Wy Ae , iY i Ua eget Oy. NE Ld hie TD rn A eo a hee Wy Gay. AS Se ay) a CaWhe Leet fe) boyy Debtor e eat none ody: eth nd baa J rin jae } "1 LUBA Pea, ye oy Ho A ahigee ne i Hi or Wviae aubty th Peg 42 A ay Hi i BT apt nah yeh iy ae v, MRLTLAT nM Lips, CDSE Io? PPPS et heed se Bib a: ay fe Y 4 it : a ya Ay ie ty ij ay Pit Teh f al aN ee { Phin hg ee © ¥ Mi bakit rar Bere a TRU G Md A Py nes wey f WAN Rial ip ve nity dy NY wu iy Chk ara La Tah, URE Ae an 1) BR eR TE Chae? Sate ae Ale tat FEE HT . a ui Hf na mn Ha ‘ ae a o a m3 ne ae ah MLE at tat Ta me ea LSS ONY Py A ne ! h AP aa POW VO Pentex bsbea eed? Tea! AN Bik PAT hs Pity ; ye Bh ay MON vit} AAT: , Ae i HN ? ) iy a Ai Wty hee ei) Manary : ah y Nek yy ‘ iy wae H \ aN) 4 f ; a ‘ iu +s : ; xt Cy 3) ' ity PRADO PONE ROR REIN EO e eae ry) »} fy. A Wn hy Nh + Ro ye Pri pe , = wane "< ay 1 - en : mats Mw 5 foe ant “— te te en mee ee = a ——— — rey Fri, ~ i — : ) (i-% 2 ; ’ ¢ r fi ‘ \ ‘ 7 . « 722 ’ . f ‘ + aid £6 & a ‘ hE 2 Food St + fas ty C02) 2 eee ant yap 4 “ “9 " ls ik ts E> f eee stysi | CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. I. SCRIPTURE SCALES, TO WEIGH THE GOLD OF GOSPEL TRUTH, —PART FIRST,—BEING THE SECOND PART OF AN EQUAL,CHECK TO PHARISAISM AND ANTINOMIANISM. ADVERTISEMENT, . ' Page 9 Prerarory Epistie. —Description of a true Protestant—The author’s three protests, ‘ ll Section I. The cause of the misunderstanding of pious Protestants—View of the (zespel axioms or weights of the sanctuary, 23 .—-II. General observations on God’s free grace, and man’s free will—Salvation originally of the former, and damnation of the latter, . 27 III. The golden beam of the Scripture scales—The chains by incl they are suspended, and a rational account of the origin of evil, : 31 IV. Remarks on the terms of the two covenants—Salvation and damnation have two causes—The glory of Christ, and original merit, balanced with the importance of obedience and derived worthiness, . . 34 ~.-V. The importance of faith balanced by that of works, : 39 VI. The moral law of Christ, and that of Moses, one and the same; ae the Sinai covenant an edition of the covenant of grace, Al VII. The doctrine of the preceding section weighed in the Scripture Scales, 53 VIII. What is God’s work, and what our own—The two are balanced, 57 IX. The most wonderful work of free grace, the redemption of the world balanced with the most wonderful work of free will, the obstinate neglect of that redemption, . « 63 ~«\- . * » . ée * 3% ’ * Ae *. ‘ He Aone 0) (OEE ep garnertbot ort ata as. ele PE TE 7 . iw Ria ¥ .7 it $ % cain be ” >a : bed io seme th dary p! 3 Mek etm ed third 44 0 VaR ‘<¥ ae “hj its aoe et Lye? gear. ADVERTISEMENT. Ir is the author’s desire that the following pages should be considered as written for all those whom they exactly suit. And in order to this, he informs the reader that, in general, ZxELoTEs represents any zealous Solifidian, who, through prejudice, looks upon the doctrine of free will as heretical. Honesrus—any zealous moralist, who, through prejudice also, looks upon the doctrine of free grace as enthusiastical. Lorenzo—any man of sense, yet unsettled in his religious principles. Canpipus—any unprejudiced inquirer after truth, who hates bigotry, and would be glad to see the differences among Protestants settled upon rational and Scriptural terms. A Sorrmran is one who maintains that we are completely and eternally saved [sold fide] by sole faith—by faith alone; and who does it in so unscriptural a manner as to make good works unnecessary to eternal salvation ; representing the law of Christ as a mere rule of life ; and calling all those who consider that law as a rule of judgment legalists, Pharisees, or heretics. i? “ A PREFATORY EPISTLE, HUMBLY ADDRESSED TO THE TRUE PROTESTANTS IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. Containing some remarks upon the distinguishing character of true Pro- testants, and upon the contrary disposition—True Protestants are chosen judges of the doctrines advanced in this book—A sketch of the author’s plan—Observations upon the manner in which it is executed—General directions to the reader—True Protestants are encouraged to protest against religious absurdities, and unscriptural impositions—The author enters a double protest against the AnriNom1aN and Puartsatc gospels of the day, and continues to express his love and esteem for the good men, who, through the force of prejudice, espouse and defend those par- tial gospels. Breturen anp Faruers,—Ye know how hard the Romanists fought for their errors at the time of the reformation. ‘They pleaded that antiquity, synods, councils, fathers, canons, tradition, and the Church were on their side: and they so obscured the truth by urging Scripture metaphors, and by quoting unguarded passages from the writings of the fathers, that thousands of simple people knew not which of the contend- ing parties had the truth on its side. ‘The great question debated in those days was, whether the host, that is, the bread consecrated by the priest in the Lord’s Supper, was to be worshipped as the identical body of our Lord. ‘The Romanists produced Christ’s own words: “Take and eat, THis is my body—this is my blood—drink of it. Except you eat my flesh, and drink my blood, ye have no life in you.” ‘The re- formers answered, ‘That those expressions being figurative, it was absurd to take them in a literal sense ;” and they proved their assertion by appeals to reason and to the Scriptures, where the consecrated bread is plainly called bread. The Romanists replied, “that in matters of faith we must set aside reason :” and some of them actually decried it as the greatest enemy to faith ; while others continued to produce crude quota- tions from all the injudicious, inconsistent, overdomg fathers. The reformers seeing that at this rate there would be no end to the contro- versy, protested three things in general: (1.) That right reason has an important place in matters of faith. (2.) That all matters of faith may and must be decided by Scripture understood reasonably, and consistently with the context. And, (3.) That antiquity and fathers, traditions and councils, canons and the Churca, lose their authority when they depart from sober reason and plain Scripture. These three.prcests are the very ground of our religion, when it is contradistinguished from popery. They who stand to them deserve, in my humble opinion, the title of true Protestants ; they are, at least, the only persons to whom this epistle is inscribed. 12 PREFATORY EPISTLE. ~ If the preceding account be just, true Protestants are all candid Christian candour being nothing but a readiness to hear right reason and plain Scripture. Sincerely desirous to “ prove all things, to hold fast that which is good, and to approve things which are excellent,” Protestants are then never afraid to bring their creed to a reasonable and Scriptural test. And conscious that the mines of natural and reyealed religion are not yet exhausted, they think, with the apostle, that if any man supposes he has learned all that he should know, “he is vainly puffed up in his fleshly mind, and knows nothing yet as he ought to know.” Hence it is, that of all the tempers which true Protestants abhor, none seems to them more detestable than that of those Gnostics,—those pretenders to superior illumination, who, under the common pretence of orthodoxy or infallibility, shut their eyes against the light, think plain Scripture beneath their notice, enter their’ protests against reason, steel their breasts against conviction, and are so rooted in blind obstinacy, that they had rather hng error in an old fantastic dress, than embrace the pure truth, newly emerging from under the streams of prejudice. Impetuous streams these, which “the dragon casts out of his mouth, that he may cause the celestial virgin to be carried away by the flood,” Rev. xii, 