SERMON 1
SINNERS BOUND TO CHANGE THEIR OWN HEARTS
Exek
17:31-"Make you a new heart and a new spirit for why will ye die"
These words were
addressed to the house of Israel, who from their history and from the verses in
connection with the text, were evidently in a state of impenitency; and the
requirement to make them a new heart and a new spirit, was enforced by the
weighty penalty of death. The death mentioned in the text cannot mean natural
death; for natural death is common both to those who have, and to those who
have not, a new heart. Nor can it mean spiritual death, which is a state of entire
sinfulness; for then it should have read, Why are ye already dead! The death
here spoken of must mean, eternal death, or that state of banishment from God
and the glory of his power, into which the soul shall be cast, that dies in its
iniquities.
The command here
addressed to the Israelites, is binding upon every impenitent sinner, to who
the Gospel shall be addressed. he is required to perform the same duty, upon
the same penalty. It becomes, therefore, a matter of infinite importance, that
we should well understand, and fully and immediately obey, the requirement. The
questions that would naturally arise to a reflecting mind on reading this text,
ask the following.
1. What are we to understand by the requirement
to make a new heart and a new spirit?
2. Is it reasonable to require the performance
of this duty on pain of eternal death?
3. How is this requirement, that we should make
to us a new heart and a new spirit, consistent with the often repeated
declarations of the Bible that a new heart is the gift and work of God?
Does God require
of us the performance of this duty, without expecting its fulfillment, merely
to show us our impotency and dependence upon him? Does he require us to make to
ourselves a new heart, on pain of eternal death, when at the same time he knows
we have no power to obey; and that if ever the work is done, he must himself do
the very thing which he requires of us?
In order to answer
these questions satisfactorily, I will attempt to show,
I. What is not the meaning of
this requirement; and
II. What is.
It should here be
observed, that although the Bible was not given to teach us mental philosophy,
yet we may rest assured that all its declarations are in accordance with the
true philosophy of mind. The term spirit, in the Bible, is used in
different senses: it sometimes means a spiritual being, or moral agent; in
other places it is used in the sense in which we often employ it in
conversation. In speaking of the temper of a man, we say he has a good or bad
spirit, a lovely or hateful spirit. It is evidently used in this sense in the
text. The term heartis also employed in various senses: sometimes it
appears to be used as synonymous with soul; sometimes it evidently means the
will; sometimes the conscience, sometimes it seems to be used in such an
extensive sense, as to cover all the moral movements of the mind; sometimes it
expresses the natural or social affections. The particular sense in which it is
to be understood in any place, may easily be determined by the connexion in
which it stands. Our present business is, to ascertain its meaning as used in
the text; for it is in this sense, that we are required to make us a new heart
and a new spirit. I begin, therefore, by saying,
1. That it does not mean the fleshly heart, or
that bodily organ which is the seat of animal life.
2. That it does not mean a new soul. We have
one soul, and do not need another. Nor,
3. Are we required to create any new faculties,
of body or mind. We now have all the powers of moral agency; we are just as God
made us, and do not need any alteration in the substance of soul or body. Nor,
4. Does it mean that we are to bring to pass
any constitutional change in ourselves. We are not required to add to the
constitution of our minds or bodies any new principle or taste. Some persons
speak of a change of heart as something miraculous--something in which the
sinner is to be entirely passive, and for which he is to wait in the use of
means, as he would wait for a surgical operation or an alectric shock. We need
nothing added to the constitution of our body or mind; nor is it true in
experience, that those who have a new heart, have any constitutional alteration
of their powers whatever. They are the same identical persons, so far as both
body and mind are concerned, that they were before. The alteration lies in the
manner in which they are disposed to use and do actually employ, their moral
and physical powers. A constitutional change, either in body or mind, would
destroy personal identity. A Christian, or one who has a new heart, would not
be the same individual in regard to his powers of moral agency, that he was
before--would not be the same agent, and under the same responsibilities.
Again--a
constitutional alteration and the implantation of a new principle, in the
substance of his soul, or diffusing a new taste which is incorporated with, and
becomes an essential part of his being, would destroy all the virtue of his
obedience. It would make obedience to God a mere gratification of appetite, in
which there would be no more real virtue than in eating, when we are hungry, or
drinking, when we are thirsty.
Again--The
constitutional implantation of a principle of holiness in the mind, or the
creation of a constitutional taste for holiness, if such a thing were possible,
would render the per severance of the saints physically necessary, make falling
from grace a natural impossibility, and would thus destroy all the virtue of
perseverance.
Again--A
constitutional change would dispense with the necessity of the Spirit's agency,
after conversion. A re-creation of his faculties, the implantation of a holy
taste, in the substance of his mind, would plainly dispense with any other
agency on his part in after life, than that of upholding the creature in being,
and giving him power to act; when, in obedience to the laws of his renewed
nature, or in the gratification of his new appetite, he would obey of course.
But this
implantation of a new principle, which dispenses with the necessity of the
special influences of the Spirit in after life, is contrary to experience; for
those who have a new heart, find that his constant agency is as indispensable
to their perseverance in holiness, as it was to their conversion.
Again--The idea of
a constitutional change, is inconsistent with backsliding. For if the
constitution of the mind were changed, and a taste for holiness and obedience
were implanted in the substance of the soul, it is manifest that to backslide,
or to fall from grace, would be naturally as impossible as to alter the
constitutional appetites of the body.
Again--A
constitutional change, is unnecessary. It has been supposed by some that the
motives of the Gospel have no tendency to move the mind to obedience to God,
unless there is a moral affinity. In other words, they maintain that as the
motives of the Gospel are holy, there must be a holy taste or principle
implanted in the substance of the mind, before these motives can act as motives
at all; that there must be a taste corresponding to, and of the same nature
with the outward motive, or there is nothing in the motive calculated to move
the mind. That is, if the motive be holy, the constitutional taste must be
holy; if the motive be sinful, and contrary to fact. Upon this principle, I
would inquire, How could holy Adam sin? Did God, or the devil, first implant a
constitutional sinful taste within him, answering to the outward motive? How
could the holy angels sin? Did God also implant a sinful principle or taste in
them? Or were Adam and "the angels that kept not their first estate,"
originally created with sinful tastes, answering to those outward motives? Then
they were always sinners, and that by creation. Who then is the author of sin,
and responsible for all their wickedness? It is true, the constitution of the
mind must be suited to the nature of the outward influence or motive; and there
must be such an adaptation of the mind to the motive, and of the motive to the
mind, as is calculated to produce any desired action of the mind. But it is
absurd to say, that this constitutional adaptation must be a holy principle, or
taste, or craving after obedience to God. All holiness, in God, angels, or men,
must be voluntary, or it is not holiness. To call any thing that is a part of
the mind or body, holy--to speak of a holy substance, unless it be in a
figurative sense, is to talk nonsense. Holiness is virtue; it is something that
is praiseworthy; it cannot therefore be a part of the created substance of body
or mind but must consist in voluntary obedience to the principles of eternal
righteousness. The necessary adaptation of the outward motive to the mind, and
of the mind to the motive, lies in the powers of moral agency, which every
human being possesses. He has understanding to perceive and weigh; he has
conscience to decide upon the nature of moral opposites; he has the power and
liberty of choice. Now, to this moral great, possessing these faculties, the
motives of the Gospel re-addressed; and there is plainly a natural tendency in
these weighty consideration to influence him to obey his Maker.
