Conviction of Sin

It is not strange, that natural men should sometimes be alarmed by a sense of their danger. When they see that the judgments which God has denounced against sin, will sooner or later overtake them; that they are rapidly passing to the gates of death; and that they are unprepared for the solemn realities of the future world; it is impossible for them to remain unmoved. They begin to think seriously of the things that belong to their everlasting peace. They cease to make light of that which is important, and to view as important that which is lighter than vanity. They begin to see things as they are. The value of the soul — the indispensable necessity of an interest in the blood of sprinkling — heaven — hell — these are subjects which engage theu* most serioui reflection, and excite the most fearfid alarm. But, strange to tell, how soon does their solemnity vanish! How often is their alarm momentary! The lapse even of a few weeks may convince you, that all this is but the early cloudy and the morning dew, that quickli, passeth away.

A variety of considerations induce us to believe, that no degree of conviction for sin is conclusive evidence of Christian Character. The simple conviction, that I am a sinner, is common to all men. That view of sin which arises from its hateful nature y as committed against the Holy God, is peculiar to saints. There is a state of mind differing from both these, from the former in degree, and from the latter in kind, which is designated by the phrase, conviction for sin.

Impenitent sinners are often brought to see their own sinfulness. God gives them a just view of their character. They are favoured with a discovery of the total corruption of their hearts. They see that they have not the love of God in them. Thep are made sensible that they are under the dominion of the carnal mind that is enmity against God. The Divine Law, in all the reasonableness of its precept, and all the equity of its sanction, comes home to the conscience with power, and biings with it the knowledge of sin, and the sense of

Conmction of Sin. 33

juilt. They see its extent and spiiitiiality, as well as its righteousness. They feel as Paul fell, when the commandment came, sin revived, and he died. Sin does actually revive. The law that binds their consciences, excites the enmity of their hearts. The more clearly they discern its righteousness and spirituality, the more vigorously do they hate its Divine Author. They begin to learn what kind of hearts they cherish. They see that in them there dwelleth no good thing. In vain do they search for the least holiness, or a single duty, in all that they have done. Every imagination of the thovghts of their hearts is only evil continually. All their words and all their actions, all their desires and all their prayers are in direct contraiiety to the holy law. of God. Now, suffer me to ask, is there any religion in all this? There can be none surely in possessing a depraved heart, and there is none in merely being sensible that we possess it. In the simple discovery, that I am an atrocious sinner, there is no sense of the hateful nature of sin, no sorrow for sin, no desire to be delivered from its power. To see my aggravated sinfulness and not be humbled on account of it, is evidence of unyielding enmity, rather than cordial reconciliation. If a strong sense, or if you please, the strongest sense of per-

34 Conviction of Sitk,

sonal sinfulness, were conclusive evidence of personal religion; every reprobate at the bar of judgment, and all the damned in hell, would be Christians. A sense of their corruption forms no small part of their w retchedness. We know, from the unequivocal declaration of Eternal Truth, that when the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints to execute judgment upon all, he will con-TiNCE all that are ungodly among them of all THEIR UNGODLY DEEDS wMch they Iiavc ungodly committed. How then can the conviction of ungodliness, be the evidence of godliness?

In the minds of the unregenerate, the sense of personal sinfulness is always accompanied with the apprehension of danger. It cannot be otherwise. When a sense of sin is fastened upon the conscience of the sinner, it cannot fail to throw him into distress. In many cases, the distress is great. The “law work” is severe. The unhappy man sees the corruption of his own heail; and therefore gives up all hope from his own righteousness. He sees the corruption of his own heart; and therefore gives up all hope from the prospect of amendment. The law whirh he has broken, sweeps away at a stroke all his righteousness, and cuts up his hopes, root and branclh All that is past is bad; all that is to come is no better. He sees that with his present disposition, sin will only revive and increase every hour that he lives. He is wretched and forlorn. He knows that he is the prisoner of justice, and fears that lie is already bound over to the curse. He looks around for help, but no kind arm will interpose. He ventures to make a struggle to shake off his bondage; but every effort evinces his weakness, every strug- <rle binds him faster in his chains. The arrows of the Almighty are within him, the poison whereof drinketk up his spirits. He sees that he is actually going to hell. He knows that nothing he shall ever do, will prevent his going there. There is but a step between him and the eternal pit; while an invincibly obstinate heart cuts him off from every successful effort io escape it. He is beyond the reach of help on