15. Alas! how many professors are there, who, like St. Stephen’s opponents, judges, and executioners, are neither able to resist, nor willing to admit the truth; who make their defence by “ stopping their ears, and crying out, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we!” who thrust the supposed heretic out of their sanhedrim; who, from the press, the pulpit, or the dictator’s chair, send forth volleys of hard insin- uations or soft assertions, in hope that they will pass for solid arguments; and who, when they have no more stones or snow balls to throw at the supposed Philistine, prudently avoid drawing “the sword of the Spirit,” retire behind the walls of their fancied orthodoxy, raise a rampart of slanderous contempt against the truth that besieges them, and obstinately refuse either candidly to give up, or manfully to contend for the un- scriptural tenets which they would impose upon others as pure Gospel. Whether some of my opponents, good men as they are, have not in- clined a little to the error of those sons of prejudice, I leave the candid reader to decide. They have neither answered, nor yielded to the argu- ments of my Checks. They are shut up in their own city. Strong and high are thy walls, O mystical Jericho! Thy battlements reach unto the clouds ; but truth, the spiritual ark of God, is stronger, and shall pre- vail. The bearing of it patiently around thy ramparts, and the blowing of rams’ horns in the name of the Lord, will yet shake the very founda- tion of thy towers. O that I had the honour of successfully mixing my feeble voice with the blasts of the champions who encompass the devoted city! O that the irresistible shout) «Reason and Scripture, Christ and the truth” were universal! If this were the case, how soon would Jeri- cho and Babylon, Antinomianism and Pharisaism, fall together! ebay Those two antichristian fortresses are equally attacked in the follow- ing pages: and to you, true Protestants, I submit the inspection of the attack. Direct me where I am wrong, assist me where I am right, nor refuse to support my feebleness by your ardent prayers; for, next to the Captain of our salvation, I look to you for help and comfort. 5 My opponents and I equally pretend to Protestantism ; and who shall PREFATORY EPISTLE. 13 judge between us? Shall it be the men of the world? No: for St. Paul says, “I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wIsE MAN among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge among his bre- thren?’”? There are wise men in our despised camp, able to judge be- tween us: and ye are the men, honoured brethren; for ye are all will- ing to hear reason, and ready to weigh Scripture. Therefore, on my part, I sincerely choose you as judges of the present dispute. And that you may not look upon this office as unworthy of your acceptance, permit me to tell you, that our controversy is one of the most important wich was ever set on foot. To convince you of it. 1 need oniy remind you, that the grand inquiry, What shall I do to be saved ? is entirely suspended on this greater question, Have I any thing to do to be eternally saved? A question this which admits of three an. swers: (1.) That of the mere Solifidian, who says, “If we are elect, we have nothing to do in order to eternal salvation, unless it be to be- lieve that Christ has done all for us, and then to sing finished salvation ; and if we are not elect, whether we do nothing, little or much, eternal ruin is our inevitable portion.” (2.) That of the mere moralist, who is as great a stranger to the doctrine of free grace as to that of free wrath ; and tells you “that there is no free, initial salvation for us; and that we must work ourselves into a state of initial salvation by dint of care, dili- gence, and faithfulness.” And (3.) That of the reconciler, whom I con. sider as a rational Bible Christian, and who asserts: (1.) That Christ has done the part of a sacrificing priest and teaching prophet upon earth, and does still that of an interceding and royal priest in heaven, whence he sends his Holy Spirit to act as an enlightener, sanctifier, comforter, and helper in our hearts. (2.) That “the free gift of initial salvation,” and of one or more talents of saving grace, “is come upon all” through the God-man Christ who “is the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe.” And (3.) That our free will, assisted by that sav- ing grace imparted to us in the free gift, is enabled to work with God in a subordinate manner: so that we may freely (without necessity) do the part of penitent, obedient, and persevering believers, according to the Gospel dispensation we are under. This is the plan of this work, in which I equally fight pro aris et focis, for faith and works, for gratuitous mercy and impartial justice ; reconcil- ing all along Christ our Saviour with Christ our Judge, heated Augus- tine with Pelagius, free grace with free will, Divine goodness with human obedience, the faithfulness of God’s promises with the veracity of his threatenings, rrrst with seconp causes, the original merits of Christ with the derived worthiness of his members, and Gid’s foreknowledge with our free agency. : The plan, I think, is generous; standing at the utmost distance from the extremes of bigots. It is deep and extensive; taking in the most interesting subjects about which professors generally divide, such as the origin of evil, liberty, and necessity, the law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ, general and particular redemption, the apostasy and per- severance of the saints, the election and reprobation maintained by St. Paul, &c. I entirely rest the cause upon Protestant ground, that is, upon reagon and Scripture. Nevertheless, to show our antagonists that we are not afraid to meet them upon any ground, I prove, by sufficient testimo- 14 PREFATORY EPISTLE. e nies from the fathers and the reformers, that the most eminent divines, in the primitive Church and our own, haye passed the straits that I point out ; especially when they weighed the heayy anchor of prejudice, had a good gale of Divine wisdom, and steered by the Christian mari- ner’s compass, the word of God, more than by the false lighis hung out - by party men. ; If I have in any degree succeeded in the execution of this reconciling plan, I hope that my well meant attempt will provoke abler pens to exert themselves; and will excite more respectable ines to strike heavier blows, and to repeat them, till they have giveu the finishing stroke to divisions, which harden the world against Christianity, which haye torn the bosom of the Church for above twelve hundred years, and which have hurt or destroyed myriads of her injudicious children; driving some into Pharisaic obedience, others into Antinomian immorality, and not a few into open infidelity or fierce uncharitableness, If a tradesman be allowed to recommend his goods, when he does it in a manner consistent with modesty and truth, shall I be accused of self conceit if | make some commendatory remarks upon the following papers? I venture to do it in the fear of God. And, . 1. They are plain. I deal in plain reason and plain Seripiure ; and when the depth of my subject obliges me to produce arguments that re- quire close attention, I endeavour so to manage them, that they do not rise above the reach of mechanics, nor sink beneath the attention of divines. 