But I come now to
show what we are to understand by the command of the text. The Bible often
speaks of the heart as a fountain, from which flow the moral affections and
actions of the soul, as in Matt. xv.19, "Out of the heart proceed evil
thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies." The term heart, as applied to mind, is figurative,
and recognizes an analogy between the heart of the body, and the heart of the
soul. The fleshly organ of the body called the heart, is the seat and fountain
of animal life, and by its constant action, diffuses life through the animal
system. The spiritual heart, is the fountain of spiritual life, is that deep
seated but voluntary preference of the mind, which lies back of all its other
voluntary affections and emotions, and from which they take their character. In
this sense I understand the term heart to be used in the text. It is evidently
something over which we have control; something voluntary; something for which
we are to blame, and which we are bound to alter! Now, if the requirement is
that we are to make some constitutional change in the substance of the body or
mind, it is evidently unjust, and enforced by a penalty no less than infinite,
as obedience is impossible, the requirement is infinite tyranny. It is evident
that the requirement here, is to change our moral character; our moral
disposition; in other words, to change that abiding preference of our minds,
which prefers sin to holiness; self-gratification to the glory of God. I
understand a change of heart, as the term is here used, to be just what we mean
by a change of mind in regard to the supreme object of pursuit; a change in the
choice of an end, not merely in the choice of means. An
individual may change his mind, and prefer, at one time, one set of means, and
at another time, another set, to accomplish the same end: a man who proposes to
himself as the supreme object of pursuit, his own happiness, may, at one time
imagine, that his highest happiness lies in the possession of worldly goods,
and in pursuit of this end, may give himself ;wholly to the acquisition of
wealth, in pursuing which he may often change his choice of means; at one time
he may pursue merchandise; at another, the profession of law; and still again,
the profession of medicine; but all these are only changes of mind in regard to
the means of accomplishing the same selfish end. Again, he may see that his
happiness does not consist in the abundance of wealth; that he is to exist for
ever; that he therefore has a higher interest in the things of eternity than in
those of time; he may accordingly enlarge his selfish aims, carry forward his
interest into eternity, and propose as the supreme object of pursuit, the
salvation of his soul. It is now an eternal, instead of a temporal interest
that he seeks; which he proposes as the supreme object of pursuit; but still
the end is his own happiness; the end is substantially the same, it is only the
exercise of selfishness on a more ample and extended scale; instead of being
satisfied with the happiness of time, selfishness aims at securing the bliss of
eternity. When confining his views and desires to the acquisition of worldly
good, he aimed at engrossing the affections, the services, the honors, and the
wealth of the world; he now "lengthens the cords, and strengthens the
stakes" of his selfishness; carries forward his aims, his desires, and
exertions towards eternity; sets himself to pray, to read his Bible, and become
marvelously religious; and would fain engross the affections, and enlist the
eternal God. While his views were confined to earthly things, he was satisfied
that men should be his servants; but now, in the selfish pursuit of his own
eternal happiness, he would fain call in all the attributes of Jehovah to serve
him. But in all this there is no change of heart; he may have often changed in
the choice of means, but his end has been always the same; his own happiness
has been his idol.
A change of heart,
then, consists in changing the controling preference of the mind in regard to
the end of pursuit. The selfish heart is a preference of self-interest to the
glory of God and the interests of his kingdom. A new heart consists in a preference
of the glory of God and the interests of his kingdom to one's own happiness. In
other words, it is a change from selfishness to benevolence, from having a
supreme regard to one's own interest to an absorbing and controling choice of
the happiness and glory of God and his kingdom
It is a change in
the choice of a Supreme Ruler. The conduct of impenitent sinners
demonstrates that they prefer Satan as the ruler of the world, they obey his
laws, electioneer for him, and are zealous for his interest, even to martyrdom.
They carry their attachment to him and his government so far as to sacrifice
both body and soul to promote his interest and establish his dominion. A new
heart is the choice of JEHOVAH as the supreme ruler; a deep-seated and abiding
preference of his laws, and government, and character, and person, as the
supreme Legislator and Governor of the universe.
Thus the world is
divided into two great political parties; the difference between them is, that
one party choose Satan as the god of this world, yield obedience to his laws,
and are devoted to his interest. Selfishness is the law of Satan's empire, and all
impenitent sinners yield it a willing obedience. The other party choose Jehovah
for their governor, and consecrate themselves, with all their interests, to his
service and glory. Nor does this change imply a constitutional alteration of
the powers of body or mind, any more than a change of mind in regard to the
form or administration of a human government.
There are certain
things in regard to mind, with which we become familiar by experience. For
instance, we know by experience that it is the nature of mind to be controled
in its individual exercises and affections, by a deep-seated disposition
or preference of a particular course or object. It is not necessary
here, to enter into the philosophy of this fact, but simply to recognize the
fact itself. For instance, when Adam was first created, and awoke into being,
before he had obeyed or disobeyed his Maker, he could have had no moral
character at all: he had exercised no affections, no desires, not put forth any
actions. In this state he was a complete moral agent; and in this respect in
the image of his Maker; but as yet could have had no moral character; for moral
character cannot be subject of creation, but attaches to voluntary action. Do
not understand me to affirm, that any considerable time elapsed between the
creation of Adam and his possessing a moral character. It is presumed, that as
soon as he awoke into being, and had knowledge of the existence and character
of his Maker, the evidences of which doubtless shone all around him, he chose
Him as his supreme ruler, and voluntarily dedicated all his powers to his
service. This preference of God, and his glory, and service, over his own
self-interest and every thing else, constituted his disposition, or his moral
character; in other words, it was a perfectly holy heart. Out of this heart, or
preference, flowed as from a fountain the pure waters of obedience. All the
subordinate movements, affections, choices, and purposes of the mind, and all
the outward actions, flowed from this strong and governing preference for God
and his service. Thus he went forth to dress God's garden, and keep it. Now,
for a time, this preference of Adam was strong and abiding enough to insure
perfect obedience in all things; for mind will act in consistency with an
abiding preference. For instance, the strong preference that a man may have for
home may forbid his entertaining any purpose of going abroad. The strength of
his preference for his wife, may prevent his consenting to any improper
intimacy with other women; and the probability; and I may say possibility, of
betraying him into acts of infidelity to his wife, may depend upon the strength
and abiding energy of his preference of her to all other women. So while the
preference of Adam remained unshaken, its energy gave direction and character
to all his feeling and to all his conduct; and that which must stamp perfection
upon the obedience of heaven, is the great strength and continually abiding
energy of their preference for God and his service. Indeed the continued holiness
of God depends upon the same cause, and flows from the same fountain. His
holiness does not consist in the substance of his nature, but in his preference
of right. His holiness must be voluntary, and he is immutably holy, because he
is infinitely strong, so strong and so abiding as never to admit of change; of
any conduct inconsistent with it. Adam was perfectly holy, but not infinitely
so. As his preference for God was not infinitely strong, it was possible that
it might be changed, and we have the melancholy fact written in characters that
cannot be misunderstood, on every side of us, that an occasion occurred on
which he actually changed it. Satan, in the person of the serpent, presented a
temptation of a very peculiar character. It was addressed to the constitutional
appetites of both soul and body; to the appetite for food in the body, and for
knowledge in the mind. These appetites were constitutional; they were not in
themselves sinful, but their unlawful indulgence was sin. The proposal of the
serpent was, that he should change his mind in regard to the supreme end of
pursuit; and this change his heart, or his whole moral character. "Yea,
hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? and the woman said
unto the serpent, we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of
the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ye
shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent
said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day
ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil." Now the foundation of holiness in Adam, and that
which constituted his holy heart, was the supreme choice that God should rule;
the supreme preference of God and his glory to his own happiness or interest.
It is easy to see, therefore, that the object aimed at by the serpent was to
affect a change in the supreme end of pursuit. It was to prefer his own
gratification to obedience to his Maker; to become as a god himself instead of
obeying Jehovah; to pursue as a supreme end self-gratification instead of the
glory of God. In yielding therefore to this proposal, in changing his mind upon
this fundamental point, he changed his own heart, or that controling preference
which was at once the foundation, and fountain, of all obedience. Now this was
a real change of heart; from a perfectly holy, to a perfectly sinful one. But
here was no constitutional change, no change in the substance of either body or
mind. It was not a change in the powers of moral agency themselves, but simply
in the use of them; in consecration their energies to a different end. Now
suppose God to have come out upon Adam with the command of the text, "Make
to you a new heart, for why will you die." Could Adam have justly
answered, Dost thou think that I can change my own heart? Can I, who have a
heart totally depraved, can I change that heart? Might not the Almighty have
answered him in words of fire, Rebel, you have just changed your heart from
holiness to sin, now change it back from sin to holiness.