* The inability of the natural man to repent and belierc the Gospel, lies in a heart so corrupt, that it is absolutely invincible, but by the Almighty power of God. It is an ina.- bility, the very essence of which consists m his moral turfiitude. This the convinced sinner knows. He may not, in form recognize the distinction between moral and natural inability, but every pang that shoots through his heart, Is decisive testimony of its correctness. With the deep sense that he is in danger, is connected the deep conviction, thai he is without excuse. He no longer casts the blame on God. The door of hope is open. Every obstacle, except that luhich arises from hia own aversion to the way of H/Cf is removed.

this side heaven. No means, no motives can afford him relief. He sees that he is in the hands of a Sovereign God, and that every thing without him, and every thing within him, is con-Jll things are ready.; he alone is unwilling. While he beholds himself trembling upon the verge of the pit, and hears the voice of the Great Deliverer, — Sinner, lay down the weapons of ihy rebellion; repent of all your transgressions; “come unto mc” — he will not come. At terms like these, every feeling of his heart revolts. Lay down the weapons of his rebellion! repent of all his transgressions! come unto Christ! he nvill not, he cannot. He spurns the offers of mercy, and had rather die than submit. Here is his inability; an inability that is all of his own cherishing, all confined within his own carnal heart.

It would be well if those who feel so uncharitably, and speak so unadvisedly concerning persons who are conscientiously constrained to maintain both the reality and importance of the distinction between natural and moral inabilityy understood either themselves, or the doctrine they condemn. In giving the sinner a natural power to become holy, we do not claim for him the atlf-determining power of the will. We do not say, that he can produce holiness by an act of the will that is antecedent to the first exercise of holiness. Neither do we challenge for a worm of the dust, the prerogative of independence. Eternal life hangs on the sovereign grace oi God. The work of renewing and sanctifying the soul, and bearing it to heaven at last, rests on his Almighty arm. In giving the sinner a natural power to become holy, we design to give God the throne, and humble the sinner at his feet. Not until this important truth ceases to glorify God, and spii ing to increase his guilt, and aggravate his condemnation. And you will now ask, is there no religion in this? None. Does vital religion consist in the apprehension of danger, or in the fear

abase his enemies, let it be denounced as a doctrine either replete with error, or devoid of meaning.

JVatural ability consists in possessing all those faculties that are necessary to constitute a moral agent. A moral agent is a being that is capable of actions that can be compared with law. To be capable of nothing that can be compared with “a rule of action, commanding what is right and” prohibiting what is wrong,*’ is to be reduced to the level of tjie brutes that perish. To be capable of this, is to possess understanding, conscience, will, and affections. These faculties of the mind constitute a moral agent, and make any being capable of choosing or refusing, acting right or wrong as he pleases. Destitute of these, he would not be capable of moral action. He could be neither holy nor sinful. His character and conduct could be neither worthy of praise nor blame. But possessing these, he possesses all that is necessary to the exercise of holy and unholy affections. He possesses the power io fierctive the objects of love and hatred — to/^<r, the obligation of loving that which is right, and hating that which is wrong — and to love or to hate in conformity with the dictates of his conscience and understanding, or in defiance to the dictates of both.

This is what we mean by natural ability to become holy. Take away these faculties, and there is a naturalinability. Take away these, and it is absolutely impossible that any thing in the form of merit or demerit, should be attached to human character. This is the ability which we claim for the sinner. Strip him of those faculties which are necessathat we shall never escape it? Where is the holiness of being afraid of hell? What Christlike affection is there either in the horror of a guilty conscience, or the anticipation of the wrath to come?

vy to the exercise of volition, and you convert him to a mere animal. Invest the animal with these faculties, and you convert him into a moral agent; you make him the subject of moral government, and accountable for his conduct. There is a siirit in man and the inspiration of the Almighty has given him understanding. The sinner’s claim must be acknowledged. He has all the natural faculties that are neces-Spary to holiness; and if he were disposed to use them aright, he would be holy. You say a man has power to sec and hear, if he has the faculties that are necessary to seeing a7id hearing* So has he power to be holy, if he has the faculties that are necessary to holiness.

But while we say that the sinner is under no natural inability to become holy, we also say that he is under a moral iijability to become holy.