2. I have been charged with widening the breaches, which the demon of bigotry has made among religious people; but, if I haye done it, I take the Searcher of hearts to witness, that it has been with such a de- sign as made our Lord bring fire upon the earth,—the fire of truth, to burn the stubble of error, and to rekindle the flame of love. However, if I have, in years past, made a wound rashly, (of which I am not yet con- scious,) in this book I bind it up, and bring the healing, though (to proud or relaxed flesh) painful balsam. This book is entirely written upon a pacific plan. If I sometimes give the contending parties a keen reproof, in obedience to the apostolic precept, “ Rebuke them sharply,” it is only to make them ashamed of their contentious bigotry, that I may bring them to reason the sooner. And if prejudiced readers will infer from thence that I am a bad man, and that my pen distils gall, I forgive their hasty conclusion: I once more send them back to the good men of old, who have reproved far less errors with far greater severity than I allow myself to use: and I ask, if persons, impatient of control, do not always put wrong constr=ctions upon the just reproofs which they are deter. mined to disregard? 3. I hope that, notwithstanding the outcry raised against my former Checks, they have been of some service to such readers as are not steeled against argument and Scripture ; but I flatter myself that, through God’s blessing, this tract will be more useful: I prefer it, at least, far before the others, because it has far more of Gon’s word, far less of mine ; the Scriptures having so large a place in the following sheets, that you will find whole sections filled with balanced, passages, to which, for brevity’s sake, I have added nothing but a few illustrations in brackets [ ] e PREFATORY EPISTLE. 15 4. My method, so far as I know, is new. I have seen several Con- cordances made of Scripture words, but have not yet met with one of Scripture doctrines upon the delicate subjects handled in this book. And I flatter myself that, as whatever throws light upon the Bible has . always met with approbation from true Protestants, you will not despise this attempt to make the seeming contradictions of that precious book vanish away, by demonstrating that they are only wise oppositions, not less important in the world of grace, than the distinction of man and wife is in the world of nature. -5. I hope that you will see, in the following pages, many passages placed in such a light, as to have their force heightened, and their ob- scurity removed by the opposition of the scriptures with which they are balanced ; the passages which belong to the doctrine of FREE GRacE, illustrating those which belong to the doctrine of! FREE wiLL, and vice versa, just as the lights and shades of a picture help to set off each other. I therefore earnestly entreat all my readers, especially those who read much and think little, to take time, and not to proceed to a new pair of scriptures till they have found out the balance of the last pair which they have reviewed. If they deny me this request, my trouble will be lost with respect to them; and, through their hurry, my Scales will de- generate into a dull collection of texts; the very life and spirit of my performance consisting in the harmonious opposition of the scriptures, which prove my capital doctrine, that is, the Gospel marriage of free grace and free will. And that the reader may find out, with ease, in every couple of texts, the hands by which they are joined, and see (if I may carry the allegory so far) the ring, by which their marriage is ascertained, and their gender known, I have generally put in DIFFERENT caaractrers the words on which the opposition or connection of the paired texts chiefly depends ; hoping to help the reader’s mind by giving his eyes a silent call, and by meeting his attention half way. If he ex- erts his powers, and «Si callida verbum Rediderit junctura novum,”* he will, through Gad’s grace, profit by his labour and mine. But I repeat it, he must find out the delicate connection, and harmonious oppo- sition of the paired scriptures which I produce, or my Scales will be of as little service to him as a pair of scale bottoms without a beam would be to a banker, who wants to weigh a thousand guineas. 6. As I make my appeal to true Protestants, I lay a particular stress upon the Scriptures. And there I find a doctrine which, for a long suc- cession of ages, has been partly buried in the rubbish of popery and Calvinism: I mean the doctrine of the various dispensations of Divine grace toward the children of men; or of the various talents of saving grace which the Father of lights gives to heathens, Jews, and Christians. To the obscurity in which this doctrine has been kept, we may chiefly impute the self-electing narrowness, and the wide-reprobating partiality of the Romish and Calvinian Churches. I make a constant use of this important doctrine. It is it chiefly which distinguishes this tract from most polemical writings upon the same subject. It is my key and my * If a delicate connection renders the word new to him. 16 PREFATORY EPISTLE. sword. With it I open the mysteries of election and reprobation ; and with it I attempt to cut the Gordian (should I not say the Calvinian and Pelagian?) knot. How far I have succeeded is yours to decide. If these general observations, O ye true Protestants, make you cast a favourable look upon my Scales; and if, after a close trial, you find« that they contain the reconciling truth, and the on complete Gospel of Christ, rent by Zelotes and Honestus to make the rwo partial gospels of the day; let me entreat you to show what you are, by boldly stand- ing up for reason and Scripture, that is, for true Protestantism. Equally enter your protest against the Antinomian innovations of Zelotes, and the Pharisaic mistakes of Honestus. These two champions have indeed their thousands, and tens of thousands at their feet; and they may unite their adverse forces to oppose you, as Jews and Gentiles did to oppose the Prince of Peace. But resist them with “the armour-of righteous- ness on the right hand and on the left,” and you will in time make them friends to each other and to yourselves; I say in lime, because when peaceful men rush between fierce combatants in order to part them, they at first get nothing but blows. ‘The confusion for a time increases ; and idle spectators, who have not love and courage enough to rush into the danger, and to stop the mischief, say that the peace makers only add fuel to the fire of discord. ‘Thus are the courageous sons of peace “hated of all men” but of true Protestants, for treading in the steps of the Divine Reconciler, whom the two rivals, Herod and Pilate, agreed to set at naught—whom Jews and Gentiles concurred to crucify, inve- terate enemies as they were to each other! He died, the loving Recon- ciler—he died! but by his death “he slew the enmity—broke down the middle wall of partition—of twain made one new man; somaking peace” between Herod and Pilate, between Jews and Gentiles. And so will you, honoured brethren, between Zelotes and Honestus, between the Calvinists and the Pelagians, between the Solifidians and the moralists ; if you lovingly and steadily try to reconcile them. You may indeed be “numbered among transgressors” for attempting it. Your reputation may even die between that of the fool and of the knave—that of the enthusiast and of the’felon: but be not afraid. Truth and the Cruci- fied are on your side. God will raise you secret friends. A Joseph, a Nicodemus, will take down “the hand writing that is against you.” A ~ Mary and a Salome will embalm your name; and if it be buried in obli- vion and reproach, yet it will rise again the third day. . If God is for you, fear not then what man can say of you, or even do to you. Smile at Antinomian preterition: triumph in Pharisaic repro- bation: and when you are reviled for truth’s sake, like blunt, resolute, loving Stephen, kneel down, and pray that the sin of your mistaken opposers may not be laid to their charge. O for the Protestant spirit which animated confessors of old, carried martyrs singing to the stake, and there helped them to clap their hands in the flames kindled by the implacable abettors of error! O for a Shadrach’s resolution! The rich, glittermg image towers toward heaven, and vies with the meridian sun. Nebuchadnezzar, the monarch of the kings of the earth, points at the burning fiery furnace. The princes, governors, captains, judges, coun- sellors, sheriffs, and rulers of provinces, in all their dazzling magnifi- cence, increase the glory of his terror. The sound of the cornet, flute, PREFATORY EPISTLE. 