Suppose a human
sovereign should establish a government, and propose as the great end of
pursuit, to produce the greatest amount of happiness possible within his
kingdom. He enacts wise and benevolent laws, calculated to promote this object
to which he conforms all his own conduct; in the administration of which, he
employs all his wisdom and energies, and requires all his subjects to
sympathize with him; to aim at the same object; to be governed by the same end;
the promotion of the highest interests of the community. Suppose these laws to
be so framed, that universal obedience would necessarily result in universal
happiness. Now suppose that one individual, after a session of obedience and
devotion to the interest of the government and the glory of his sovereign,
should be induces to withdraw his influence and energies from promoting the
public good, and set up for himself; suppose him to say, I will no longer be
governed by the principles of good will to the community, and find my own
happiness in promoting the public interest; but will aim at promoting my own
happiness and glory, in my own way, and let the sovereign and the subjects take
care for themselves. "Charity begins at home." Now suppose him thus
to set up for himself; to propose his own happiness and aggrandizement as the
supreme object of his pursuit, and should not hesitate to trample upon the laws
and encroach upon the rights, both of his sovereign and the subjects, wherever
those laws or rights lay in the way of the accomplishment of his designs. It is
easy to see, that he has become a rebel; has changed his heart, and
consequently his conduct; has set up an interest not only separate from but
opposed to the interest of his rightful sovereign. He has changed his heart
from good to bad; from being an obedient subject he has become a rebel; from
obeying his sovereign, he has set up an independent sovereignty; from trying to
influence all men to obey the government, from seeking supremely the prosperity
and the glory of his sovereign, he becomes himself a little sovereign; and as
Absalom caught the men of Israel and kissed them, and thus stole away their
hearts; so he now endeavors to engross the affections, to enlist the sympathies,
to command the respect and obedience of all around him. Now what would
constitute a change of heart in this man towards his sovereign? I answer, for
him to go back, to change his mind in regard to the supreme object of pursuit;
-- to prefer the glory of his sovereign and the good of the public to his own
separate interest, would constitute a change of heart.
Now this is the
case with the sinner; God has established a government, and proposed by the
exhibition of his own character, to produce the greatest practicable amount of
happiness in the universe. He has enacted laws wisely calculated to promote
this object, to which he conforms all his own conduct, and to which he requires
all his subjects perfectly and undeviatingly to conform theirs. After a season
of obedience, Adam changed his heart, and set up for himself. So with every
sinner, although hedoes not first obey, as Adam did; yet his wicked
heart consists in setting up his own interest in opposition to the interest and
government of God. In aiming to promote his own private happiness, in a way
that is opposed to the general good. Self-gratification becomes the law to
which he conforms his conduct. It is that minding of the flesh, which is enmity
against God. A change of heart, therefore, is to prefer a different end.To
prefer supremely the glory of God and the public good, to the promotion of his
own interest; and whenever this preference is changed, we see of course a
corresponding change of conduct. If a man change sides in politics, you will
see him meeting with those that entertain the same views and feelings with
himself; devising plans and using his influence to elect the candidate which he
has now chosen. He has new political friends on the one side, and new political
enemies on the other. So with a sinner; if his heart is changed, you will see
that Christians become his friends -- Christ his candidate. he aims at honoring
him and promoting his interest in all his ways. Before, the language of his
conduct was, "Let Satan govern the world." Now, the language of his
heart and of his life is, "Let Christ rule King of nations, as he is King
of saints." Before, his conduct said, "O Satan, let thy kingdom come,
and let thy will be done." Now, his heart, his life, his lips cry out,
"O Jesus, let thy kingdom come, let thy will be done on earth as it is in
heaven."
In proof that the
change which I have described constitutes a change of heart, if any proof is
necessary -- I observe, first, that he who actually does prefer the glory of
God, and the interest of his kingdom, to his own selfish interest, is a
Christian; and that he who actually prefers his own selfish interest to the
glory of God, is an impenitent sinner.
The fundamental
difference lies in this ruling preference, this fountain, this heart, out of
which flows their emotions, their affections, and actions. As the difference
between them consists not in the substance of their minds or bodies, but in the
voluntary state of mind in which they are, it is just as unphilosophical,
absurd, and unnecessary, to suppose that a physical or constitutional change
has taken place in him who has the new heart, as to infer, that because a man
has changed his politics, therefore his nature is changed. Further, this new
preference needs only to become deep and energetic enough in its influence, to
stamp the perfection of heaven upon the whole character. From long cherished
habits of sin, and acting under the dominion of an opposite preference when it
comes really to be changed, it is often weak and measurably inefficient; and
consequently the mind often acts in inconsistency with this general preference.
Accordingly, God says to Israel, "How weak in thine heart!" Like a
man who is so little under the influence either of principle or of affection for
his wife, that although upon the whole, and in general, he prefers her to any
other woman, yet he may occasionally be guilty of an act of infidelity to her.
Now what is needed in the case of a Christian is, that his old habits of
thought, and feeling, and action, should be broken up; that his new preference
should gain strength, stability, firmness, and perpetuity; and thus take the
control of the whole man. This process constitutes sanctification. Every act of
obedience to God strengthens this preference, and renders future obedience more
natural. The perfect control of this preference over all the moral movements of
the mind, brings a man back to where Adam was previous to the fall, and
constitutes perfect holiness.
Once more -- If a
change of heart was physical, or a change in the constitution of the mind, it
would have no moral character. The change, to have moral character, must be
voluntary. To constitute a change of heart, it must not only be voluntary, but
must be a change in the governing preference of the mind. It must be a change
in regard to the supreme object of pursuit.
Finally, it is a
fact in the experience of every Christian, that the change through which he has
passed is nothing else than that which I have described. In speaking from
experience, he can say, Whereas I once preferred my own separate interest to
the glory of my Maker, now I prefer his glory and the interests of his kingdom,
and consecrate all my powers to the promotion of them for ever.
2. The second
inquiry is, whether the requirement of the text is reasonable and equitable.
The answer to this question must depend upon the nature of the duty to be
performed. If the change be a physical one, a change in the constitution or
substance of the soul, it is clearly not within the scope of our ability, and
the answer to the question must be, No, it is not reasonable nor equitable. To
maintain that we are under obligation to do what we have no power to do, is
absurd. If we are under an obligation to do a thing, and do it not, we sin. For
the blame-worthiness of sin consists in its being the violation of an
obligation. But if we are under an obligation to do what we have no power to
do, then sin is unavoidable; we are forced to sin by a natural necessity. But
this is contrary to right reason, to make sin to consist in any thing that is
forced upon us by the necessity of nature. Besides, if it is sin, we are bound
to repent of it, heartily to blame ourselves, and justify the requirement of
God; but it is plainly impossible for us to blame ourselves for not doing what
we are conscious we never had any power to do. Suppose God should command a man
to fly; would the command impose upon him any obligation, until he was
furnished with wings? Certainly not. But suppose, on his failing to obey, God
should require him to repent of his disobedience, and threaten to send him to
hell if he did not heartily blame himself, and justify the requirement of God.
