposite spirit is disturbed of course. A great degree of right and holy feeling among saints, will naturally stir up a great degree of unholy and wicked feeling in all those hearts that are determinately wrong. The more right and holy feeling there is, the more wrong and unholy feeling there will be, of course, unless sinners and carnal professors bow and submit. They cannot walk together, because they are not agreed: and the more holy and heavenly the saints become in their affections and conduct, the farther apart they will be, until the light of eternity will set them, in feeling and affections, as far asunder as heaven and hell.

This shows that the difference between heaven and hell, as it regards moral character, and happiness and misery, consists in the different state of the hearts or affections of their respective inhabitants.

This demonstrates, beyond all contradiction, that sinners cannot be saved unless they are born again. In other words, it is plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that sinners should walk and be happy with saints and holy angels, without an entire change in their affections. Sinners cannot walk with the saint here. As soon as the saints cease to walk "after the course of this world," sinners think it strange that they run not with them to the same excess of riot, "speaking evil of them." As soon as Christians awake and become spiritual and active, holy and heavenly, and break off from their vain and wicked associations with the world, sinners are uniformly distressed and offended. They try to imagine that it is something wrong in the saints, and in revivals, that offends them. But the truth is, it is the little that is right in the saints, and that in which there is the most of God in revivals, that offends them most. And were the saints as holy as angels are, or as holy as they will be in heaven, sinners must of course be so much the farther from having any community of feeling with them: and as saints rise in holiness, and sinners sink in sin, they will go farther and farther apart for ever and ever.

• I remark, lastly, that this shows why the lives and preaching of the prophets, of Christ and his apostles, and the revivals of the early ages of the church, met with so much more violent opposition from carnal professors of religion, and from ungodly sinners, than is offered to preachers and revival in these days.

It is not to be denied, that the saints in those days "had trials of cruel mocking and scourging, yea, of bonds and imprisonment; they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (of whom the world was not worthy;) they wandered in deserts, in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth."

It is not and cannot be denied, that the preaching of the prophets, of Christ and his apostles, and of primitive ministers, was opposed with great bitterness by many professed saints, and by multitudes of ungodly sinners, more than that of any preachers of the present day. Nor is it to be concealed, that professors of religion were often leaders in this opposition; that they stirred up the Romans to crucify Jesus, and afterwards to persecute and destroy his saints, and crucify his apostles. That even the religious leaders, and learned doctors of the law, endeavored to prejudice the multitude against the Savior, and to prevent their listening to his discourses: "He hath a devil and is mad," said they, "why hear ye him?" They led the way in opposing the apostles in the revivals in which they were engaged. We must admit too, that those revivals made a great deal of noise in the world, insomuch that the apostles were accused of "turning the world upside down:" and that sinners were often greatly hardened by the preaching of Christ and his apostles; "were filled with great wrath," and opposed with such bitterness, that Christ told his apostles to "let them alone." In some places where the apostles preached, "divers were" so "hardened," that they "contradicted and blasphemed, and spake evil of this way," insomuch that the apostles were forced to leave, and go to other places, and sometimes to leave under very humiliating circumstances, but just escaping with their lives. Now these are facts that we need not blush to meet; as they are easily accounted for, upon the principle contained in the text, and illustrated in this discourse. All these things afford no evidence that the prophets, and Christ and his apostles, were imprudent and unholy men; that their preaching was too overbearing and severe; or that there was something wrong in the management of revivals in those day. The fact is, that the prophets were so much more holy in their lives, and so much bolder, and more faithful in delivering their messages; that Christ was so much more searching, and plain, and pungent, and personal in his preaching, and so entirely "separate from sinners" in his life; the apostles were so pungent and plain in their dealing with sinners and professed saints, and so self-denying and holy in their lives, that carnal professors and ungodly sinners could not walk with them. The means that were then used to promote revivals were more holy and free from alloy than they now are. There was less of mere sympathy, and of that hypocritical suavity of manner, and of those embellishments of language, that are calculated and designed to court the applause of the ungodly. "Renouncing the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully," they preached, "not with the enticing words of man's wisdom," but "with great plainness of speech," so that the ungodly, in the church and out of it, were filled with wrath.