17 harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, recommends the pompous delusion: the enthusiastic multitudes are fired into univer- sal applause. In Nebuchadnezzar’s sense of the word, they are all orthodox ; they all believe the Gospel of the day, “ Great is the Diana of the Babylonians.” be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably, ‘with reverence and copLy FEAR: for our God” is not the God of the Antinomians, but “a CONSUMING FIRE:” i. e. the God who delivered ‘the moral law upon Mount Sinai in the midst of devouring flames, and SECOND. ] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 51 gave a fuller edition of it in his sermon upon the mount, solemnly adopt- ing that law into his own peculiar dispensation, as “the law of liberty,” or his own evangelical law—this very “God is a consuming fire.” He will come in the great day, “revealed in flaming fire, to consume the man of sin by the breath of his mouth, and to take vengeance on all that obey not the Gospel,” whether they despise its gracious offers, or trample under foot its righteous precepts. If Zelotes would attentively read Heb. xii, 14-29, and compare that awful passage with Heb. ii, 2, 8, he would see that this is the apostle’s anti-Solifidian doctrine: but, alas, while the great Pharisaic whore forbids some Papists to read the Bible, will the great Antinomian Diana permit some Protestants to mind it? Should not the preceding observations have the desired effect upon {he reader, I appeal to witnesses. Moses is the first. He comes down from Mount Sinai with an angelic appearance. Beams of glory dart from his seraphic face. His looks bespeak the man that had conversed forty days with the God of glory, and was saturated with Divine mercy and love. But I forget that Christianized Jews will see no glory in Moses, and have a veil of prejudice ready to cast over his radiant face: I therefore point at a more illustrious witness: it is the Lord Jesus. “Behold! he cometh with ten thousand of his saints,” says St. Jude, “to execute judgment upon all ;” and particularly upon those that “sm wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth. There remaineth no more sacrifice for their sins,” says my third witness, “ but a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall de- vour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy ; of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath” despised the Christian dispensation, and “done despite to the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me—the Lord shall judge uis people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God,” Heb. x, 26-31. Thus speaks the champion of free grace. Such is the account which he gives of Christ’s severity toward those who despise his dispensation, —a severity this, which will display itself by the infliction of a punish- ment much sorer than that inflicted on the rebels destroyed by Moses. And are we not come to the height of inattention, if we can read such terrible declarations as these, and maintain that nothing but vinegar and gall flows from Mount Sinai, and nothing but milk and honey from Mount Sion? How long shall we have “eyes that do not see, and hearts that do not understand?” Lord, rend the veil of our prejudices. Let us see “the ‘truth as it is in” Moses, that we may more clearly see “the truth as it is in Jesus.” The balance of the preceding arguments shows that the Mosaic and the Christian covenants equally set before us blessing and cursing ; and that, according to both those dispensations, the obedience of faith shall be crowned with gracious rewards; while disobedience, the sure fruit of unbelief, shall be punished with the threatened curse. I throw this _ conclusion into my Scales, and weigh it before my readers, thus :— 52 BLESSINGS OF THE MOSAIC COVE- NANT, Being the words of Moses. I. Moses said, Consecrate your- selves to-day to the Lord, &c, that he may bestow upon you a Jlessing this day, Exod. xxxii, 29. Behold, I set before you this day a blessing, &c, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord. And it shall come to pass, that thou shalt put the d/ess- ing upon Mount Gerizim, é&c, Deut. xi, 20, 29. “And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligent- ly, &c, that the Lord thy God will bless thee. All these blessings shall overtake thee, &c. Blessed shalt thou be in the city and d/ess- ed in the field, &c. Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed when thou goest out, &c. The Lord shall command the d/ess- ing upon thee, &c. The Lord shall establish thee a holy people to him- self, if thou shalt walk in his ways. And, &c, he shall open to thee his good treasure, Deut. xxviii, 1-12. This is the blessing wherewith Moses, the man of God, dlessed the children of Israel. And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, &c, with ten thousands of saints, from his right hand went a fiery law ; yea, he Joved the people. Let Reu- ben live, and not die. And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim [thy perfections and thy lights] be with thy holy one. And of Napthali he said, O Napthali, Satisfied with ‘favour, and full with the blessing of the Lord, possess thou the west. Happy art thou, O Israel; who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help? Thine enemies shall be found liars, and thou shalt tread upon their high places, Deut. xxxili, 1 to 29. The Lord passed by before Mo- EQUAL CHECK. [parr CURSES OF THE CHRISTIAN bnciagice SATION, tes Being the words of Christ. i) Il. Jesus began to upbraid the cities, wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not. Wo unto thee, Chorazin :— wo unto thee, Bethsaida:—I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon, at the day of. judgment, than for you. And thou Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell, &c. Tsay unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee, Matt. xi, 20, 25. I tell you, Nay ; but except ye repent, ye shall ail likewise perish. Cut it down, [the barren fig tree =] why cumbereth it the gronnd? Let it alone this year also ;—if it bear fruit, well; and if not, then, after that, thow shalt cut, it down, Luke xili, 5, 9. The Lord of that [once blessed but now backsliding| servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and will cut him asunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that ser- vant, who knew his Lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes, Luke xii, 46. Wounto you, hypocrites :—ye shall receive the greater damnation :— ye make a proselyte twofold more a child of hell than yourselves. Wo unto you, ye blind guides—ye fools, and blind—ye pay tithe of mint, and have omitted judgment, mercy, and faith, &c. Fill ye up then the measure of your telfers’: ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Matt. xxiii, 13 to 33. Wo to that man by whom the SECOND.] L. ses, and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gra- cious, long suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping _ mercy for thousands, forgiving ini- quity, transgression, and sin, &c. And Moses made haste, &c, and said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, &c, pardon our iniquity, and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance. And he (the Lord) said, I make a (or the) cove- nant, Exodus xxxiv, 6-10. SCRIPTURE SCALES. 53 I. offence cometh; wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off. It is better to enter into life maimed, rather than be cast into everlasting fire, Matt. xviii, 7, 8. Wo unto you that are rich, &c. Wo unto you that are full, &c. Wo unto you that laugh now, &c. Wo unto you, when all men shall speak well of you, Luke vi, 24. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil—for I was hungTy, and ye gave me no meat, &c, Matt. xxv, 42. I flatter myself, that if Zelotes and Honestus candidly weigh the pre- ceding arguments and scriptures, they will reap from thence a double advantage: (1.) They will no more tread the honour of Christ’s moral law in the dust—no more rob it of its chief glory, that of being a strict rule of judgment. (2.) Honestus will be again benefited by a consider- able part of the New Testament; and Zelotes by a considerable part of the law and the prophets, which (as our Lord himself informs us) “hang on” those very “ commandments” that the Antinomians divest of - their sanction, and the Pharisees of their spirituality. SECTION VII. The doctrine of the preceding section is weighed in the Scripture Scales—According to Christ’s Gospel, keeping the moral law in faith is a svBoRDINATE way to eternal life, and some Protestants are grossly mistaken when they make believers afraid sincerely to observe the commandments, in order to obtain through Christ a more abun- dant life of grace here; and an eternal life of glory hereafter. Ir I have spent so much time in attempting to remove the difficulties with which the doctrine of the law is clogged, it has not been without reason ; for the success of my Checks in a great degree depends upon clearing up this part of my subject. If I fail here, Pharisaism will not be checked, and gross Antinomianism will still pass for the pure Gospel ; fundamental errors about the law being the muddy springs whence the broken cisterns, both of the Pharisees and of the Antinomians, have their constant supplies. Honestus will have an anti-evangelical, Christ- less law, or at least a law without spirituality and strictness ; the law he frames to himself being an insignificant twig, and not the Spirit’s two- edged piercing sword. And Zelotes contrives a Gospel without law; or, if he admits of a law for Christ’s subjects, it is such a one as has only the shadow of a law—“a rule of life,” as he calls it, and Nor a rule of judgment. That at first sight Honestus may perceive the spiritu- ality of the law, and the need of Christ’s Gospel ; and that Zelotes may discover the need of Christ’s law, and see its awful impartiality, I beg 54 EQUAL CHECK. | (pause leave to recapitulate the contents of the last section ; presenting them to” the reader, in my Scales, as the just weights of the sanctuary balancing each other. WEIGHTS OF FAITH AND FREE GRACE. IL When the Philippian jailer cried out, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Paul and Silas said, [accord- ing to the first Gospel axiom,] exactly | WEIGHTS OF WORKS AND FREE WILL. , A Il. When the young ruler, and the pious lawyer, asked our Lord What shall I do to inherit eternal life? He answered them, [accord- Beuteve in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, Acts xvi, "31. ing to the second axiom,] If thou wilt enter into life, KEEP THE Com. MANDMENTS. This do, and thou shalt live, Matt. xix, 17; Luke xviii, 19; x, 28. Here Zelotes, as if he were determined to set aside the left Gospel scale, cries out, “ There is no entering into life by doing and keeping the com- mandments. 'The young ruler and the lawyer were both as great legal- ists as yourself, and Christ answered them according to their error ; the wise man having observed, that we must sometimes ‘answer a fool according to his folly.’” I understand you, Zelotes ; you suppose that one Pharisai¢ fiend had driven the poisoned nail of legality into their breasts, and that Christ was so officious as to clinch it for him. “ Not so,” replies Zelotes, “but I think Christ’s answer was ironical, like that of the Prophet Micaiah, who said one thing to King Ahab, and meant another.” What! Zelotes, two men, at different times and in the most solemn manner, propose to our Lord the most important question in the world. He shows a particular regard for them; and returns them similar answers. When one of them had described the way of obedi- ence, an evangelist observes, that ‘‘ Jesus saw he had answered discreetly, Mark xii, 34. St. Luke informs us that Christ commended him and said, “'Thou hast answered right,” Luke x, 28; and yet you intimate, that not only our Lord’s answers, but his commendations were ironical, In what an unfavourable light do you put our Saviour’s kindness to poor sinners, who prostrate themselves at his feet, and there ask the way to © heaven! If “cursed is he that maketh the blind to wander out of their earthly way ;” how can you, upon your principles, exculpate our Lord for doing this with respect to the blind seekers, who inquire the way that leads to eternal life and heaven ? But this is not all. It is evident, that although from the taunting tone of Micaiah’s voice, Ahab directly understood that the answer given him was ironical ; yet, lest there should be deception in the case, the pro- phet dropped the mask of irony, and told the king the naked truth before they parted. Not so Jesus Christ, if Solifidianism is the Gospel: for although neither the ruler nor:the lawyer suspected that his direction and approbation were ironical, he let them both depart without giving them, or his disciples who were present, the least hint that he was send- ing them upon a fool’s errand. Therefore, if setting sinners upon keep- ing the commandments in faith to go to heaven be only showing them the cleaner way to hell, as Zelotes sometimes intimates, nobody ever SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 55 pointed sinners more clearly to hell than our blessed Lord. This mis- take of Zelotes is so much the more glaring, as the passages which he supposes to be ironical agree perfectly with the sermon on the mount, and with Matt. xxv ; two awful portions of the Gospel, which I am glad the Solifidians have not yet set aside as evangelical ironies. Once more: if our Lord’s direction was not true with regard to the coyenant of grace, it was absolutely false with respect to the covenant of works; for as the ruler and the lawyer had undoubtedly broken the Adamic law of perfect innocence, they never could obtain life by keeping that law, should they have done it to the highest perfection for the time to come. Therefore, which way soever Zelotes turns himself, upon his scheme our Lord spoke either a deceitful irony, or a flat untruth :— I resume the Scales. Tam the Lord* thy God, who brought thee out of the house of bondage. The righteousness of faith speak- eth on this wise :—Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? &c, or, Who shall descend into the deep? &c. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, Rom. x, 5, &c. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Gal. iii, 13. If they that are of the [anti-evan- gelical] law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise of none effect, Rom, iy, 14. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness came by the [anti-evangelical] law ; [or if it came originally by any] law ; then Cunrist is dead in vain, Gal. ii, 21. I, through the law, am dead to the Jaw. Ye are not under the law. Now we are delivered from the law, [both as a cumbrous burden of carnal commandments ; as a heavy load of typical ceremonies ; and as Il. Thou shalt have no other god before me, &c, [to the end of the decalogue. ] This commandment, which I com- mand thee this day, is not, &c, far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go up for us to heaven? &c. Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go over the sea for us? &c. But the word is very nigh unto thee, Deut. xxx, 11, &c. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty, James ii, 12. If ye fulfil the royal law, &c, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” ye do well: for he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy, James i, 8, 13. God sending his own Son, &c, for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in [or by] us who walk not after the flesh, &c, Rom. vill, 3, 4. Do we make void the Jaw through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all, James i, 10. Think not that I am come to * Here observe, that God prefaces the decalogue by evangelically giving him- self to the Jews as their God—a gracious God, who had already “‘ saved them out of the land of Egypt,” Jude 5, and who had a peculiar right to their faith and grateful evangelical obedience. 56 I. an anti-evangelical, Christless cove- nant of works,| Gal. i, 19; Rom. vi, 14; vii, 6. Curist is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that be- lieveth, Rom. x, 4. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Curisr has been evidently set forth, crucified among you, &c? Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Gal. ii, 1, 2. Stand fast in the liberty where- with Curist hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage; [i. e. with the curse of a Christless Jaw, or with the galling yoke of Mosaic rites,] Gal. v, 1. If there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law, Gal. i, 21. [Note. Vo law of works can justify a sinner : he must be justified by grace, or not at all. If he is not crushed into an atom for his native sinfulness, or sent instantly to hell for his first sin ; or if he has an opportunity to repent and turn, all is of grace, and springs from “the free gift,” which “is come upon all men unto justification of life,” Rom. v, 11.] EQUAL CHECK. [PART fl. destroy the law, &c. Verily I say unto you, &e, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the [moral] Jaw till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, é&c, shall be called the* Jeast in the kingdom of heaven, Matt. v, 17. Ye are his servants whom ye obey ; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness, Rom. vi, 16. , We are not without law to God, but under the law to Christ, 1 Cor. ix, 21. Let brotherly Jove continue. He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Love is the fulfilling of the law. Fulfil the law of Christ, Heb. xiii, 1; Rom. xiii, 10; Gal. vi, 2. Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not do the things which I say? Those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, [or who would not receive and keep my law, | bring hither and slay them before me, Luke vi, 46; xix, 27. Awake to righteousness, and sin not, 1 Cor. xv, 34. Except your righteousness shall exceed the right- eousness of the scribes, &c, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven, Matt. vy, 20. As it is writ- ten, He hath dispersed abroad ; he hath given to the poor. His right- eousness remaineth for ever. Now he that ministereth seed to the sower, multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your right- eousness, 2 Cor. ix, 9, 10. And it shall bet our righteousness, if we observe to do all these command. ments, Deut. vi, 25. * Thus apostates (by breaking one of the ten commandments, and not repent- ing a@cording to the privilege, which ‘ the law of liberty” allows in the day of salvation) are Jast, though they were once first. I say apostates ; because our Lord, St. Paul, and St. James, evidently speak of believers, i. e. of persons already in the kingdom of heaven, or in the Christian dispensation. - + The reader will be glad to see what judicious Calvinists make of this pas. sage. Diodati, one of Calvin’s most famous successors, comments thus upon it: SECOND. ] I. ' By the works of the law [when it is opposed to Christ, or abstracted from the promise] shall no flesh living be justified [at any time, | Gal. ii, 16. When you have done all that is commanded you, say, We are un- profitable servants, Luke xvii, 10. SCRIPTURE SCALES. 57 II. In the day of judgment—by thy words thou shalt be justified. ‘The doers of the law [of liberty—the law connected with the Gospel promises] shall be justified, Matt. xu, 37; Rom. i, 10. Cast the unprofitable servant into outer darkness ; there shall be weep- ing and gnashing of teeth, Matt. xxv, 30. If I am not mistaken, the balance of these scriptures stent that, although we are not under the moral law without Christ, yet we are under it to Christ, both as a rule of life and a rule of judgment : or, to speak more plainly, although we shall not be judged by the law of innocence, ‘. e. the moral law abstracted from Gospel promises, yet we shall be judged by the “law of liberty,” i. e. the moral law connected with the promise of the Gospel: an evangelical law this, under which the merci- ful God for Christ’s sake put mankind in our first parents, when he gra- ciously promised them “the seed of the woman,” the atoning Mediator, the royal “ Priest, after the order of Melchisedec.” SECTION VIII. Showing what is God’s work, and what is our own ; how Christ saves us, and how we work out our own } salvation. FIRST SCALE. a Containing the weights of FREE GRACE. The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live, John v, 25. I am come, that they might have tire, and that they might have it more abundantly, John x, 10. You hath he. guickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins, Eph. ii, 1. SECOND SCALE. Containing the weights of FREE WILL. Awake, thou that sleepest, arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light, Eph. v, 14. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, &c, ye have no LIFE in you, John vi, 53. Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life, John v, 40. ‘God, out of his fatherly benignity and clemency, shall accept from us, his children, this endeavour and study to keep his law, instead of a perfect righteous- ness, &c. All this discourse ought to be referred to the’new obedience, &c, which is the plainer, because most of these statutes were concessions, remedies, and expiations for sin.” (Drop. in loc.) Mr. Henry is exactly of the same senti- ment. ‘Could we perfectly fulfil but that one command of loving God with all our heart, &c, and could we say we had never done otherwise, that would be so our righteousness as to entitle us to the benefits of the covenant of innocency, &c. But that we cannot pretend to; therefore our sincere obedience shall be accepted through a Mediator, to denominate us (as Noah was) ‘ righteous before God.” (Henry in loc.) 58 EQUAL CHECK. ; _ [Part I, Il. You being dead in your sins, &c, Thou hast a name that thou liv- hath he quickened together with est, and art dead, &c. Strengthen him, Col. ui, 13. the things that remain, and are ready to die, Rev. ii, 1, 2. Except a man be born again, he Every one that loveth—every one cannot see the kingdom of God, that does righteousness, is bern of John iii, 3. God, 1 John iy, 7; ui, 29. The wind bloweth where it list- | Humble yourselves under the eth, &c, so is every one that is born mighty hand of God, that he may. of the Spirit, John iii, 8. exalt you. For God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the hum- ble, 1 Pet. v, 6, 5. Being born again,not of corrupti- § Wherefore, &c, lay apart all ble seed, but, &c, by* the word of filthiness, &c, and receive,* &c, the God; and this is the word, which ingrafted word, James i, 19, 21. by the Gospel is preached unto you, Whosoever believeth, &c, is born 1 Pet. i, 23, 25. Of his own will of God [according to his dispensa- begat he us with the word of truth, tion,] 1 John vy, 1. As many as James i, 18. réceived him, to them [of his own gracious will] gave he power to be- come the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, John i, 12. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Faith cometh by hearing '[which is our work,] Gal. iii, 26; Rom. x, 17, They [the Bereans] receiyed the word with all readmess of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so; therefore many of them believed : [i. e. received “the ingrafted word,” and by’ that means were “born again” according to the Christian dispensation ;] Acts xvil, 11, 12. Christ our passover is sacrificed Purge out the. old leaven [of for us, 1 Cor. vi, 7. wickedness] that ye may be a new lump. (Jbid.) * How mistaken were the divines that composed the synod of Dort, when speaking of regeneration, they said, without any distinction, (/lam Deus in no- bis sine nobis operatur,) ‘‘God works it in us, without us!” Just as if God be- _ lieved in us without us! Just as if we received the word without our receiving of it! Just as if the sower and the sun produced corn without the field that bears it! What led them into this mistake was, no doubt, a commendable desire to maintain the honour of free grace. However, if by regeneration they meant the first communication of that fructifying, ‘‘saving grace, which has appeared to all men”—the first visit, or the first implanting of ‘‘ that light of life, which en- lightens every man that cometh into the world,” they spoke a precious truth: for God bestows this free gift upon us, absolutely ‘‘ without us!” Nor could we ever do what he requires of us in the scale of free will, if he had not first given _ us a talent of grace, and if he did not continually help us to use it aright when we have a good will. SECOND. ] . = * The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin, 1 John i, 7 By one offering he hath perfect- _ed for ever [in atoning merits] them that are sanctified, Heb. x, 14. He by himself purged our sins. Of the people there was none with him, Heb. i, 3 ; Isa. Ixiii, 3. [Here the incommunicable glory ‘of mak. ing a proper atonement for sin is secured to our Lord.] He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, Heb. ix, 26. Ye are sanctified, &c, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God, 1 Cor. vi, 11. Surely one shall say, In [or through] the Lord have I right- eousness and strength, Isa. xlv, 24. I will make mention of thy right- eousness, even of thine only, &c. My motth shall show forth thy righteousness, and thy salvation all the day, Psa. lxxi, 15, 16. My righteousness is near, my salvation is gone forth, Isa. li, 5. I bring near my righteousness,’ it shall not be far off; and my sal- vation shall not tarry, Isa. xlvi, 13. God sent his Son Jesus to bless you, in turning, &c, you from your iniquities, Acts ui, 26. Him [Christ] hath God exalted to" give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins, Acts v, 31. Be it known unto you, that through this man [Christ] is preach- ed unto you the forgiveness of sins, Acts xxxi, 38. Not by works of righteousness which we have done; but of his mercy he saved us, Tit. in, 5. SCRIPTURE SCALES. 59 I. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners ; and purify your hearts, ye double minded, James iv, 8. Let us go on unto perfection. This one thing I do, &c. I press toward the mark, Heb. vi, 1; Phil. li, 13. Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth. Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency. [The word in vain refers only to a temptation of David when he “ saw the prosperity of the wicked,”] 1 Pet. i, 22; Psa. Ixxiu, 13. Put away the evil of your doing from before mine eyes, Isa. i, 16. If a man purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto ho- nour, sanctified, and meet for the Master’s use, 2 Tim. ii, 21. In every nation he that worketh righteousness is accepted of Him, Acts x, 35. Then [when thou dealest thy bread to the hungry, bringest the poor to thy house, &c,] ten shall thy righteousness go before thee, and the glory of the Lord shall be thy rereward, Isa. lviii, 8. Whosoever does not righteous- ness is not of God, 1 John iii, 10. The Lord rewarded me [David] according to my righteousness, ac- cording to the cleanness of my hands, 2 Sam. xxii, 21. I thought on my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimonies. I made haste, and delayed not to keep thy commandments, Psa. exix, 59, 60. Repent ye, therefore, and be con- verted, that your sins may be blot- ted out, Acts iii, 19. Arise: why tarriest thou? Wash away thy sins; calling upon the name of the Lord, Acts xxii, 16. Except your righteousness ex- ceed the righteousness of the scribes, ye shall zn no case enter 60 E And this is the name whereby he shall be called the Lord our right- eousness, Jer. xxiil, 6. Them that have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteousness of God and our Sa- viour Jesus Christ, 2 Pet. i, 1. Curist is made unto us of God, &c, righteousness, 1 Cor. i, 30. Even for mine own sake will I do it, Isa. xlviii, 11. No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost—the Spirit of faith, 1 Cor. xu, 3; 2 Cor. iy, 13. I will put my Spirit within you, Ezek. xxxvi, 27. I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, Acts ii, 17. Hear me, O Lord, that this peo- ple may know, &c, that thou hast turned their heart back again, 1 Kings xviii, 37. A new heart will I give you, &c. I will take away the stony heart, &c, and I will give you a heart of flesh, Ezek. xxxvi, 26. The preparation of the heart in man is from the Lord. Thou wilt prepare their heart, [the heart of the humble,] Prov. xvi, 1; Psa. x, 17. The Lord will give grace and glory, Psa. lxxxiv, 11. Exceeding great and precious promises are given us; that by these you might be partakers of the Di- vine nature, 2 Pet. i, 4. Come, for all things are now ready, Luke xiv, 17. The Lord will wait to be gra- cious, Isa. xxx, 18. Be not dismayed, for I am thy et I will strengthen thee, Isa. 10. EQUAL CHECK. “self ready. [parr Ik. into the kingdom of heaven, epouce v, 20.- He that does rightcbiiiiiee nal righteous, even as he [Christ] is righteous, 1 John iii, 7. Though Noah, Daniel, and Job: were in it [the place about to be destroyed] they should deliver but their own souls by their righteous- ness, Ezek. xiv, 14. The righteousness of the R1cHT- Eous shall be upon him, Bite xvili, 20. I will for this be inquired of, &c to do it for them, Ezek. xxxvi, 37. Your heavenly Father will give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him—to them that obey him, lake xi, 13; Acts x, 32. Repent and be baptized, &c, inn stand to your baptismal vow,] and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, Acts ii, 38. Take with you words, and turn to the Lord. Turn ye even to me with all your heart, Hos. xiv, 23 Joel ii, 12. ’ Harden not your heart: rend your heart: make you a new heart, for why will ye die? Psa. xev, 8; Joel ii, 13; Ezek. xviii, 31. Nevertheless, there are good things found in thee, in that, &c, thou hast prepared thine heart to seek God, 2 Chron. xix, 3. No good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly. (Ib.) Having therefore these promises, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, 2 Cor. vii, 1. The Lamb’s wife hath made her- Be ye also ready, Rey. xix, 7; Matt. xxiv, 44. Wait on the Lord, &c: wait, I say, on the Lord, Psa. xxvii, 14, David encouraged himself in his God, 1 Sam. xxx, 6. They that wait on the Lord shall renew their strength, Isa. xl, 31. SECOND.] I. Yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness, Isa. xli, 10. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you, Ezek. xxxvi, 25. I the Lord do keep it [the spirit- ual vineyard] lest any hurt it. I will keep it night and day, Isaiah XXVil, 3. I will give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes, Ezek. xi, 20. David my servant shall be king over them; and, &c, they shall walk in my judgments, Ezekiel XXXVH, 24. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto the good works which God [by his word of command, by providential occur- rences, ‘and by secret intimations of his will, wponroi.ace] hath before prepared, that we should walk in them, Eph. ii, 10. God hath saved us, and called us with a holy canine ; not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ before the world began, 2 Tim. i, 9. 