He must cease to be a reasonable being before he can do this. He knows that God
never gave him power to fly, and therefore he had no right to require it of
him. his natural sense of justice, and of the foundation of obligation, is
outraged, and he indignantly and conscientiously throws back the requirement
into his Maker's face. Repentance, in this case, is a natural impossibility;
while he is a reasonable being, he knows that he is not to blame for not flying
without wings; and however much he may regret his not being able to obey the
requirement, and however great may be his fear of the wrath of God, still to
blame himself and justify God is a natural impossibility. As, therefore, God
requires men to make to themselves a new heart, on pain of eternal death, it is
the strongest possible evidence that they are able to do it. To say that he has
commanded them to do it, without telling them they are able, is consummate
trifling. Their ability is implied as strongly as it can be, in the command
itself. From all this it will be seen, that the answer to the question, whether
the requirement in the text is just, must turn upon the question of man's
ability; and the question of ability must turn upon the nature of the change
itself. If the change is physical, it is clearly beyond the power of man; it is
something over which he has no more control than he had over the creation of
his soul and body. But if the change is moral -- in other words, if it be
voluntary, a change of choice or preference, such as I have described, then the
answer to the question, Is the requirement of the text just and reasonable?
clearly is, Yes, it is entirely reasonable and just;
1. Because you
have all the powers of moral agency; and the thing required is, not to alter
these powers, but to employ them in the service of your Maker. God has created
these powers, and you can and do use them. He gives you power to obey or
disobey; and your sin is, that while he sustains these powers, you prostitute
them to the service of sin and Satan.
Again -- These
powers are as well suited to obedience as to disobedience. Your wickedness
consists in a wrong but obstinate choice of sin. But is it not as easy to
choose right as wrong? Are not the motives to a right choice infinitely greater
than to a wrong one? Could Adam reasonably have objected that he was unable to
change his choice? Could Satan object that he had no power to change the
governing preference of his mind, and to prefer the glory of his Maker to
rebellion against his throne? If Satan, or Adam, or you, can reasonably bring
forward this objection, then there is no such thing as sin in earth or hell.
Again -- God only
requires of you to choose and act reasonably, for certainly it is in accordance
with right reason to prefer the glory of God, and the interest of his immense
kingdom, to your own private interest. It is an infinitely greater good; therefore
you, and God, and all his creatures, are bound to prefer it. But I said the
motives to a right preference are infinitely greater than to a wrong one.
Sinners often complain that they are so influenced by motives, that they cannot
resist iniquity. They often excuse their sins, by pleading that the temptation
was too strong for them. Sinner, why is it, while you are so easily influenced
by motives as to complain that you cannot resist them; that you are too weak to
resist their influence to sin; that you are strong enough to resist the world
of motives that come rolling upon you like a wave of fire, to do right and obey
your Maker?
When the Son of
God approaches you, gathering motives from heaven, earth, and hell, and pours
them in a focal blaze upon your mind, how is it that you are strong enough to
resist? You, whose mind is yielding as air to motives to sin; who are all
weakness, and complain that you cannot resist when tempted to disobey God, can
exert such a giant strength, I had almost said the strength of Omnipotence, in
resisting the infinite weight of motive that rolls upon you from every quarter
of the universe, to obey God. It is clear that if you did not exert the whole
strength of moral agency to resist, these consideration would change your
heart.
3. I come now to
the third and last inquiry, viz: How is this requirement, to "make to
yourself a new heart," consistent with the often repeated declaration of
the Bible, that a new heart is the gift and work of God. The Bible ascribes
conversion, or a new heart, to four different agencies. Oftentimes it is
ascribed to the Spirit of God. And if you consult the Scriptures, you will find
it still more frequently ascribed to the truth; as, "Of his own will begat
he us by the word of truth" -- "The truth shall make you free"
-- "Sanctify them through thy truth" -- "The law of God is
perfect, converting the soul." It is sometimes ascribed to the preacher,
or to him who presents the truth; "He that winneth souls is wise:"
Paul says, "I have begotten you through the Gospel" -- "He that
converteth a sinner from the error of his ways shall save a soul from death,
and hide a multitude of sins." Sometimes it is spoken of as the work of
the sinner himself: thus the apostle says, "Ye have purified yourselves by
obeying the truth;" "I thought on my ways," says the Psalmist,
"and turned unto the Lord." Again he says, "When thou saidst,
Seek ye my face; my heart replied, Thy face, Lord, will I seek." Now the
question is, Are all these declarations of Scripture consistent with each
other? They are all true; they all mean just as they say; nor is there any real
disagreement between them. There is a sense in which conversion is the work of
God. There is a sense in which it is the effect of truth. There is a sense in which
the preacher does it. And it is also the appropriate work of the sinner
himself.
The fact is, that
the actual turning, or change, is the sinner's own act. The agent who induces
him, is the Spirit of God. A secondary agent, is the preacher, or individual
who presents the truth. The truth is the instrument, or motive, which the
Spirit uses to induce the sinner to turn. Suppose yourself to be standing on
the bank of the Falls of Niagara. As you stand upon the verge of the precipice,
you behold a man lost in deep reverie, approaching its verge unconscious of his
danger. He approaches nearer and nearer, until he actually lifts his foot to
take the final step that shall plunge him in destruction. At this moment you
lift your warning voice above the roar of the foaming waters, and cry out,
Stop. The voice pierces his ear, and breaks the charm that binds him; he turns
instantly upon his heel, all pale and aghast he retires, quivering, from the
verge of death. He reels, and almost swoons with horror; turns and walks slowly
to the public house; you follow him; the manifest agitation in his countenance
calls numbers around him: and on your approach, he points to you, and says,
That man saved my life. Here he ascribes the work to you; and certainly there
is a sense in which you had saved him. But, on being further questioned, he
says, Stop! how that word rings in my ears. Oh, that was to me the word of
life. Here he ascribes it to the word that aroused him, and caused him to turn.
But, on conversing still further, he said, had I not turned at that instant, I
should have been a dead man. here he speaks of it, and truly, as his own act;
but directly you hear him say, O the mercy of God; if God had not interposed, I
should have been lost. Now the only defect in this illustration is this: In the
case supposed, the only interference on the part of God, was a providential
one: and the only sense in which the saving of the man's life is ascribed to
him, is in a providential sense. But in the conversion of a sinner there is something
more than the providence of God employed; for here not only does the providence
of God so order it, that the preacher cries, Stop, but the Spirit of God forces
the truth home upon him with such tremendous power as to induce him to turn.
Not only does the
preacher cry Stop, but, through the living voice of the preacher, the Spirit
cries Stop. The preacher cries, "Turn ye, why will ye die." The
Spirit pours the expostulation home with such power, that the sinner turns.
Now, in speaking of this change, it is perfectly proper to say, that the Spirit
turned him, just as you would say a man, who had persuaded another to change
his mind on the subject of politics, that he had converted him, and brought him
over. It is also proper to say that the truth converted him: as in a case when
the political sentiments of a man were changed by a certain argument, we should
say, that argument brought him over. So also with perfect propriety may we
ascribe the change to the living preacher, or to him who had presented the
motives; just as we should say of a lawyer who had prevailed in his argument
with a jury; he has got his case, he has converted the jury. It is also with
the same propriety ascribed to the individual himself whose heart is changed;
we should say that he had changed his mind, he has come over, he has repented.
Now it is strictly true, and true in the most absolute and highest sense; the
act is his own act, the turning is his own turning, while God by the truth has
induced him to turn; still it is strictly true that he has turned and has done
it himself. Thus you see the sense in which it is the work of God, and also the
sense in which it is the sinner's own work. The Spirit of God, by the truth,
influences the sinner to change, and in this sense is the efficient cause of
the change. But the sinner actually changes, and is therefore himself, in the
most proper sense, the author of the change. There are some who, on reading
their Bibles, fasten their eyes upon those passages that ascribe the work to
the Spirit of God, and seem to overlook those that ascribe it to man, and speak
of it as the sinner's own act. When they have quoted Scripture to prove it is
the work of God, they seem to think they have proved that it is that in which
man is passive, and that it can in no sense be the work of man. Some months
since a tract was written, the title of which was, "Regeneration is the
effect of Divine Power." The writer goes on to prove that the work is
wrought by the Spirit of God, and there he stops. Now it had been just as true,
just as philosophical, and just as Scriptural, if he had said, that conversion
was the work of man. It was easy to prove that it was the work of God, in the
sense in which I have explained it. The writer therefore tells the truth so far
as he goes; but he has told only half the truth. For while there is a sense in
which it is the work of God, as he has shown, there is also a sense in which it
is the work of man, as we have just seen. The very title to this tract is a
stumbling block. It tells the truth, but it does not tell the whole truth. And
a tract might be written upon this proposition that "conversion or
regeneration is the work of man;" which would be just as true, just as
Scriptural, and just as philosophical, as the one to which I have alluded. Thus
the writer, in his zeal to recognize and honor God as concerned in this work,
by leaving out the fact that a change of heart is the sinner's own act, has
left the sinner strongly entrenched, with his weapons in his rebellious hands,
stoutly resisting the claims of his Maker, and waiting passively for God to
make him a new heart. Thus you see the consistency between the requirement of
the text, and the declared fact that God is the author of the new heart. God
commands you to do it, expects you to do it, and if it ever is done, you must
do it.