When we speak, of the moral inability of the sinner, we do not mean to deny that his inability is original, innate. We know it is. We use the word moral in contra-distinction from natural, to denote that which is comparable with a rule of moral action. Thus we speak of moral and natural good, moral and natural evil. There is much natural good in a seasonable shower of rain, but there is no moral good. There is much natural evil in an earthquake, but there is no moral evil. Natural good and evil cannot be compared with a rule of action; they bear no relation io praise or blame. With moral good and evil, it is otherw ise. I hope to be understood therefore when I use the phrase moral inability »’ These are feelings, which,” as the learned Dr. Owen well remarks, “belong not to the precept” of the law, but to its curse; they are no part of “what it requires, but of what it inflicts.”

Moral inability is comparable with a rule of action; it is not that which bears no relation to praise or blame. It consists in the total defiravity of the carnal heart. It consists in an insuperable aversion to holiness. You can conceive of a man’s possessing a given degree of aversion to holiness. You can see that the difficulty of his becoming holy will rise in proportion to his aversion to holiness. If his aversion to holiness be inconsiderable, the difficulty of becoming holy will be inconsiderable. If his aversion to holiness be great, the difficulty of becoming holy will be great. Now the aversion of the natural man to holiness is not inconsiderable; it is not merely great; it is complete and entire; it pervades every thought, every affection, every design. By the arm of flesh it is invincible. It is open to no successful attack. Light, motives, means of whatever character, are in themselves of no avail to remove it.

Here is an inability; here is a serious inability. It is an inability which belongi to every man that is dead in tres- /lasses and sins. But it is a moral and not a natural inability. It is an inability that is capable of being compared with law; and therefore bears relation to praise and blame. It consists wholly in a deeply rooted aversion to all that is good. Take away this, and where is the obstacle in the way of the sinner’s becoming holy? What becomes of his natural inability? Let those who affirni that there is an inability in the siimer to become holy, aside from this mere moral inability go into their closets and ask themselves these two questions: —

In the mind of a convinced sinner, the sense of personal sinfulness is also connected with the sense of ill desert. When a man has a clear view of his own sinfulness, he not only sees that he is exposed

What other inability is there in the sinner to become holy, than his invincible aversion to holiness?

What is the point of difference between the natural powers of the saint and the sinner?

When they have given fair, logical answers to these questions, they need not be disappointed, if they find themselves driven to the result, that the inability of (he sinner to beco?ne holy, is no other than a moral inability. By the work of Regeneration, the saint receives no new natural faculty. The passing from death unto life is a morale and not a physical change. The only point of difference between the power of the saint and the sinner is, that the saint has moral ability to be holy; the sinner has not. The sinner cherishes a moral inability to become holy; the saint does not.

But after all, an inability is an inability, whether it be mo- “ral or natural! You deny the sinner a self-determining” power. You grant that he has no ability that can produce holiness, by an act of the vill that is antecedent to the ex- ercise of holiness.” Neither can saints. “You grant “that he cannot become holy without the special operations “of the holy Spirit.” Neither would saints ever have another holy feeling without the sficcial operations of the Holy spirit. *’ Slill, an inability is an inability; and what profit is there in “your boasted distinction?” Much every way: Chiefly, because without it, we cannot have just views of the character of God, and the guilt of the sinner.

O^ the character of God: God invites sinners to be holy.

Coniiction of Sin. 41

to the wrath of God, but that he hjusily exposed to the AVI alli of God. He sees that lie deserves the displeasure of the xllmighty throughout interminable ages. He is stripped of all his thin

He cxfiostulatcs with them- — he eiitreuts them — he com- ?na?ids them to be holy. He threatens them with eternal death, and executes the threatening tu the uttermost, if they persist in the refusal to yield to his requisitions. Now if they are naturally unable to yield, they must lie down in everlasting sorrow for not doing that which in its own nature cannot be done. But, is this the God that reigns in heaven I Has He commanded men to perform impos&ibilUieS’, and does He damn them because they cannot obey 1 Does He for ever abandon them to darkness and despair, for not becoming holy, while He has withheld the faculties that are necessary to the exercise of holiness! No, it cannot be. Will not the Judge of all the earth do right? What if God had suspended the eternal destiny of your immortal soul upon your gouig from New-York to Rome in a day? What if he had commanded you to create a world? You would not hesitate to say, it is unjust. But He has required you to become holy. And you say, that you have no more, and no other power to become holy, than you have to go from New-York to Rome in a day, or to create a world. What then should make the one unjust and not the other? But such is not the character of the Holy God. The doctrine of man’s natural inability is a libel on his righteousness. On the other hand, if all the inability of the sinner consists in his aversion to holiness; if he is under no natural inability j if he has as much power to become holy as saints; and all his inability arises from invincible perverseness; then God will

42 Conviclion of Sin.

excuses, and is sensible that his sins are wholly unjustifiable. As he has before been constrained to acknowledge the reasonableness of the precept of the Divine Law, now he is constrained to admit

be glorious in sending him to hell. He ought to go there; and all Heaven will say, jimen! JUeluia I while the smoke of his torments is ascending for ever and ever. Come nowp and let us reason together, saith the Lord. Are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? There would be nf ground for these expostulations, upon the principle of man’s natural inability.

