fenfive to God; and the reafon is very plain, which is given by the apoftle in v. 7. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Well might he draw this conclufion hence, fo then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God, because of the carnal mind which is in them. If it should be faid, that by the carnal mind is meant wicked exercises (which all allow to be enmity to God and his law) but not the unregenerate nature of man, which is not enmity: I anfwer, that by the carnal mind, and being after the flesh, the apostle evidently defigns a nature or principle of wicked exercifes, fuch as minding the things of the flesh, and of being unable to act fo as to please God. Thefe are but the effects of a carnal mind, and are as diftinct from it, as the effect is from the caufe, as the ftream is from the fountain. Befides, if by the carnal mind is meant only the exercife of "wrong affections indulged in oppofition to "the law and will of God," * then the paffage fhould run thus: "For they that indulge wrong affections, "mind the things of the flesh,i.e. indulge wrong affect❝ions,and they that indulge or exercise spiritual affecti❝ons,exercife fpiritual affections :" & v.7th would run thus: "Wrong affections indulged are enmity to God, "for they are not fubject to the law of God," &c. But is not this to make the apoftle fpeak abfurdly? and yet thus he does fpeak, unless by carnal mind he intends the principle of corrupt nature which is in all unrenewed men. For if nothing is meant by the carnal mind, but wicked exercises or wrong affections indulged,as diftinguished from the principle from which they flow; then the apoftle speaks of them, not as actions of moral agents, but as being themfelves moral agents for he fays, this carnal mind (i. e. according to the above opinion, wrong affections indulged,) is not fubject to the law of God, which is the fame as to fay, that wicked actions are not fubject to the law. * D. p. 60. But But how abfurd is this? Whoever conceived of actions, good or bad, as being fubjects of law or command? All men know, that agents, and not their actions when done, are the fubjects of this. Now for the apostle to say that wicked actions are not fubject to the law of God, is to fay nothing, becaufe, as all know that moral agents only are subjects of law or command, fo none ever imagined that actions were moral agents, which they must be in order to be fubject to the moral law. It is therefore clear to a demonftration, that by the carnal mind, the apoftle does not mean wicked exercises or wrong affections indulged; but the corrupt nature of fallen man. His mind confidered,not as an act, but an agent capable of action, is enmity to God while carnal or unrenewed, and is not fubject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; and therefore be cannot please God, because his nature is enmity against him. Befides Mr. H. acknowledges that by the car.. nal mind is intended "a carnal temper," and fays "this must be mortified, and a better and holy temper introduced into the mind or heart." * This fenfe is confirmed by many fcriptures. They that are Chrift's,bave crucified the flesh with the affections and lufts. Here flesh is diftinguifhed from the affecti ons and lufts, as the caufe from the effect; the flesh or corrupt nature being the principle or spring of the affections and lufts which Chrift's people crucify together with it. Chrift fpeaking of the new birth, fays, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the fpirit is fpirit. ‡ Here flesh is evidently taken for the corrupt nature, and spirit for the new nature. Flesh is fo often taken in this fenfe, that I fhall not recite the paffages, but only refer to a few in the margin.§ I think then, it is beyond difpute, that flesh and the carnal mind is put for unregenerate nature in the paffage under confideration; and if this is fo, the text is * D. p. 47. + Gal: v. 24. a a full proof of my point; for it afferts that the nature of unregenerate men is enmity to God and cannot be fubject to bis law; and is therefore totally corrupt, and void of all love to God, or holinefs. A parrallel text we have 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15. But the natural man difcerneth not the things of the fpirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, neither can be know them, because they are fpiritually difcerned. But he that is fpiritual judgeth all things. As in the former text the carnal mind fo here the natural man, is oppofed to the fpiritual. But by natural man is evidently meant the unregenerate man, Now it is here affirmed of this natural man that he difcerneth not the things of the fpirit of God: Whatever knowledge he may have, he difcerns nothing of the spiritual glory and beauty of divine objects, i. e. he has no tafte for moral excellency : and the reafon is given, viz. for or because they are foolishness to him, i. e. in his view of them; and if fo, they must be abhorred for what appears foolish, yea foolifbnefs in the abftract, must be hateful in this view of it. Here then is a full proof that the natural man fees no beauty in, but really loths the things of God, and therefore has no tafte for moral excellency, q. e. p. I could mention many other reasons why I reject Mr. H's notion, that confcience implies a tafte for God's true character, and further to demonftrate the doctrine of the total depravity of fallen nature, but the above I fuppofe fufficient to convince any impartial reader. If Mr. H. does not like the confequences I have observed as flowing from his fcheme of doctrine, he is at liberty to renounce it, or by fair reafoning, to confute my arguments, and fhew if he can that thefe confequences do not follow from it. This principle which I have confuted above, is the grand hinge on which the whole controversy between Mr. H. and me turns, and on which he has founded his whole dialogue, and which being difproved, he gives up up the point about regeneration's being effected by light, &c. I have therefore been the larger in confuting it, and I hope I have proved, to the fatisfaction of every intelligent reader, that moral beings, as such, have not a taste for moral excellency, or which is the fame thing, for God's true character; but on the contrary, that all mankind, while unrenewed, are totally deftitute of this tafte, and have no holy tempers, nor any love to the true God. I fhall next proceed to state and confute Mr. H's notion of enmity against God. SECT. III. In which Mr. H's notion of enmity is confidered, and confuted. MR R. H. tells us, "this is a fubject of great impor"tance; for on the wrong definition of this enmity, has been founded a whole fyftem of errors, "and by a right ftating and explaining it, they fall "to the ground.*" Now let us attend to his definition of enmity to God. "The enmity of carnal men to God's "character," he says," is an interefted partial affection, ❝contrary to their own inward fenfe of what is right " and morally good and excellent." + And again,"Actions and characters may be confidered in a two“fold view, either firft, fimply as they are in them"felves; in which view of them I have faid, and I "believe proved, that they cannot be hated, can't but "be approved as right and good by the mind of man, " and by all moral beings. Or fecondly, they may "be confidered relatively, or as they respect us. In "this view of them, they may possibly be hated, and in "fact they too often are, because they militate against "fome particular luft of ours, or are inconfiftent with "fome private interest we have much at heart." He fays the fame thing in many other places. M: D. p. 48, 67. + D. p. 18. Here † D. p. 54, 55• .. Here it is evident that he has kept his main point in view, and has modelled his definition of enmity by it, viz. That conscience involves a taste and love for the divine character. He dare not utterly deny that men hate God; yet he approaches to the acknowledgement of it with great caution. He first insists on it, that it is not, cannot be exercised against God's true character, or as confidered fimply in himself: No, all moral beings are utterly incapable of fuch grofs wickedness; even devils are too good for this. Hence it would feem that he defigned to blot the very existence of fin from the universe. But hard neceffity urges, and pofitive declarations of fcripture ftare him in the face, and fqueeze from him an acknowledgement of its POSSIBLE existence. But before he will admit even this, he supposes the divine character to be seen through a falfe optic or glafs, by which it is represented, not as it is in itself, but quite altered, and greatly deformed; because he "militates against fome particular luft of ours, which, according to him, is " to view God's cha"racter either as contemptible or morally evil," and fo he is confidered relatively or as he refpects our interefts. Mr. H. has left us no room to doubt what he means by the phrase, " God relatively confidered," for he tells us, "it universally holds true in fact, that men who hate God-always mifreprefent his cha"racter to themselves, paint it in talfe and odious co 46 ours-as contemptible or morally evil." And that no man ever did speak evil of God's ways, viewing "them as they truly are, as equitable and good, but as placing them in a wrong light to themselves."§ Having fuppofed the divine character drawn in fuch "falfe and odious colours," he ventures fo far towards this fhocking and deteftable doctrine, as to acknowledge that God may, when "viewed in this con"temptible and wicked light as oppofing our lufts," poffibly be hated. And having come thus far, he gains courage |