I shall conclude
this discourse with several inferences and remarks.
Ist. Sinners
make their own wicked hearts.
Their preference
of sin is their own voluntary act. They make self-gratification the rule to
which they conform all their conduct. When they come into being, the first
principle that we discover in their conduct, is their determination to gratify
themselves. It soon comes to pass that any effort to thwart them in the
gratification of their appetites, is met by them with strong resistance, they
seem to set their hearts full to purpose their own happiness, and gratify
themselves, come what will; and thus they will successively make war on their
nurse, their parents, and their God, when ever they find that their
requirements prohibit the pursuit of this end. Now this is purely a voluntary
state of mind. This state of mind is not a subject of creation, it is entirely
the result of temptation to selfishness, arising out of the circumstances under
which the child comes into being. This preference to selfishness is suffered by
the sinner to grow with his growth and strengthen with his strength, until this
desperately wicked heart bears him onward to the gates of hell.
2dly. From what
has been said, the necessity of a change of heart is most manifest.
The state of mind
in which impenitent sinners are, is called by the apostle the "carnal
mind;" or as it should have been rendered, "the minding of the flesh
is enmity against God." The child at first gives up the rein to the bodily
appetites. God requires him to keep under his body, and to make it the
instrument of his soul in the service of God -- to subject and subordinate all
its passions to the will of its Maker. But instead of this, he makes the
gratification of his appetites and passions, the law of his life. It is that
law in his members, of which the apostle speaks, as warring against the law of
his mind. This state of mind, is the direct opposite of the character and
requirements of God. With this heart, the salvation of the sinner is a manifest
impossibility.
3d. In the
light of this subject, you can see the nature and degree of the sinner's
dependence on the Spirit of God.
The Spirit's
agency is not needed to give him power, but to overcome his voluntary
obstinacy. Some persons seem to suppose that the Spirit is employed to give the
sinner power -- that he is unable to obey God, without the Spirit's agency. I
am alarmed when I hear such declarations as these; and were it not, that I
suppose there is a sense in which a man's heart may be better than his head, I
should feel bound to maintain, that persons holding this sentiment, were not
Christians at all. I have already shown that a man is under no obligation to do
what he has no ability to do; in other words that his obligation, is only
commensurate with his ability. That he cannot blame himself for not having
exerted a power, that he never possessed. If he believes, therefore, that he
has no power to obey his Maker, it is impossible that he should blame himself
for not doing it. And if he believes that the Spirit's agency is indispensable
to make him able; consistency must compel him to maintain, that without this
superadded agency, he is under no obligation to obey. This giving the sinner
power, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to obey God, is what the Arminians call a
gracious ability, which terms are a manifest absurdity. What is grace?
it is undeserved favor; something to which we have no claim in justice. That
which may be withheld without injustice. If this is a true definition, it is
plain that a gracious ability to do our duty is absurd. It is dictate of
reason, of conscience, of common sense, and of our natural sense of justice,
that if God require of us the performance of any duty or act, he is bound in
justice to give us power to obey; i. e. he must give us the faculties
and strength to perform the act. But if justice require this, why call it a gracious
ability. Natural ability to do our duty cannot be a gracious ability. To call
it so, is to confound grace and justice as meaning the same thing. The sin of
disobedience then must lie, not in his having broken the law of God, but solely
in his not having complied with the striving of the Spirit. While therefore he
is not sensible that the Spirit is giving him power, he can feel under no
obligation to be converted; nor can he upon any principles of reason, blame
himself. How, I would ask, is it possible that with these views he can repent?
And how, upon these principles, is he to blame for not having repented and
turned to the Lord?
But, to illustrate
both the nature and degree of man's dependance on the Spirit, suppose a man to
be bent upon self-murder; in the absence of his wife he loads his pistols, and
prepares to commit the horrid deed. His little child observes the disorder of
his mind, and says, Father, what are you going to do? Be still, he replies, I
am going to blow my brains out. The little one weeps, spreads out its little
beggar hands, beseeches him to desist, and pours out his little prayers, and
tears, and agonizing entreaties, to spare his life. Now if the eloquence of
this child's grief, his prayers, and tears, could prevail to change the
obstinacy of his purpose, he would need no other influence to subdue and change
his mind. But the parent persisting, the child screams to his mother, who flies
at the voice of its entreaty, and on being told the cause of its anguish,
hastens, upon the wings of terror, to her husband's apartment, and conjures him
to change his purpose. By his love for his family -- by their love for him --
by their dependence upon him -- in view of the torn heart, and distraction of
the wife of his bosom -- by the anguish, the tears, the helplessness of his
babes -- by the regard he has for his own soul --0 by the hope of heaven -- by
the terrors of hell -- by every thing tender and persuasive in life -- by all
that is solemn in the final judgment, and terrible in the pains of the second
death, she conjures him, over and over again, not to rush upon his own
destruction. Now if all this can move him, he needs no other and higher
influence to change his mind. But when she fails in her efforts, suppose she
could summon all the angels of God, and they also should fail to move and melt
him by their unearthly eloquence; here, then, some higher power must interfere,
or the man is lost. But just as he puts his pistol to his ear, the Spirit of
God, who knows perfectly the state of his mind, and understands all the reasons
that have led him to this desperate determination, gathers such a world of
motive, and pours them in such a focal blaze upon his soul, that he instantly
quails, drops the weapon from his nerveless hand, relinquishes his purpose of
death for ever, falls upon his knees, and gives glory to God. Now it was the
strength of the man's voluntary purpose of self-destruction alone, that made
the Spirit's agency at all necessary in the case. Would he have yielded to all
the motives that had been before presented, and should have subdued him, no
interposition of the Holy Spirit had been necessary. But it was the wickedness,
and the obstinacy of the wretch, that laid the only foundation for the Spirit's
interference. Now this is the sinner's case. He has set his heart fully to do
evil, and if the prayers and tears of friends, and of the church of God --
warning of ministers -- the rebukes of Providence -- the commands, the
expostulations, the tears, and groans, and death of God's dear Son: if the
offer of heaven, or the threatening of hell could overcome his obstinate
preference of sin, the Spirit's agency would be uncalled for. But because no
human persuasion, no motive that man or angel can get home upon his mind, will
cause him to turn; therefore the Spirit of God must interpose to shake his
preference, and turn him back from hell. The degree of his dependence upon the
Spirit, is just the degree of his obstinacy; were his but slightly inclined to
pursue the road to death, men could change him without calling upon God
for help; but just in proportion to the strength of his preference for sin, is
it necessary that the Spirit should interpose or he is lost. Thus you see, the
sinner's dependence upon the Spirit of God, instead of being his excuse, is
that which constitutes his guilt.
4th. Again --
you see from this subject the NATURE of the Spirit's agency.
That he does not
act by direct physical contact upon the mind, but that he uses the truth as his
sword to pierce the sinner; and that the motives presented in the Gospel are
the instruments he uses to change the sinner's heart. Some have doubted this,
and supposed that it is equivalent to denying the Spirit's agency altogether to
maintain that he converts sinners by motives. Others have denied the
possibility of changing the heart by motives; and cannot the Spirit of God with
infinitely higher motives exert as great power over mind as he can? Can the old
serpent change a heart from a perfectly holy to a perfectly sinful one by the
power of motives, and cannot the infinitely wise God, do as much as Satan did?
