Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

answers to righteousness. In a word, God's aprightness is the moral rectitude of his nature, infinitely wise and good, just and perfect. The uprightness of man, is his conformity of heart and life to the rule he is under, which is the law or will of God. Accordingly we read of 'uprightness of heart,' Psalm xxxvi. 10; Job xxxiii. 3; and uprightness of way or conversation, Psalm xxxvii. 14, and often elsewhere. The upright man throughout the Scripture, is a truly good man, a man of integrity, a holy person. (p. 5, 6.) In Job i. 1, 8, and ü. 3, Upright is the same with perfect, (as in, Psalm xxxvii. 37, and many other places,) and is explained by, one who feareth God and escheweth evil.' 'In Job viii. 6, it is joined, and is the same with, pure. In the same sense it is taken (to mention but a few out of many texts which might be produced) Prov. x. 29, . The way of the Lord is strength to the upright, but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity.” Chap. xi. 3, ' The integrity of the upright shall guide them; but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them.' Ver. 6, “The righteousness of the upright shall deliver them; but transgressors shall be taken in their own 'naughtiness. Ver. 11, By the blessing of the upright the city is exalted.' Ch. xv.8, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is his delight's Ch. xxh 20,6A wicked man hardeneth his face; but as for the upright, he directeth his way. From all these texts it manifestly appears, that uprightness, as applied to man, is the very same with righteousness, holiness, or integrity of heart and conversation...

6. When therefore Solomon says,, ! God made man upright, the plain, undeniable meaning is, God at first formed man righteous or holy: although they have sought out many inventions." They,--this refers to Adam, which is both a singular and a plural noun : they, our first parents, and with them their posterity, ' have sought out many inventions, 'n many contrivances to offend God and injure themselves. These many inventions are opposed to the upright

[ocr errors]

ness, the simplicity of heart and integrity, with which our first parents, and mankind in them, were originally made by God. (p. 7.)

; “The doctrine of the text then is, that God, at his crea tion made man upright or righteous;' not only rational and a free-agent; but holy. Therefore, to maintain,"

that 6 Mán neither. was nor: could be formed holy, because none

be holy, but in consequence of his own choice and “ endeavour," is bold indeed! To prove the contrary, and justify Solomon's assertion, I offer a few plain arguments:

can

(p. 8.)

6 1. Moses in his account of the creation writes; ? And God said, Let us make man in our own image.?: Now that righteousness or holiness is the principal part of this image of God, appears from Eph. iy. 22, 24, and Col. iii 9, 10. - On which passages I observe, 1. By the old man is not meant an Heathenish liße, or an ungodly conversation; but a corrupt nature. + For the apostle elsewhere speaks of

our old man, as erucified with Christ;? and here distins guishes from it their former conversation,' or sinful actions, which he calls the deeds of the old mani's 2. By the new man’ is meant, not a new course of life, (as the Socinians interpret it,) but åt principle of grace, called by St. Peter,

the hidden man of the heart,' and a divine nature.' 3. To put off the old mán;' (the same as to crucify the flesh') is to subdue and mortify our corrupt nature: to

put on the new man,' is to stir up and cultivate that gracious principle, that new nature. This, saith the apostle, • is created after God, in righteousness and true holiness.'

It is created :' which cannot properly be said, of a new course of life; but may, of a new natüre: "It is created

after God,' or in his image and likeness,' mentioned by Moses. But what is it to be created after God,' or in his image ??. It is, to be created in righteousness and true holiness : (termed knowledge, the practical knowledge of God, Col. iii. 10.) But if to be created after God,' or . in his image and likeness,' is to be created in righteous

[ocr errors]

hess and holiness by whicl: we are created unto good works,” is a new man, a divine nature; it is easy to infer, that man was at first created righteous or holy. (p. 9, 10.);

“ II. All things, as at first made by God, were very good, Nor indeed could he make them otherwise. Now a rational being is not good, unless his rational powers are all devoted to God. The goodness of man, as a rational being, must lie in a devotedness and consecration to God. Conse, quently, man was at first thus devoted to God: otherwise he was not good. But this devotedness to the love and service of God is true righteousnes or holiness. This righteonsness then, this goodness, or uprightness, this regu: lar and due state, or disposition of the human mind, was at first natural to man. It was wrought into his nature, and con-created with his rational powers. A rational creature, as such, is capable of knowing, loving, serving, living in communion with the Most Holy One. Adam at first either did or did not use this capacity; either he knew and loved God, or he did not. If he did not, he was not very good, no, nor good at all; if he did, he was upright, righteous, holy. (p. 12.)

