Part 68

In answer to which, it may be observed, that it was not a small inoffensive error that these prophets of Baal were punished for; but apostasy from God. And that the persons who were thus punished, deserve it, will appear, if we consider,

[1.] That, they were the advisers and ring-leaders of all Israel’s idolatry, and the abettors and principal occasion of that violent persecution, which then raged against the Lord’s prophets, and true worshippers.

[2.] Had they only been false prophets, and not persecutors, they were according to the law of God to be put to death, Deut. xiii. 6,-9.

[3.] This was done after a solemn appeal to God, and an answer from heaven, by fire, which determined, not only who was the true God, but who were his prophets, and consequently whether Elijah deserved death, as an impostor, or Baal’s prophets.

[4.] Ahab himself was present, and all his ministers of state, who had a right to execute justice on false prophets; and, it is highly probable, that they consented to, and many of them had an immediate hand in their death, which might be occasioned by a sudden conviction in their consciences, proceeding from the miracle which they had just before observed, or from the universal cry of the people against them; so that the thing was plainly of the Lord, to whom Elijah brought a great deal of honour, and was far from being chargeable with the breach of this Commandment.

_2dly_, It is farther enquired, whether Abraham’s offering Isaac was a breach of this Commandment? This is proposed as a difficulty by those who do not pay that deference to divine revelation, as they ought, nor consider, that God cannot command any thing which is contrary to his perfections; nor do his people sin in obeying any command that is given by him. However, that this matter may be set in a just light, let it be considered,

[1.] That God, who is the sovereign Lord of life, may take it away, when, and by whom he pleases. Therefore Isaac had no more reason to complain of any wrong or injury done him, by God, in ordering his father to sacrifice him, than any one else has, who dies by his immediate hand, in the common course of providence.

[2.] Abraham could not be said to do this with the temper and disposition of a murderer, which such have, who are guilty of the breach of this Commandment, who kill persons in a passion, or out of envy or malice, being void of all natural affection or brotherly love; but he acted plainly in obedience to God’s command. His hand was lifted up against one whom he loved equally to, or, it may be, more than his own life, and, doubtless, he would rather have been, had God so ordered it, the sacrifice, than the offerer.

[3.] This was done, as is more than probable, with Isaac’s full consent. Hence some think, that his faith was no less remarkable herein than that of Abraham. His willingness to be offered, evidently appears, in that Abraham was in his feeble and declining age, and Isaac in his full strength; for it was not a little strength which was sufficient to carry wood enough to answer this occasion, which we read he did, Gen. xxii. 6. Besides, if Isaac had resisted, none was at hand to assist Abraham against him, and, doubtless, he would have strove in this matter as one who desired to be overcome. Therefore we must suppose, that it is so far from being a breach of this Commandment, that it was one of the most remarkable instances of faith in scripture; and God’s design in ordering him to do this, was, that it might be a type whereby he would lead him into the glorious mystery of his not sparing his own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and of his willingness to lay down his life a ransom for his people.

_3dly_, Some charge Moses with being guilty of the breach of this Commandment, in killing the Egyptian, which we read of in Exod. ii. 11, 12. But, to vindicate him from this charge, let it be considered,

[1.] That the Egyptian, whom he slew, not only _smote an Hebrew_, as it is in this chapter, but he did it wrongfully, as it is observed in Acts vii. 24. there was no offence given, nor just reason for this injurious treatment, and to oppress or abuse one that is in a miserable condition, as the Hebrews were at that time, is an heinous crime in God’s account. Moreover, to _smite_, in scripture, is often taken, for to _slay_; so that it is not improbable, that the Egyptian slew the Hebrew; or if he did not, it might be such an injury as deserved death; which would have been inflicted in another manner, had not Israel been denied, at that time, the protection of the law.

[2.] Moses was, at this time, raised up, and called by God, to be a ruler and a judge, to defend the cause of his oppressed people; and in this action he first began to fulfil his commission; though the people refused to own him, and seemed to join with those that designed him evil for it; for which reason their deliverance was put off forty years longer, while he was an exile in the land of Midian, Acts vii. 24, 26. compared with 30. Now to slay a public enemy and oppressor, and, as it is probable, one who had forfeited his life, and that with a commission from God, to act as a ruler and a judge over his people, cannot be reckoned a breach of this Commandment. Thus concerning the violation of this Commandment, as including in it the murdering of our neighbour.

2. This Commandment is notoriously broken by those who lay violent hands on themselves, which we have no instance of any good man, in scripture, that was ever suffered to do, but only such who were, like Saul, Ahitophel, Judas, and others, of the most infamous character. This is a sin which is attended with many aggravations; For,

(1.) It is to act as though our lives were at our own disposal; which are to be considered as a talent which we are entrusted with by God, to improve for his glory; and he alone has a right to dispose thereof at his pleasure.

(2.) This argues, and arises from, the highest discontent and impatience under the hand of God, which is contrary to that temper, which we ought to exercise as Christians, who profess subjection to him.

(3.) It is contrary to nature, and that principle of self-preservation which God has implanted in us; and, indeed, he that does this, not only acts below the reason of a man, but does that which even brutes themselves are not inclined to.

(4.) It is a giving place to, and gratifying the Devil, who acts agreeably to his character, as a murderer from the beginning, when he tempts men to destroy both soul and body at once.

(5.) It is presumptuous and bold to resolve, that whatever measure of duty God has prescribed for us to fill up in this world, we will serve him no longer. If marshal law punishes deserters with death, is there not a severe punishment due unto those who do, as it were, desert the service of God by self-murder? Nothing is more certain than this, that if duty be enjoined by God, the time in which it is to be performed, is also fixed by him, and not left to our determination.

(6.) It is a rushing hastily into eternity, not considering the consequence thereof, nor the awful tribunal of Christ, before which they must immediately appear, and give an account of this, as well as other sinful actions of life.

(7.) It is done with such a frame of spirit, that a person cannot, by faith, commit his soul into the hands of Jesus Christ; for that requires a better temper of mind than any one can be supposed to have, who murders himself.

Here it may be enquired, since, as was before observed, no good man was ever guilty of this crime, whether Samson did not break this Commandment in pulling down the house upon his own head, as well as the Philistines?

To this it may be answered,

[1.] That Samson’s life, at this time, was a burden to himself, useless to his brethren, a scorn to the open enemy, and an occasion of their ascribing their deliverance to their idol; and probably, it would have been soon taken away by them; which circumstances, though they would not, in themselves, have been sufficient to justify this action; yet they might justify his desire, that God would put an end, to his life, and release him out of this miserable world; especially if this would redound more to his glory than any thing he could do for the future, or had done in the former part of his life.

[2.] It plainly appears, that God, in answer to his prayer, not only gave him leave to take away his own life, together with the lives of his enemies, but he wrought a miracle to enable him to do it; and therefore it was a justifiable action, and no breach of this Commandment, Judges xvi. 28,-30.

3. We shall now consider the heinous aggravation of this sin, of taking away the life of another unjustly, and the terrible judgments that such have ground to expect, who are guilty hereof.

(1.) According to the divine law, this sin is to be punished with death, by the hand of the civil magistrate, Deut. xix. 11, 12. Thus Joab, who had deserved to die for murders formerly committed, was slain, by David’s order, by his son Solomon; though he sought protection by taking hold of the horns of the altar, 1 Kings ii. 28, 29. Many other crimes might be expiated by sacrifices, which God ordained should be offered for that end; whereas, no satisfaction was to be accepted for this sin but the blood of the murderer, Numb. xxxv. 31. And it is a matter of dispute with some, whether kings, who may pardon many crimes, by virtue of their prerogative, can, according to the laws of God, pardon murder, without being supposed to extend their clemency beyond its due bounds?

(2.) God often gives up those who are guilty of the sin of murder, to the terrors of a guilty conscience, which is a kind of hell upon earth; as in the instances of Cain, Lamech, and others, Gen. iv, 13,-15. and 23, 24.

(3.) Such are followed with many remarkable instances of divine vengeance; so that the blast of providence attends all their undertakings. Thus David, after he had killed Uriah, was followed with such rebukes of providence, that the latter part of his life was rendered very uneasy thereby; and what the prophet foretold was fulfilled, that _the sword should never depart from his house_; that is, as long as he lived, 2 Sam. xii. 9, 10.

(4.) The judgments of God for his sin, are oftentimes transmitted to posterity. Thus Simeon and Levi’s murder of the Shechemites, was punished in the tribes that descended from them; who, according to the patriarch’s prediction, were _divided in Jacob, and scattered in Israel_, Gen. xlix. 7. And Saul’s slaying the Gibeonites, was punished in David’s time, by a famine occasioned thereby, 2 Sam. xxi. 1. And the murders which the Jews had committed on the prophets in former ages, were punished in the destruction of their state and nation; when _all the righteous blood_ that had been _shed upon the earth, came upon them_, Matt. xxiii. 35.

(5.) Their lives are often shortened, and they brought to the grave with blood. Thus Absalom perished by the just judgment of God, for the murder of his brother, as well as his other crimes; and in this the Psalmist’s observation holds true, that _bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days_, Psal. lv. 23. We are now to consider,

4. That this Commandment may be broken otherwise than by the taking away the life of our neighbour. It may be committed by a person in his heart, when he has not an opportunity to execute his malicious designs; or is afraid to do it, because of the punishment from men, which will ensue. Thus the apostle says, _Whosoever hateth his brother, is a murderer_, 1 John iii. 15. Of this we have an instance in wicked Ahab; who _hated_ Micajah, because he _prophesied not good concerning him, but evil_, 1 Kings xxii. 9. And, it is more than probable, that this hatred would have broke forth into murder, could he have laid hold on the least shadow or pretence that might have put a colour on so vile an action. And Jezebel was guilty of this sin, who threatened to murder the prophet Elijah, chap. xix. 2. and the Jews, who were filled with malice against our Saviour; for which reason they would have put him to death at that time; but they feared the people, Mark xi. 18. And as this is a sin that reigns in wicked men, there are some instances hereof even in good men. Thus David carried his resentment too far against Nabal, though a churlish and ungrateful man, when he resolved, in his passion, not only to take away his life, which was an unjustifiable action, but to destroy the whole family, the innocent with the guilty, 1 Sam. xxv. 21, 22. and he was sensible of his sin in this passionate resolution, which occasioned his blessing God for his preventing it, by Abigail’s prudent management.

There is another instance of sinful and unaccountable passion, that cannot be excused from a degree of heart-murder in Jonah; who was very angry because God was gracious, and spared Nineveh, on their repentance; and in this fit of passion, he desires that God would take away his life, justifies his anger, and, as it were, dares him to cut him off; which was as bad a frame as ever any good man was in. And all this took its rise from pride, lest some should think him a false prophet, who did not rightly distinguish between what God might do, and would have done, had they not repented, and what he determined to do, namely, to give them repentance, and so to spare them. I say, rather than be counted a false prophet, which, it may be, was a groundless surmise, he was angry with God for sparing it, Jonah iv. 1-4.

Here it will be enquired, whether all anger is sinful, or a breach of this Commandment? To which it may be answered, That since the apostle says, _Be angry and sin not_, Eph. iv. 26. it implies, that there may be anger which is not sinful; but, on the other hand, may rather be styled, a zeal for God. Of this kind was that anger which our Saviour expressed against the Scribes and Pharisees, when he calls them _serpents, a generation of vipers_, Matt. xxiii. 33. and when he whipped the buyers and sellers out of the temple; on which occasion it is said, _The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up_, John ii. 15, 17. And the apostle reproved Elymas the _sorcerer_, who endeavoured to _turn away the deputy from the faith_, with words that seemed full of anger; when he addressed himself to him in this manner; _O full of all subtilty, and all mischief thou child of the Devil, thou enemy of all righteousness; Wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?_ Acts xiii. 10. And Peter could not reprove that vile hypocrite Simon Magus, when he offered to purchase the conferring the Holy Ghost, without expressing some anger and resentment, as the cause required, when he says, _Thy money perish with thee_, &c. chap. viii. 20, 21, yet that he might let him know that it was only zeal to God that provoked his anger, he gives him friendly advice to repent of this his wickedness, ver. 22. From whence we may take occasion to enquire,

(1.) What is the difference between sinful anger or passion, and an holy zeal for God?

[1.] An holy zeal for God, leads us rightly to distinguish between the person reproved, and his actions, that give us occasion for it; so that we hate the sin, but not the person that commits it. Thus the Psalmist says, _I hate the work of them that turn aside_, Psal. ci. 3. But sinful anger is principally directed against the person with whom we are offended.

[2.] The honour of God is the only motive that excites holy zeal; but pride or evil surmise, is generally the occasion of sinful anger. Thus Jehu’s executing the vengeance of God, in cutting off Ahab’s wicked family, was right, as to the matter of it; yet it had a great mixture of ambition, pride, and private hatred of them, as those whom he thought would stand in competition with him for the crown; and for this action he also desires the applause and esteem of the people; and therefore says to Jonadab, _Come with me, and see my zeal for the Lord_, 2 Kings x. 16. so that the one is attended with many Other graces, the other with many sins.

[3.] Holy zeal for God inclines us to express anger against his enemies, with sorrow and reluctancy, as being grieved for their sin, and at the same time desiring their reformation and salvation; but sinful anger meditates revenge, is restless till it has accomplished it, Prov. iv. 16. and pleased with having opportunities of executing it.

[4.] Holy zeal sets aside, or is not much concerned about injuries as directed against ourselves; but as they reflect dishonour on the name of God, or are prejudicial to his interest in the world. With this view it was that David says concerning Edom, _Happy shall he be that dasheth thy little ones against the stones_, Psal. cxxxvii. 9. when at the same time, he professes, that it was for Jerusalem’s sake that he desired the ruin of his enemies, and not his own; for he says, that he _preferred Jerusalem above his chief joy_, ver. 6. Whereas, on the other hand, sinful anger designs or wishes evil to others, to promote our own interest and advantage.

(2.) We shall now consider the aggravations of sinful passion.

[1.] It unfits a soul for holy duties. Accordingly our Saviour advises his people, first to _be reconciled to their brethren, and then come and offer their gift_, Matt. v. 23, 24.

[2.] If attempt to reprove sin, or persuade to duty, in passion, it will tend to take away the force, and hinder the success of the arguments we use.

[3.] It will occasion sorrow and shame, when reflected on in our most serious thoughts.

[4.] It will expose us to Satan’s temptations, and occasion a multitude of sins; therefore the apostle calls it, a _giving place to the Devil_, Eph. iv. 27.

[5.] The smallest injuries are hereby magnified, and our resentments exceed their due bounds. We do not consider, as we ought to do, that the injuries done against us, are very small when compared with the sins we commit, whereby we dishonour God.

[6.] It is opposite to a Christian temper, and very much unlike that frame of spirit, which our Saviour has recommended concerning loving our enemies, Matt. v. 44. and is also contrary to his example, _Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again_, 1 Pet. ii. 23.

[7.] As it is a stirring up our own corruptions, so it tends to stir up the corruption of others, and provoke them to sin, as one flame kindleth another, and hereby increaseth itself, Prov. xxvii. 17.

(3.) We shall farther enquire, how we are to deal with those whom we converse with, who are addicted to passion or anger?

[1.] We are to exercise a calm, meek, and humble disposition, bearing reflections with patience, and replying to them with gentleness; especially when it is more immediately our own cause, and not the cause of God which is concerned herein. _A soft answer turneth away wrath_, chap. xv. 1. _He that is slow to wrath, is of great understanding_, chap. xiv. 29,

[2.] Let us take heed that we do nothing that tends to stir up the passions of any. If a superior is disposed hereunto, let us prudently withdraw from him; if it be an inferior, let us reprove him with faithfulness; if it be in an equal, let us take away the edge of it, by meekness, love, and tenderness towards him, having compassion on his weakness; let us bear injuries without revenging them, and _overcome evil with good_, Rom. xi. 19,-12.

END OF THE THIRD VOLUME.

DR. SCOTT’S

ANSWER TO THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN.

PROPOSALS

BY W. W. WOODWARD, PHILADELPHIA,

_FOR PUBLISHING BY SUBSCRIPTION_,

The Rev. Dr. Thomas Scott’s Remarks

ON

“_The Refutation of Calvinism_,

BY GEORGE TOMLINE, D.D.

LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN.”

The writings of this eminent divine are held in the highest estimation by the pious of various denominations. He is acknowledged to be one of the best advocates for evangelical truth, which the present age has produced. His commentary on the scriptures has passed through three large editions in this country and a fourth, larger than either of the former is now preparing for press by W. W. W. in 3 vols. quarto, 7 dollars per volume, without any marginal references—the notes following immediately after the text.

The work now proposed for publication is a most able and elaborate defence of those doctrines which are commonly called evangelical, and which are by no means peculiar to the Calvinists. The bishop of Lincoln, published what he was pleased to call “a Refutation of Calvinism,” under which “proscribed and odious name,” says the Christian Observer, “he has attacked some of the fundamental points of that faith, which was once delivered to the saints.”

“In this work of the Bishop,” continues the Christian Observer, “he has greatly mistaken and misrepresented the sentiments and the persons he undertook to refute, and in many important points has maintained doctrines contrary to the declarations of scripture.”

Dr. Scott, in his remarks upon this publication of the Bishop of Lincoln, most ably defends that system of religion, which a great body of christians supposed to be contained in the scriptures, from the uncandid and illiberal attacks of its enemies, and obviates the unfounded objections which are so often brought up against it. The reviewers in the _Christian Observer_, after occupying about sixty pages of their miscellany in commenting on the excellencies of Dr. Scott’s “remarks,” conclude their review with the following passage. “We cannot, however, conclude this long extended article, without recommending the study of Dr. Scott’s laborious work to such of our readers as feel interested in these discussions. It will amply repay those who are willing to undertake and patiently to pursue its perusal. If it does not afford, what cannot be expected from any human performance, a satisfactory solution of the difficulties which must ever attend _some_ of the subjects of which it treats, it will be found to contain a large and valuable mass of observations on other most important theological topics; and will, at least, leave on the mind of every unprejudiced reader a strong impression of the extensive scriptural knowledge, the controversial ability, and what is far more estimable than any other qualities and attainments, the christian moderation and charity, and the mature and vigorous piety of its author.”

CONDITIONS.

_The work shall be comprised in two large octavo volumes—answering as a sixth and seventh volume to his Miscellaneous works, published by W. W. Woodward; or will be sold separate in two volumes. It shall be printed on good paper with a fair type, and shall be delivered to subscribers for two dollars and fifty cents per volume, bound, and two dollars and twenty-five cents in boards, payable on delivery of each volume._

_Those who interest themselves in the work and procure five subscribers, they becoming responsible for their subscriptions, shall receive every sixth copy for their trouble._

_The work shall be put to press as soon as a number of subscribers shall have been procured sufficient to warrant the undertaking, Persons holding subscription papers are requested to return them by the first January next, to W. W. Woodward, Bookseller, Philadelphia._

Philadelphia, August 21, 1815.

● Transcriber’s Notes: ○ The author’s archaic punctuation, spellings, and capitalization have been retained. ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a predominant form was found in this book. ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_). ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are referenced.