Verily, to deny this, looks much like detracting from the wisdom and power of
God. But that the Scripture abundantly declares that the Spirit converts
sinners by the power of motive is most manifest -- "Of his own will begat
he us with the word of truth," is one out of the many express declarations
upon this subject. The philosophy of this subject is settled by the Bible; it
is a subject upon which we are not at liberty to speculate, and from our own
philosophical theories, and maintain that by direct physical contact,
irrespective of truth, God interposes and changes the sinner's heart. When God
says, "Of his own will he has begotten us with the word of truth,"
this settles the question; and is equivalent to saying, that he has not
begotten us in any other manner.
The very terms
used by our Saviour in the promise of the Spirit to reprove the world of sin,
of righteousness, and of a judgment to come, strongly imply the mode of his
agency. The term rendered Comforterin our translation of the Bible, is
Parakletos; it is the same term which, in one of the epistles of John, is
rendered Advocate. The term is there applied to Jesus Christ. It is there said,
"If any man sin, we have a Parakletos, or an Advocate with the
Father, even Jesus Christ the righteous." In this passage Jesus Christ is
spoken of as the Advocate of men with God. The Parakletos, or Comforter,
promised by our Savior, is represented as God's Advocate, to plead His cause
with men. The term rendered reprove or convince in our translation is a law term,
and signifies the summing up of an argument and establishing or demonstrating
the sinner's guilt. Thus the striving of the Spirit of God with men, is not a
physical scuffling, but a debate; a strife not of body with body, but of mind
with mind; and that in the action and reaction of vehement argumentation. From
these remarks, it is easy to answer the question sometimes put by individuals
who seem to be entirely in the dark upon this subject, whether in converting
the soul the Spirit acts directly on the mind, or on the truth. This is the
same nonsense as if you should ask, whether an earthly advocate who had gained
his cause, did it by acting directly and physically on the jury, or on his
argument.
5th. Again --
It is evident from this subject that God never does, in changing the sinner's
heart, what he requires the sinner to do.
Some persons, as I
have already observed, seem disposed to be passive, to wait for some mysterious
influence, like an electric shock, to change their hearts. But in this attitude,
and with these views, they may wait till the day of judgment, and God will
never do their duty for them. The fact is, sinners, that God requires you to
turn, and what he requires of you, he cannot do for you. It must be your own
voluntary act. It is not the appropriate work of God to do what he requires of
you. Do not wait then for him to do your duty, but do it immediately yourself,
on pain of eternal death.
6th. This
subject shows also, that if the sinner ever has a new heart, he must obey the
command of the text, and make it himself.
But here some one
may interpose and say, Is not this taking the work out of God's hands, and
robbing him of the glory? No. It is the only view of the subject that gives the
glory to God. Some in their zeal to magnify the grace of the Gospel, entirely
overthrow it. They maintain the sinner's inability, and thereby do away
his guilt. Instead of considering him a guilty, voluntary rebel, and worthy of
eternal death, they make him a helpless, unfortunate creature, unable to do
what God requires of him. Instead of making his only difficulty to consist in
an unwillingness, they insist upon his inability, and thus destroy his guilt,
and of course the grace displayed in his salvation. For what grace can there be
in helping an unfortunate individual? If sinners are unable to obey God,
precisely in proportion to their inability, are they guiltless. But if
they are unwilling, if their cannot is a will not, we have already seen that
their guilt is in proportion to the strength of their unwillingness, and grace
in their salvation must be equal to their guilt. Nor does it detract from the
glory of God that the act of turning is the sinner's own act. The fact is, he
never does, and never will turn, unless God induces him to do it; so that
although the act is the sinner's own, yet the glory belongs to God, inasmuch as
he caused him to act. If a man had made up his mind to take his own life, and
you should, by taking the greatest pains, and at great expense, prevail upon
him to desist, would you deserve no credit for the influences you exerted in
the case? Though changing his mind and relinquishing his purpose of
self-destruction was his own act, inasmuch as you was the sole cause of his
turning, and as it was certain that had you not interfered he would have done
the horrid deed, are you not entitled to just as much praise as if his own
agency had not been at all concerned in turning? Might it not in truth be said
that you had turned him?
7th. But again -- The
idea that the Spirit converts sinners by the truth, is the only view of the
subject that honours either the Spirit, or the truth of God.
The work of
conversion is spoken of in the Bible as a work of exceeding great power; and I
once heard a clergyman, expatiating upon the great powers of God in conversion
-- although he appeared to view it as a physical alteration of the constitution
of man, as the implantation of a new principle, or taste -- assert that it was
a greater exertion of power than that which hung out the heavens. The reason
which he assigned for its being such a great exertion of power was, that in the
creation of the material universe, he had no opposition, but in the conversion
of a soul, he had all the powers of hell to oppose him. Now this is whimsical
and ridiculous enough. As if the opposition of hell could oppose any obstacle
in the way of physical Omnipotence. The power which God exerts in the
conversion of a soul, is moral power; it is that kind of power by which
a statesman sways the mind of a senate; or by which an advocate moves and bows
the heart of a jury; but which "David bowed the heart of all Israel, as
the heart of one man." Now when we consider the deep-rooted selfishness of
the sinner; his long cherished habits of sin; his multifarious excuses and
refuges of lies; it is a most sublime exhibition of wisdom and of moral power
to pursue him step by step with truth, to hunt him from his refuges of lies, to
constrain him by the force of argument alone, to yield up his selfishness and
dedicate himself to the service of God. This reflects a glory and a lustre over
the truth of God and the agency of the Holy Spirit, that at once delights and
amazes the beholder.
8th. But again --
The idea that the Spirit uses motives to change the heart, is the only view
that gives consistency, and meaning to the often repeated injunction, not to
resist the Holy Ghost -- not to strive with his Maker.
For if the Spirit
operated upon the mind by direct physical contact, the idea of effectually
resisting physical omnipotence is ridiculous. The same thought applies to those
passages that caution us against grieving and quenching the Spirit.
9th. Again -- You
see from this subject that a sinner, under the influence of the Spirit of God,
is just as free as a jury under the arguments of an advocate.
Here also you may
see the importance of right views on this point. Suppose a lawyer, in
addressing a jury, should not expect to change their minds by any thing he
could say, but should wait for an invisible and physical agency, to be exerted
by the Holy Ghost upon them. And suppose, on the other hand, that the jury
thought that in making up their verdict, they must be passive, and wait for a
direct physical agency to be exerted upon them. In vain might the lawyer plead,
and in vain might the jury hear, for until he pressed his arguments as if he
was determined to bow their hearts, and until they make up their minds, and
decide the question, and thus act like rational beings, both his pleading and
their hearing is in vain. So if a minister goes into a desk to preach to
sinners, believing that they have no power to obey the truth, and under the
impression that a direct physical influence must be exerted upon them before
they can believe, and if his audience be of the same opinion, in vain does he
preach, and in vain do they hear, "for they are yet in their sins;"
they sit and quietly wait for some invisible hand to be stretched down from
heaven, and perform some surgical operation, infuse some new principle, or
implant some constitutional taste; after which they suppose they shall be able
to obey God. Ministers should labour with sinners, as a lawyer does with a
jury, and upon the same principles of mental philosophy; and the sinner should
weigh his arguments, and make up his mind as upon oath and for his life, and
give a verdict upon the spot, according to law and evidence. But here perhaps
some one will ask, If truth, when seen in all its bearings and relations is the
instrument of converting the sinner, why will he not be converted in hell,
where it is supposed that all the truth will burst upon his mind in all its
burning reality? In answer to this, I observe, that the motive that prevails to
turn the convicted rebel to God, will, in hell, be wanting. When the sinner is
crowded with conviction and ready to go to despair, and ready to flee and hide
himself from the presence of his Maker, he is met by the offer of
reconciliation, which, together with the other motives that are weighing like a
mountain upon his mind, sweetly constrain him to yield himself up to God. But
in hell the offer of reconciliation will be wanting; the sinner will be in
despair; and while in despair it is a moral impossibility to turn his heart to
God. let a man in this life so completely ruin his fortune as to have no hope
of retrieving it; in this state of absolute despair, no motive can reach him to
make him put forth an effort; he has no sufficient motive to attempt it; so if
his reputation is so completely gone that he has no hope of retrieving it, in
this state of despair, there is no possibility of reclaiming him; no motive can
reach him and call forth an effort to redeem his character, because he is
without hope. So in hell, the poor dying sinner will be shut up in despair; his
character is gone; his fortune for eternity is lost; there is no offer, no hope
of reconciliation; and punishment will but drive him further and further from
God for ever and ever.