Neither can we have just views of the guilt of the sinner without recognizing the distinction between natural and moral inability. It is one thing to feel wretched, another to feel guilty; one thing to feel that you are lost and ruined, another to feel that you have destroyed yourself; one thing to claim pity, another to deserve blame. Mere calaiyiity is one thing, and moral turpitude is another. Speak of man’s inability without making it his crime, and his conscience will love the opiate. Speak of it as consisting in the free, voluntary exercises of his corrupt heart, and you leave him without excuse. He will feel that if he dies eternally, he is the voluntary author of his own destruction. He will never feel to blame for not performing impossibilities.

Bring this question then before the Judgment seat of Christ. Annihilate the natural ability of the sinner to repent and believe the Gospel; and if you make God glorious in banishing the impenitent to hell, and the impenitent deserving of their doom; the controversy is at an end. Until then, we must be suffered to speak on God*s behalf; we must as* rrlbc rip-fitcousnrss to our Maker,

ConvicUon of iSm, 43

Hie justice of its penalty. He has vuknitarily and perseveringly disobeyed a law that is perfectly holy in itself, and clothed with the authority of the Holy God; and he knows that it would be just, if the penalty should be executed upon him to the uttermost. He knows that the Holy God, whose character he regards with enmity whose law he transgresses with impenitence; whose Gospel he rejects with disdain; can be under no obligation to save a wretch like him. And you will ask again, is there no religion in this! Again I answer, and the reply is bottomed upon the word of Eternal Truth — not a whit. Is this no evidence that I have passed from death unto lifef I answer, it is not conclusive evidence; and if this is all that you have experienced, it is none at alL If you are not sensible that you are so vile as to deserve the everlasting displeasure of God, you are not even a convinced sinner; but if you are sensible of this, you may not be a converted sinner. Vital religion does not consist in the approbation of the conscience to the condemning sentence of the law. Does not the conscience of every sinner, whether renewed or unrenewed, tell him that God would be just in abandoning him to misery without measure and wilhout end? Do not the damned in hell feel that they are justly

44 CoHvidion oj Sin.

condemned? Was not the man without the wedding garment speechless? Will not the whole world become guilty before God, at the Last Day?

If the view which we have given of this solemn subject, will bear the test of God*s word, then the reader has a right to the plain result, that no degree of conviction for sin is conclusive evidence of Christian Character. Look at the feelings of ar convinced sinner, and find, if you can, one spark of genuine holiness. Find, if you can, one Christian grace. Find, if you can, any thing more than all those have felt, who have gone down to the pit in their blood.

But may not these be the feelings of real Christians? I answer, they may be; but they are not the feelings which constitute the essential difference between real Christians and impenitent sinners. All that have passed from death unto life, have in a greater or less degree, been convinced of their total corruption, alarmed at their danger, and made to acknowledge the justice of God in the penalty of his law. Indeed, it may be said, that the greater part of real Christians have never been the subjects of conviction, in the degree which lias

Conviction of iS in, 46

hccii here exhibited. Still, every Christian has experienced some of it; every Christian has felt the same conviction in kind. If, therefore, you are without any thing like this conviction, you may be sure tlrat you are without religion. Still, it does not follow, that because you have this conviction, you therefore have real religion. It is true, that in the course of God’s providence, conviction always precedes conversion; but it is not always true, that conversion follows conviction. There is no necessary connexion between conviction and conversion. A sense of sin and danger does not slay the enmity of the heart. The conscience may be convinced, while the heart is not renepved. The carnal mind not only may, but does hate what the awakened conscience approves. It is no certain evidence, that because the conscience feels the w eight of sin, the heart is humbled on account of it; that because the conscience approves of the rectitude of divine justice, the heart bows to the divine sovereignty. The most powerful conviction of sin, therefore, is not conclusive evidence of Christian Character.