“III. When God vested man with dominion over the other creatures, how was he qualified for exercising that dominion, unless he had in himself a principle of love and obedience to the supreme Governor? Did not God form the creatures obedient to man, to confirm man in his loving obedience to God? Or did he create them, with a disposition to depend on and obey man as their lord, and not create man with a disposition to obey and live dependent on the Lord of all? But this disposition is uprightness. Therefore God made man upright.' (p. 13.)

“IV. Either man was created with - principles of love and obedience, or he was created an enemy to God. One of those must be: for as all the duty required of man, as a rational being, is summarily comprised in love, a supreme love to God, and a subordinate love to others, for his sake : so there can be no medium between a rational creature's loving God, and not loving, which is a degree of enmity to VOL. XIY.

R

[ocr errors]

him. Either, O man, thou lovest God, or thou dost not : if thou dost, thou art holy or righteous : if thou dost not, thou art indisposed to serve him in such a manner, and with such a frame of spirit as he requires. Then thou art an enemy to God, a rebel against his authority. But God could not create man in such a state, in a state of enmity against himself. It follows, that man was created a lover of God, that is, righteous and holy. (p. 14.)

“In a word. Can you prove, either that man was not created after God,' or that this does not mean being created in righteousness and true holiness ?': Was not man, as all creatures, good in his kind? And is a rational creature good, unless all its powers are devoted to God? Was not man duly qualified at first to exercise, dominion over the other creatures ?. And could he be so qualified without a principle of love and obedience to their common Lord ? Lastly, Can any man prove, either that man could be innocent if he did not love the Lord his God with all his heart? Or that such a love to God is not righteousness and true holiness ? (p. 15.)

« From the doctrine of man's Original Righteousness we may easily conclude that of Original Sin. For this reason it is, that some so earnestly protest against original righteousness, because they dread' looking on themselves as by mature fallen creatures and children of wrath. If man was not holy at first, he could not fall from a state of holiness: and consequently the first transgression 'exposed him and his posterity to nothing but temporal death. But on the other hand, if man was made upright, it follows, 1. That man, when he fell, lost his original righteousness, and therewith his title to God's favour and to communion with God. 2. That he thereby incurred not only temporal but spiritual death. He became dead in sin and a child of wrath, And, 3. That all his posterity are born with such a nature, not as man had at first, but as he contracted by his fall. (p. 20, 21.)

[ocr errors]

Gen. ii. 16, 17. And the LORD God commanded the Man, saying, Of every

Tree of the Garden thou mayst freely eat : but of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

“GOD forbad man to eat of this tree, in token of his sovereign authority, and for the exercise of man's love, and the trial of his obedience. The words added, ' In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,' or literally, In dying thou shalt die, mean, not only, Thou shalt certainly die; but; Thou shalt suffer every kind of death. Thy soul as well as thy body shall die. And indeed if God made man upright or holy: if man at first enjoyed the life of God, including holiness joined with blessedness; and if the miserable state of the soul (as well as the dissolution of the body) is in Scripture termed death, it plainly follows, that the original threatening includes nothing less than a loss of man's original uprightness, of his title to God's favour, and a life of happy communion with God. (p. 26, 27.)

66 The words mean farther, Thou shalt instantly die ; as soon as ever thou eatest. And so he did. For in that instant his original righteousness, title to God's favour, and communion with God being lost, he was spiritually dead, dead in sin, his soul was dead to God, and his body liable to death, temporal and eternal. (p. 28, 29.)

6 And as there is a threatening of death expressed in these words, so a promise of life is implied. The threatening death, only in case of disobedience, implied, that otherwise he should not die. And even since the fall, the law of God promises life to obedience, as well as threatens death to disobedience: since the tenor of it is, “Do this and live:'. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' (p. 30.)

“ Now a law given by God with a promise of life and a threatening of death, consented to by man, is evidently a corenant. For what is a covenant?. But a mutual agree

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »