on God, the temptation soon vanishes away: but if not, if we are EEEλKOμEVOL, (as the apostle James speaks, chap. i, 14,) drawn out of God by our own desire, and deλeasoμevoi, caught by the bait of present or promised pleasures; then that desire conceived in us, brings forth sin; and having by that inward sin destroyed our faith, it casts us headlong into the snare of the devil, so that we may commit any outward sin whatever."*

Here we shall notice but two points;-the one is, that the believer from whose soul "is excluded both inward and outward sin," is nevertheless liable to temptation to sin; and the other, that "sin" does not result from the working of this temptation, till it is brought forth by the action of the desire which is conceived in him. We believe this general doctrine is also strongly expressed by Dr. Clarke, when he says, "That to be tempted, even to the greatest abominations, (while the person resists,) is not sin."+

When these desires are awaked in the mind, and this moral contest commences there, we cannot be told, in the language of the strictures, that the temptation "consists in some perverse or irregular excitant, or in some perverse susceptibility in the appetite or passion excited." When the good man-even the perfect manhungers, but the appetite cannot innocently be gratified; or when he thirsts for knowledge, while the gratification of this propensity conflicts with some higher duty; or when he stands over his dying child, struggling to control his affection, and keep it in submission to the will of his God,-these varied forms of desire are "excited," -"virtue," says Dr. Butler, "cannot prevent their being excited;" and they are excited too, most obviously, as the reviewer says, "by the [very] objects which God has appointed as their natural excitants." These temptations arise from God's appointment, and extend even to the excitement of the deepest feelings of the heart,which excitement is often painful and long-continued; but yet, how great a part of the trials of the good man do they make up! and how is he consoled under them by the assurance, that "when he is tried he shall come forth as gold!"-The peculiar character of the temptations of the sanctified person, is then doubtless this;— that while they tend, in common with the temptations of feebler Christians and of all other men, to the excitement of the desires, he does not allow them to take hold on these desires. He has attained the power of constantly arresting them at this point, and of successfully repelling them. And this single condition, we believe, will meet the requisitions of both Wesley and Fletcher, and

* Sermon on the Privilege of the Children of God.

† See notes on Christ's temptations in the wilderness.

our other standard writers, making only some slight allowance for the difference between the popular and the scientific use of terms. We pause here to inquire,-Is this conclusion in accordance with the nature-may I not say, with the philosophy-of Christian perfection? Let not the reader be startled. Infidelity has long asserted that philosophy is opposed to Christianity; it should be the labor of the Christian to remove so fatal a delusion. The time shall come, when it shall be known and admitted, that true philosophy and Christianity coincide, and form one harmonious and beautiful system.-What, then, is the philosophy of that change which converts the man from the error of his ways, and restores him to the moral image of his God? To understand this we must know the nature of the depravity from which he is to be recovered. And in what does this consist? Has sin attached itself to man's physical nature? Mr. Wesley denies this in the strongest language. It is, then, something connected with the mind. And are we to suppose, that any positive depravity or evil principle was at the time of man's fall implanted or infused into his nature? He who supposes this has first to furnish the proof, and then to reconcile it with the moral character of the Deity. It is much more natural to suppose, that this depravity consists in some irregular action of the original powers of the mind. This is the view of President Edwards, whose authority on this point, it is believed, in no way conflicts with that of our standard authors. His doctrine is, that man was originally created with all the natural appetites, passions, and other principles, which now attach to his nature, and of which we have spoken; but that the principle of divine love then presided over them, and held and maintained supreme dominion in the heart. "While things continued thus," he says, "all things were in excellent order, peace and beautiful harmony, and in their proper and perfect state." But when man broke his covenant with his God, this order, and peace, and harmony were destroyed. The principle of divine love no longer ruled the elements of his nature;

"Because," says he, "it would have been utterly improper in itself, and inconsistent with the covenant and constitution God has established, that God should still maintain communion with man, and continue, by his friendly, gracious, vital influences, to dwell with him and in him after he was become a rebel, and had incurred God's wrath and Therefore immediately the superior divine principle wholly ceased; and thus man was left in a state of darkness, woful corruption, and ruin; nothing but flesh without Spirit. The inferior princi

curse.

See Sermon on Perfection: Works, vol. ii, p. 172.

ples of self-love and natural appetite, which were given only to serve, being alone and left to themselves, of course became reigning principles; having no superior principles to regulate or control them, they became absolute masters of the heart. The immediate consequence of which was a fatal catastrophe, a turning of all things upside down, and the succession of a state of the most odious and dreadful confusion. Man did immediately set up himself, and the objects of his private affections and appetites, as supreme; and so they took the place of God. These inferior principles are like fire in a house, which we say is a good servant, but a bad master; very useful while kept in its place, but, if left to take possession of the whole house, soon brings all to destruction. Man's love to his own honor, separate interests, and private pleasure, which before was wholly subordinate unto love to God, and regard to his authority and glory, now disposes and impels him to pursue those objects without regard to God's honor or law; because there is no true regard to these divine things left in him. In consequence of which, he seeks those objects as much when against God's honor and law, as when agreeable to them. And God, still continuing strictly to require supreme regard to himself, and forbidding all gratifications of these inferior passions, but only in perfect subordination to the ends, and agreeableness to the rules and limits which his holiness, honor, and law prescribe, hence immediately arises enmity in the heart, now wholly under the power of self-love; and nothing but war ensues, in a constant course, against God. As, when a subject has once renounced his lawful sovereign, and set up a pretender in his stead, a state of enmity and war against his rightful king necessarily ensues. It were easy to show how every lust and depraved disposition of man's heart would naturally arise from this privative original, if here were room for it. Thus it is easy to give an account how total corruption of heart should follow on man's eating the forbidden fruit, though that was but one act of sin, without God's putting any evil into his heart, or implanting any bad principle, or infusing any corrupt taint, and so becoming the author of depravity. Only God's withdrawing, as it was highly proper and necessary that he should, from rebel man, being, as it were, driven away by his abominable wickedness, and men's natural principles being left to themselves, this is sufficient to account for his becoming entirely corrupt, and bent on sinning against God."*

Such, then, being the nature of the depravity of the human heart, we are prepared to inquire,-What is necessary to a restoration of man to the moral image of his God, or to make him holy in heart. and in life? Simply the reinstating in his heart the principle of supreme love to God; the consequence of which will of course be, the subjugation of all the other principles of his nature to its control. This answer arises legitimately from the very nature of the case. But in this gracious change, there is not even implied, the

* Edwards' Doctrine of Original Sin, part iv, chap. ii. See also Upham's Men. Phi., vol. ii, §§ 189–196.

destruction, or indeed the entire suspension, of a single faculty of the mind. This view of the nature of Christian perfection is in exact accordance with that of Wesley.

"What," says he, "is then the perfection of which man is capable, while he dwells in a corruptible body? It is the complying with that kind command; 'My son, give me thy heart.' It is the loving the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind.' This is the sum of Christian perfection: it is all comprised in that one word, love. The first branch of it is the love of God: and as he that loves God loves his brother also, it is inseparably connected with the second; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself:' Thou shalt love every man as thy own soul, as Christ loved us. 'On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets:' these contain the whole of Christian perfection."

And the conclusion which we draw from the peculiar nature of this work thus set forth, viz., that none of our natural sensibilities are either destroyed or necessarily suspended in their action, by its influence, is clearly affirmed by the same writer, where he says:— "God would not have us stocks and stones. He would have our affections regulated, not extinguished."t-Thus, however we vary our view of this great subject, the general conclusion at which we arrive is the same. The lamp of truth casts no unsteady light.

It only remains to inquire, how these views apply to the temptations of our Saviour. And to make the application, we need in the first place to see how, in his human nature, he differed from us. He possessed, in the language of the reviewer, "all our natural appetites and passions ;" and we do not perceive that his temptations can differ from those of the good man, except so far as depends on the single consideration, that he was free from all morbid and irregular sensibility arising from the depravity of our natures and from our sinful habits. Without denying, then, that they have any analogy with the temptations which are common to men, I see not how they can differ in their nature from the temptation of our first parents, or from those of the perfect Christian.

But how is this matter set forth in the strictures? We cite the entire passage attributed to Professor Upham, which it seems had been published in the Guide to Christian Perfection, and which is quoted with approbation by the Herald:

"Temptations, it will undoubtedly be conceded by those who have paid attention to the subject, are objects which are presented by the intellect to the sensibilities and the will; and are of such a nature that they have a tendency to induce or cause in those sensibilities, (that is

* Sermon on Perfection: Works, vol. ii, p. 169.

† Sermon on Heaviness through Temptation, vol. i, p. 421.

to say, in the appetites, propensities, and affections,) and also in the will, an inordinate, excessive, or perverted action. The incipient, and what may be termed the innocent stage of the temptation, is when the object which is the medium of temptation is first presented to us intellectually; that is to say, in our mere thoughts or perceptions. Our Saviour was tempted by having the kingdoms and wealth of this world presented before him as objects of desire; but the temptation went no further than the thoughts. It had no effect upon his desires or will; but was immediately rejected. It was necessary that the object of temptation should exist intellectually; in other words, that it should exist in the thoughts, or be perceived and thought of. Without this, viz., the perceived or intellective presence of the object, it is entirely clear that there could not possibly be any such thing as temptation. But the temptation may exist to this extent without sin. The temptations, for instance, to which the Saviour was subjected, were in every instance entirely without sin; for the simple reason that they did not go beyond the thoughts; they did not enter into the emotions and desires; they excited no favorable or assenting feeling; they caused no accordant action of the will; but were instantly and fully repelled. They were not like sparks thrown upon tinder, and kindled into a blaze; but rather like sparks thrown upon the ocean, and instantly extinguished."

Here "temptations" are first defined as "objects which are presented by the intellect to the sensibilities and the will," &c.; while immediately afterward it is said, the temptations to which our Saviour was subjected "went no further than the thoughts,""they did not enter into the emotions,”—“ they had no effect upon his desires or will."-While the first proposition seems clearly to affirm the leading doctrine of the reviewer's theory touching the nature of temptation; it must be admitted, that the subsequent statement in regard to our Saviour's temptation seems as clearly at variance with it.

Now this statement must be explained on one of two hypotheses: -Either, from the nature of our Saviour, his emotions and desires were incapable of excitement by temptation; or, the suggestion being made to his mind in the usual way, the temptation was arrested before it proceeded beyond the "thought," and thus all excitement was cut off.

In regard to the first of these hypotheses, we have seen that it does not seem to be sustained by the nature of the case. It also obviously conflicts with the declaration that "he was in all points tempted like as we are ;"-the addition, "yet without sin," meaning only, as Dr. Clarke supposes, "without feeling or consenting to sin."* And to these considerations we might add, that if this

* See his notes on this passage:—Heb. iv, 15.