10th. But, says
the objector, if right apprehensions of truth presented by the Spirit of God
convert a sinner, does it not follow that his ignorance is the cause of his
sin?
I answer, No! Had
Adam kept what truth he knew steadily before his mind, he doubtless would have
resisted the temptation; but suffering his mind to be diverted from the reasons
for obedience to the motives to disobedience, he failed, of course. When he had
fallen, and selfishness had become predominant, he was averse to knowing and
weighing the reasons for turning again to God; and if ever he was turned the
Spirit of God must have pressed the subject upon him. So with every sinner: he
at first sins against what knowledge he has by overlooking the motives to
obedience, and yielding himself up to the motives to disobedience, and when once
he has adopted the selfish principle, his ignorance becomes wilful and sinful,
and unless the Spirit of God induce him, he will not see. He knows the truth to
a sufficient extent to leave him without excuse, but he will not consider it
and let it have its effect upon him.
But the objector
may still ask, Is it not true, after all, if a full and sufficiently impressive
knowledge of truth is all that is necessary to subdue the sinner, that he only
needs to know the true character of God to love it, and that his enmity against
God arises out of his false notions of him? Is it not a false and not the true
character of God that he hates? I answer, No! it is the true character of God
that he hates. he hates God for what he is, and not for what he is not. The sinner's
character is selfishness: God's character is benevolence. These are eternal
opposites. The sinner hates God because he is opposed to his selfishness. While
the man remains selfish, it is absurd to say that he is reconciled to the true
character of God. But is not his ignorance the cause of his selfishness? No! he
knows better than to be selfish. It is true he does not, nor will he unless
compelled by the Holy Spirit, consider the unreasonableness of selfishness. The
work of the Holy Spirit does not consist merely in giving instruction, but in
compelling him to consider truths which he already knows -- to think upon his
ways and turn to the Lord. He urges upon his attention and consideration those
motives which he hates to consider and fell the weight of. It is probable, if
not certain, that had all the motives to obedience been broadly before the mind
of Adam, or any other sinner, and had the mind duly considered them at the
time, he would not have sinned. But the fact is, sinners do not set what truth
they know before the mind, but divert the attention and rush on to hell.
Will any one still
reply that although it is true that the sinner's wilful inconsideration and
diverting his attention lay the only foundation for the necessity of the
Spirit's influences, yet, is it not His great business to remove this ignorance
occasioned by the sinner's wilful rejection of light? What does consideration
do, but to bring the sinner to a juster knowledge of himself, of God, and of
his duty, and thus, by force of truth, constrain him to yield? If by ignorance
be meant a wilful perverse rejection of light and knowledge, I suppose that it
is this state of mind which is not merely the cause of his sin, but it is his
sin itself. The Apostle views the subject in this light: in speaking of
sinners, he says, "Having their understanding darkened, being alienated
from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the
blindness of their heart."
It is indeed the
pressing of truth upon the sinner's consideration that induces him to turn. But
it is not true that he is ignorant of these truths before he thus considers
them. He knows he must die -- that he is a sinner -- that God is right and he
is wrong -- that there is a heaven and a hell -- but, as the prophet says,
"They will not see" -- and again, "My people will not
consider." It is not mainly then to instruct, but to lead the sinner to
think upon his ways, that the Spirit employs his agency.
I have already
shown why he will not be converted when truth is forced upon him in hell.
11th. But here
some one may say, Is not this exhibition of the subject inconsistent with that
mystery of which Christ speaks, when he says, "The wind bloweth where it
listeth, thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh
nor whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit?"
Says the objector,
I have been in the habit of considering the subject of a new heart, as a very
mysterious one: but you make it very plain. How is this? Does not Christ, in
the text I have quoted, represent it as mysterious? In answer to this I would
ask, Wherein does Christ, in that text, represent the mystery of the new birth
as consisting? Not in the effects which the Spirit produces, for the effects
are matters of experience and observation. Not in the instrumentality used, for
this is often revealed in the Bible. But the mystery lies in the manner of the
Spirit's communicating with mind.; How disembodied spirits communicate with
each other, we are unable to say -- or how a disembodied spirit can communicate
with one that wears a body, we do not know. We know that we communicate with each
other through the medium of our bodily senses. The particular manner in which
the Spirit of God carries on his debates and strivings with the mind, is what,
in this life, we shall probably never know. Nor is it important that we should.
Every Christian knows that in some way the truth was kept before his mind, and
made to bear, and press upon him, and hedge him in, until he was constrained to
yield. These are matters of experience; but in what particular manner the Holy
Spirit did this, is just as mysterious as millions of other facts, which we
daily witness, but cannot explain.
12th. But here
perhaps another objection may arise -- If the sinner is able to convert
himself, why does he need the Spirit of God?
Suppose a man owed
you one hundred dollars, was abundantly able, but wholly unwilling to pay you;
you obtain a writ, and prepare, by instituting a suit against him, to ply him
with a motive that will constrain him to be honest and pay his debts. Now
suppose that he should say, I am perfectly able to pay this hundred dollars, of
what use then is this writ, and a sheriff, and a lawsuit? The answer is, It is
to make him willing -- to be sure, he is able but he is unwilling. Just so with
the sinner -- he is able to do his duty, but is unwilling, therefore the Spirit
of God plies him with motives to make him willing.
13th. Again -- You
see that sinners should not content them selves with praying for a new heart.
It has been common
for those who believe that sinners are unable to change their own heart, when
sinners have inquired what they should do to be saved, to substitute another
requirement for that contained in the text, and instead of commanding them to
make to them a new heart, have told them to pray that God would change their
heart. They have used language like the following: "You must remember that
you are dependent on God for a new heart. Do not attempt to do any thing in
your own strength -- attend to your Bible, use the means of grace, call upon
God to change your heart, and wait patiently for the answer." A few years
since, a lawyer, under deep conviction of sin came to my room to inquire what
he should do to be saved. He informed me that when in college, he, with two
others were deeply anxious for their souls; that they waited on the president,
and inquired what they should do. His directions were, in substance, that they
should read their Bibles, keep clear of vain company, use the means of grace,
and pray for a new heart, and that ere long they would either be converted, or
would give up reading their Bibles and using means for their salvation. On
being questioned how the matter terminated, he replied, that it turned out as
the president told them it would; they soon gave up reading their Bibles, and
using means. He said that the directions of the president relieved his mind,
and that the more he prayed and used the means, the less distress he felt. That
as he thought he was now doing his duty, and in a hopeful way, the more he read
his Bible and prayed, the more acceptable he thought himself to God, and the
more likely to be converted. The more diligent he was in using means, the more
self-complacent and contented he became -- and thus prayed and waited for God
to change his heart till his convictions had entirely worn away, and with a burst
of grief he added, thus it turned out with us all. The other two are confirmed
drunkards, and I have well nigh ruined myself by drink. Now if there is any
hope in my case, tell me what I shall do to be saved. On being told to repent,
and pressed to the immediate performance of the duty, he, to all appearance,
yielded up himself to God upon the spot. Now the result of the directions given
by the president, was strictly philosophical. The advice was just such as would
please the devil. It would answer his purpose infinitely better than to have
told them to abandon all thoughts of religion at once, for this would have
shocked and frightened them, and, anxious as they were, they would have turned
with abhorrence from such advice; but setting them upon this sanctimonious
method of praying and waiting for God to do what he required of them, was
soothing to their consciences; substituting another requirement in the place of
the command of God, fostering their spirit of delay, confirming them in
self-righteousness, and one of two results must have been expected -- either
that they would embrace a false hope, or no hope at all. For it was perfectly
natural and reasonable, if this was their duty, to pray, and use the means, and
wait for God, for them to suppose that, as they were doing what God required of
them, they were growing better. That the more diligent they were in their
impenitent endeavours, the more safely might they rely upon God's converting
them. Therefore of course the further they proceeded in this way, the less
knowledge would they have of themselves, their danger, and their deserts; and
the more certainly would they grieve away the Spirit of God.