Stephen was so holy and searching in his address, that the elders of Israel

"gnashed upon him with their teeth." But this is no evidence that he was imprudent. The fact, that the revivals of the present day so much more silent and gradual in their progress, than they were on the day of Pentecost, and at many other times and places, and create much less noise and opposition among cold professors and ungodly sinners, does not prove that the theory of revivals is better understood now than it was then, nor that those ministers and Christians who are engaged in these revivals are more prudent than the apostles and primitive Christians; and to support this, would evince great spiritual pride in us. Nor are we to say that the human heart is changed, or that the character of God is become less offensive "to the carnal mind." No! the fact is, the prophets, and Christ, and his apostles, and the primitive saints, were more holy, more bold and active, more plain and pungent in their preaching, less conformed to this crazy world; in one word, they were more prudent and more like heaven than we are; these are the reasons why they were more hated than we are, why their preaching and praying gave so much more offence than ours. Revivals, in their days, were more free from carnal policy, and that management that tends to keep out of the sinner's views the naked hand of God: these are the reasons why they made so much noise than the revivals that we witness in these days, and stirred up so much of earth and hell to oppose them, that they convulsed and turned the world upside down. It was known then, that "men could not serve God and mammon." It was seen to be true, that "if any man will live godly in Christ Jesus, he shall suffer persecution." It was understood then, that if "ministers pleased men, they were not the servants of Christ." The church and world could not walk together, for then they were not agreed. Let us not be puffed up, and imagine that we are prudent and wise, and have learned how to manage carnal professors and sinners, whose "carnal mind is enmity against God," so as not to call forth their opposition to truth and holiness, as Christ and his apostles did. But let us know that if they have less difficulty with us, and with our lives, and preaching, than they had with theirs, it is because we are less holy, less heavenly, less like God than they were. If we walk with the lukewarm and ungodly, or they with us, it is because we are agreed. For two cannot walk together except they be agreed.

SERMON IX.

STEWARDSHIP.

-- Luke xvi. 2.-- "Give an account of thy stewardship."

This lecture was done by Dara Kachel.

A steward is one who is employed to transact the business of another, as his agent or representative in the business in which he is employed.

His duty is, to promote, in the best possible manner, the interest of his employer. He is liable at any time to be called to an account for the manner in which he has transacted his business, and to be removed from his office at the pleasure of his employer.

One important design of the parable, of which the text is a part, is to teach that all men are God's stewards. The Bible declares, that the silver and the gold are his, and that he is, in the highest possible sense, the proprietor of the universe. Men are mere stewards, employed by him for the transaction of his business, and required to do all they do for his glory. Even their eating and drinking are to be done for his glory, i.e. that they may be strengthened for the best performance of his business.

That men are God's stewards, is evident, from the fact that God treats them as such, and removes them at his pleasure, and disposes of the property in their hands, which he could not do did he not consider them merely his agents, and not the owners of the property. • 1. If men are God's stewards, they are bound to account to him for their time. God has created them, and keeps them alive, and their time is his. Reader, should you employ a steward, and pay him for his time, would you not expect him to employ that time in your service? Would you not consider it fraud and dishonesty, for him, while in your pay, to spend his time in idleness, or in promoting his private interests? Suppose he were often idle, that would be bad enough; but suppose that he wholly neglected your business, and that when called to an account and censured for not doing his duty, he should say, "Why, what have I done?" would you not suppose that for him to have done nothing, and let your business suffer, was great wickedness, for which he deserved to be punished?

Now, reader, you are God's steward, and if you are an impenitent sinner, you have wholly neglected God's business, and have remained idle in his vineyard, or have been only attending to your own private interests; and now are you ready to ask what you have done? Are you not a knave, thus to neglect the business of your great employer, and go about your own private business, to the neglect of all that justice, and duty, and God require of you?

But suppose your steward should employ his time in opposing your interest, using your capital and time in driving at speculations directly opposed to the business for which he was employed? Would you not consider this great dishonesty? Would you not think it very ridiculous for him to account himself an honest man? Would you not suppose yourself obliged to call him to an account? And would you not account anyone a villain who should approve such conduct? Would you not think yourself bound to publish him abroad, that the world might know his character, and that you might clear yourself from the charge of upholding such a person?

How, then, shall God dispose of you, if you employ your time in opposing his interest, and use his capital in your hands to drive at speculations directly opposed to the business for which he has employed you? Are you not ashamed, then, to account yourself an honest man; and will not God consider himself under an obligation to call you to an account? Should he not do this, would not the omission be an evidence, on his part, of his

approval of your abominable wickedness! Must he not feel himself constrained to make you a public example, that the universe may know how much he abhors your crimes! • 2. Stewards are bound to give an account of their talents. By talents, I mean here, the powers of their minds. Suppose you should educate a man to be your steward, should support him during the time he was engaged in study, and be at all the expense of his education, and that then he should either neglect to employ his mind in your service, or should use the powers of his cultivated intellect for the promotion of his own interests; would you not consider this as fraud and villany? Now, God created your minds, and has been at the expense of your education, and has trained you up for his service; and do you either let your mind remain in idleness, or pervert the powers of your cultivated intellect, to the promotion of your own private interest, and then ask what you have done to deserve the wrath of God?

But suppose your steward should use his education in opposition to your interest, and use all the powers of his mind to destroy the very interest for which he was educated, and which he is employed to sustain; would you not look upon his conduct as marked with horrid guilt? And do you, sinner, employ the powers of your mind, and whatever education God may have given you, in opposing his interest--perverting his truth--scattering "fire-brands, arrows, and death" all around you, and think to escape his curse? Shall not the Almighty be avenged upon such a wretch?

• 3. A steward is bound to give an account for the influence he exerts upon mankind around him.

Suppose you should employ a steward, should educate him until he possessed great talents, should put a large capital into his hands, should exalt him him high in society, and place him in circumstances to exert an immense influence in the commercial community, and that then he should refuse or neglect to exert this influence in promoting your interest; would you not consider this default a perpetual fraud practised upon you?

But suppose he should exert all this influence against you, and array himself with all his weight of character, and talent, and influence, and even employ the capital with which he was intrusted, in opposing your interest--what language, in your estimation, could then express your sense of his guilt?

Reader, whatever influence God has given you, if you are an impenitent sinner, you are not only neglecting to use it for God, to build up his kingdom, but you are employing it in opposition to his interest and glory; and for this do you not deserve the damnation of hell? Perhaps you are rich, or learned, or have, on other accounts, great influence in society, and are refusing to use it to save the souls of men, but are bringing all your weight of character, and talents, and influence, and example, to drag all who are within the sphere of your influence down to the gates of hell. • 4. You must give an account for the manner in which you use the property in your possession. Suppose your steward should refuse to employ the capital with which you intrusted him for the promotion of your interest, or suppose he were to account it his

own, and to use it for his own private interest, or apply it to the gratification of his lusts, or the aggrandizement of his family; in bestowing large portions upon his daughters, or in ministering to the lusts and pride of his sons; while at the same time your business was suffering for the want of this very capital; or suppose that this steward held the purse-strings of your wealth, and that you had multitudes of other servants, whose necessities were to be supplied out of the means in his hands, and that their welfare, and even their lives, depended on these supplies; and yet this steward should minister to his own lusts, and those of his family, and suffer those, your other servants, to perish--what would you think of such wickedness? You intrusted him with your money, and enjoined him to take care of your other servants, and through his neglect they were all dead men.

Now, you have God's money in your hands, and are surrounded by God's children, whom he commands you to love as you do yourself. God might, with perfect justice, have given his property to them instead of you. The world is full of poverty, desolation, and death; hundreds and millions are perishing, body and soul; God calls on you to exert yourself as his steward, for their salvation, to use all the property in your possession, so as to promote the greatest possible amount of happiness among your fellow-creatures. The Macedonian cry comes from the four winds of heaven, "Come over and help us;" come over and help us; and yet you refuse to help; you hoard up the wealth in your possession, live in luxury, and let your fellow-men go to hell. What language can describe your guilt?

But suppose your servant, when you called him to account, should say, "Have I not acquired this property by my own industry?" would you not answer, "You have employed my capital to do it, and my time, for which I have paid you; and the money you have gained is mine." So when God calls upon you to use the property in your possession for him, do you say it is yours, that you have obtained it by your own industry? Pray, whose time have you used, and whose talents and means? Did not God create you? Has He not sustained you? Has He not prospered you, and given you all his success? Yes, your time is his, your all is his, you have no right to say the wealth you have is yours; it is His, and you are bound to use it for His glory. You are a traitor to your trust if you do not so employ it.

If your clerk take only a little of your money, his character is gone, and he is branded as a villain. But sinners take not only a dollar or so, but all they can get, and use it for themselves. Don't you see that God would do wrong not to call you to account, and punish you for filling both your pockets with His money, and calling it your own. Professor of religion, if you are doing so don't call yourself Christian. • 5. You must give an account for your soul. You have no right to go to hell. God has a right to your soul; your going to hell would injure the whole universe. It would injure hell, because it would increase its torments. It would injure heaven, because it would wrong it out of your services. Who shall take the harp in your place, in singing praises to God? Who shall contribute your share to the happiness of heaven?

Suppose you had a steward to whom you had given life, and educated him at great expense, and then he should wilfully throw that life away; has he a

right thus to dispose of a life of so much value to you? Is it not as unjust as to rob you of the same amount of property in any thing else? God has made your soul, sustained and educated you, till you are now able to render him important service, and to glorify him for ever; and have you a right to go to hell, and throw away your soul, and thus rob God of your service? Have you a right to render hell more miserable, and heaven less happy, and thus injure God and all the universe?

Do you still say, What if I do lose my soul, it is nobody's business but my own? That is false: it is every body's business. Just as well might a man bring a contagious disease into a city, and spread dismay and death all around, and say it was nobody's business but his own. • 6. You must give an account for the souls of others. God commands you to be a co-worker with him in converting the world. He needs your services, for he saves souls only through the agency of men. If souls are lost, or the gospel is not spread over the world, sinners charge all the blame upon Christians, as if they only were bound to be active in the cause of Christ, to exercise benevolence, to pray for a lost world, to pull sinners out of the fire. I wonder who has absolved you from these duties? Instead of doing your duty, you lie as a stumbling-block in the way of other sinners. Thus, instead of helping to save a world, all your actions help to send souls to hell.

• 7. You are bound to give an account of the sentiments you entertain and propagate. God's kingdom is to be built up by truth, and not by error. Your sentiments will have an important bearing upon the influence you exert over those around you.

Suppose the business in which your steward was employed, required that he should entertain right notions concerning the manner of doing it, and the principles involved in it; of your will and of his duty. And suppose you had given him, in writing, a set of rules for the government of his conduct, in relation to all the affairs with which he was intrusted; then if he should neglect to examine those rules, or should pervert their plain meaning, and should thus pervert his own conduct, and be instrumental in deceiving others, and leading them in the way of disobedience, would you not look upon this as criminal and deserving the severest reprobation?

God has given you rules for the government of your conduct. In the Bible you have a plain revelation of his will in relation to all your actions. And now, do you either neglect or pervert it, and thus go astray yourself, and lead others with you in the way of disobedience and death, and then call yourself an honest man? For shame! • 8. You must give an account of your opportunities of doing good.

If you employ a steward to transact your business, you expect him to take advantage of the state of the market and of things in general, to improve every opportunity to promote your interest. Suppose at the busy seasons of the year, he should spend his time in idleness, or in his own private affairs, and not have an eye at all to the most favorable opportunities of promoting your interest, would you not soon say to him, "Give an account of thy stewardship, for thou mayest be no longer steward?" Now, sinner, you have always neglected opportunities of serving God, of warning your

↑ Back to top