Sinner! instead of
waiting and praying for God to change your heart, you should at once summon up
your powers, put forth the effort, and change the governing preference of your
mind. But here some one may ask, Can the carnal mind, which is enmity against
God, change itself: I have already said that this text in the original reads,
"The minding of the flesh is enmity against God." This minding of the
flesh, then, is a choice or preference to gratify the flesh. Now it is indeed
absurd to say, that a choice can change itself; but it is not absurd to say,
that the agent who exercises this choice, can change it. The sinner that minds
the flesh, can change his mind, and mind God.
14th. From this
subject it is manifest that the sinner's obligation to make to himself a new
heart, is infinite.
Sinner! your
obligations to love God is equal to the excellence of his character, and your
guilt in not obeying him is of course equal to your obligation. You cannot
therefore for an hour or a moment defer obedience to the commandment in the
text, without deserving eternal damnation.
15th. You see it
is most reasonable to expect sinners, if they are converted at all, to be
converted under the voice of the living preacher, or while the truth is held up
in al its blaze before the mind.
An idea has
prevailed in the church, that sinners must have a season of protracted
conviction, and that those conversions that were sudden were of a suspicious
character. But certainly "this persuasion cometh not from God." We
nowhere in the Bible read of cases of lengthened conviction. Peter was not
afraid on the day of Pentecost that his hearers had not conviction enough. He
did not tell them to pray and labour for a more impressive sense of their
guilt, and wait for the Spirit of God to change their hearts, but urged home
their immediate duty upon them. If he had suffered them to escape, to go from
under his voice while yet in their sins, it is probable that hundreds, if not
thousands of them had not be converted at all. It is as reasonable and
philosophical to expect the sinner to turn, if he does it at all, while
listening to the arguments of the living preacher, as it is to expect a juror
to be convinced, and make up his mind, under the arguments of the advocate. The
advocate expects if they are convinced at all, that they will be so while he is
addressing them. He does not act upon the absurd and preposterous supposition,
that it is more likely they will be convinced and make up their verdict in his
favour when they shall have retired, and calmly considered the subject. His
object is so thoroughly to convince, so completely to imbue their minds with
the subject, as to get their intellect, and conscience, and heart to embrace
his views of the subject. This is wise, and verily, in this respect, "the
children of this world, are in their generation wiser than the children of
light." And now, sinner, if you go away without making up your mind, and
changing your heart, it is most probable that your mind will be diverted -- you
will forget many things that you have heard -- many of the motives and
considerations that now press upon you may be abstracted from your mind -- you
will lose the clear view of the subject that you now have -- may grieve the
Spirit, defer repentance, and push your unbroken footsteps to the gates of
hell.
16th. You see the
importance of presenting those truths, and in such connexions and relations, as
are calculated to induce the sinner to change his heart.
Few more
mischievous sentiments have ever been broached, than that there is no
philosophical connexion between means and end in the conversion of sinners;
that there is no natural adaptedness in the motives of the Gospel to annihilate
the sinner's selfishness, and lead him to submit to God. This idea is a part of
the scheme of physical depravity. It considers regeneration as a change in the
substance of the mind; as effected by the direct physical agency of the Spirit
of God, irrespective of truth. If this were a correct view of regeneration, it
would be manifest that there could be no connexion between the means and the
end. For if the work be a physical creation, performed by the direct and
physical power of the Holy Ghost, then certainly it is effected by no means
whatever. But so far is this from truth, that no sinner ever was or ever will
be converted, but by means wisely and philosophically adapted to this end.
The Spirit selects
such considerations, at such times and under such circumstances, as are
naturally calculated to disarm and confound the sinner; to strip him of his
excuses, answer his cavils, humble his pride, and break his heart. The preacher
should therefore acquaint himself with his refuges of lies, and as far as
possible take into consideration his whole history, including his present views
and state of mind; should wisely select a subject; so skilfully arrange, so
simply and yet so powerfully present it, as to engage the sinner's whole
attention, and then lay himself out to the utmost to bring him to yield upon
the spot. He who deals with souls should study well the laws of mind, and
carefully and prayerfully adapt his matter and his manner to the state and
circumstances, views and feelings, in which he may find the sinner at the time.
he should present that particular subject, in that connexion and in that
manner, that shall have the greatest natural tendency to subdue the rebel at
once. If men would act as wisely and as philosophically in attempting to make
men Christians, as they do in attempting to sway mind upon other subjects; if
they would suit their subject to the state of mind, conform "the action to
the word and the word to the action," and press their subject with as much
address, and warmth, and perseverance, as lawyers and statesmen do their
addresses; the result would be the conversion of hundreds of thousands, and
converts would be added to the Lord "like drops of the morning dew."
Were the whole church and the whole ministry right upon this subject; had they
right views, were they imbued with a right spirit, and would they "go
forth with tears, bearing precious seed, they would soon reap the harvest of
the whole earth, and return bearing their sheaves with them."
The importance of
rightly understanding that God converts souls by motives, is inconceivably
great. Those who do not recognize this truth in their practice at least, are
more likely to hinder than to aid the Spirit in his work. Some have denied this
truth in theory, but have happily admitted it in practice. They have prayed,
and preached, and talked, as if they expected the Holy Spirit to convert
sinners by the truth. In such cases, notwithstanding their theory, their
practice was owned and blessed of God. But a want of attention to this truth in
practice has been the source of much and ruinous error in the management of
revivals and in dealing with anxious souls. Much of the preaching, conversation
and exhortation have been irrelevant, perplexing and mystical. Sufficient pains
have not been taken to avoid a diversion of public and individual attention.
Sinners have been kept long under conviction, because their spiritual guides
withheld those particular truths which at the time above all others they needed
to know. They have been perplexed and confounded by abstract doctrines,
metaphysical subtleties, absurd exhibitions of the sovereignty of God,
inability, physical regeneration, and constitutional depravity, until the
agonized mind, discouraged and mad from contradiction from the pulpit, and
absurdity in conversation, dismissed the subject as altogether
incomprehensible, and postponed the performance of duty as impossible.
17th. From this
subject you may see the importance of pressing every argument, and every
consideration, that can have any weight.
And now, sinner,
while the subject is before you, will you yield! To keep yourself away from
under the motives of the Gospel, by neglecting church, and neglecting your
Bible, will prove fatal to your soul. And to be careless when you do attend, or
to hear with attention and refuse to make up your mind and yield, will be
equally fatal. And now, "I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that you at
this time render your body and soul, a living sacrifice to God, which is your
reasonable service." Let the truth take hold upon your conscience -- throw
down your rebellious weapons -- give up your refuges of lies -- fix your mind
steadfastly upon the world of consideration that should instantly decide you to
close in with the offer of reconciliation while it now lies before you. Another
moment's delay, and it may be too late for ever. The Spirit of God may depart
from you -- the offer of life may be made no more, and this one more slighted
offer of mercy may close up your account, and seal you over to all the horrors
of eternal death. Hear, then, O sinner, I beseech you, and obey the word of the
Lord -- "Make you a new heart and a new spirit, for why will ye die?"