1 will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord, Jer. xxiv, 7. SCRIPTURE SCALES. 61 Il. Cursed is the man that maketh flesh his arm, Jer. xvii, 5. Cast © thy burden upon the Lord, and he will sustain thee, Psa. lv, 22. Wash ye, make you clean, Isa. i, 16. O Jerusalem, wash thy heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved, Jer. iv, 14. Keep thyself pure, 1 Tim. v, 22. Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life, Prov. iv, 23. What does the Lord require of thee but, &c, to walk humbly with thy God? Micah vi, 8. And-_ Enoch* set himself to walk with God, Gen. v, 24. He that saith he abideth in him, [God manifested in the flesh,] ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked, 1 John i, 6 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them and mercy, Gal. vi, 16. That they might set their hope in God, &c, and not be as their fathers, a stub- born generation, &c, that set not their heart aright, &c, and refused to walk in his law. But as for me, I will walk in mine integrity, Psa. Ixxvili, 7, 10; xxvi, 11. The grace of God, that bringeth salvation, hath appeared unto - all men, teaching us that we should live soberly, &c. Give diligence to make your cattine sure. How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? Titus ii, 11, 12; 2 Pet. i, 10; Heb. ii, 3. Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord, Hos. vi, 3. * The word in the original is in the conjugation Hithpahel, which signifies to cause one’s self to do a thing. Our translation does not do it justice. Nor can Zelotes reasonably object to the meaning of the word used by Moses, unless he can prove that Enoch had no hand, and no foot, in his walking with God; and that God dragged him as if he had been a passive cart, or a recoiling cannon. However, I readily grant that Enoch did not set himself to walk with God without the help of that “saving grace, which has appeared to all wen,” and which so many ‘receive in vain.” $2 I. I will put my fear in their hearts, Jer. xxxii, 40. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, Deut. xxx, 6. Iwill put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, Jer. xxxi, 33. We love him, because he first loved us, 1 John iv, 19. By grace ye are savep, through faith ; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, Eph. ii, 8. It is of faith, that it might be by grace, Rom. iv, 16. Not for thy righteousness, &c, dost thou go and possess their land, Deut. ix, 5. Not of works, lest any man should boast, Eph. ii, 9. Thou hast hid those things from the wise and prudent, [in their own eyes, | and revealed them unto babes, Luke x, 21. EQUAL CHECK. _ [Parr Il. They shall not find me, &c, for that they did not choose the fear of the Lord, Prov. i, 29. \ Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, Deut. x, 16. Let every man be swift to hear, &c. Receive with meekness the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls, James i, 19, 21. Thy word have I hid in my heart, Psa, cx ie The Father loveth you, because ye have believed, John xvi, 27. Believe, &c, and thou shalt be SAVED, Acts xvi, 81. Receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. vi, 1. Looking diligently lest any man fail of [or be wanting to] the grace of God, Heb. xii, 15. Inherit the kingdom, &c, for I was hungry, and ye gave me meat, &c, Matt. xxv, 34. Charge them, &c, to do good, &c, that they may lay hold on- eternal life, 1 Tim. vi, 17, &c. Who is wise, and he shall under- stand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? Hos. xiv, 9. None of the wicked shall under- stand, but the wise shall understand, Dan. xii, 10. If I am not mistaken, the balance of the preceding scriptures shows that Pharisaism and Antinomianism are equally unscriptural; the har- Monious opposition of those passages evincing, (1.) That our free will is subordinately a worker with God’s free grace in every thing but a proper atonement for sin, and the first implanting of the light which enlightens every man that comes into the world: such an atonement having been fully completed by Christ’s blood, and such an implanting being entirely performed by fis Spirit. (2.) That Honestus is most dreadfully mistaken, when he makes next to nothing of free grace and her works. (3.) That Zelotes obtrudes a most dangerous paradox upon the simple, when he preaches finished salvation in the Chrispian sense of the word. And (4.) That St. Paul speaks as the oracles of God, when he says, “ God worketh in you, &c, therefore work ye out your own salvation.” ~- SCRIPTURE SCALES. 63 SECOND.] SECTION IX. Displaying the most wonderful work of free grace, thé general redemp- tion of the lost world of the ungodly by Jesus Christ : and the most astonishing work of free will, the obstinate neglect of that redemp- tion, by those who do despite to the Spirit of grace. Hlonestvs has such high thoughts of his uprightness and good works, that he sometimes doubts if he is a lost sinner by nature, and if the vir- tue of Christ’s blood is absolutely necessary to his justification. And the mind of Zelotes is so full of absolute election and reprobating par- tiality, that he thinks the sacrifice of Christ was confined to the little part of mankind which he calls “the Church, the pleasant children, Israel, Jacob, Ephraim, God’s people, the elect, the little flock,” &c. Those happy souls, if you believe him, are loved with an everlasting love, and all the rest of mankind are hated with an everlasting hate. Christ never bled, never died for these. God purposely let them fall nm the first Adam, and absolutely denied them all interest in Christ the second Adam, that they might necessarily be wicked and infallibly be damned, “to illustrate his glory by their destruction.” To rectify those mistakes; to show Honesius that ail men, without exception, are so wicked by nature as to stand in need of Christ’s atoning blood ; and to convince Zelotes that Christ was so good as to shed it for all men, without exception ; I throw into my Scales some of the weights stamped with general redemption: I say some, because others have already been produced in the third section. How att men are temporally re- deemed by Christ’s blood. THE WEIGHTS OF FREE GRACE. Nore. General redemption by price and free grace cannot fail, be- cause it is entirely the work of Curist, who does all things well. We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels [i. e. was made man] for the suffering of death, &c, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man, Heb. ii, 9. f When we were yet without strength, Christ died for the ungod- ly, Rom. y, 6. The Son of man is come to save that which is lost, Luke xix, 10. Behold ithe Lamb of God, that, taxeth away the sin of the world, John i, 29. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, &c, that the Why some men are not eternally redeemed by Christ’s Spirit. THE WEIGHTS OF FREE WILL, Nore. General redemption by power and free will can and does fail, because many refuse to the last, subordinately “to work out their own salvation.” As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live ;—iurn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Ezek. xviii, 23 ; xxxiii, 11. And row, &c, judge, I pray you, between me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now I will, &c, lay it waste, &c, I will also command the clouds 64 EQUAL I. world through him might be saved [upon Gospel terms,] John iii, 16, 17. This is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world, John iv, 42. We have seen and do testify, that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world, 1 John ivy, 14, Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people ; for unto you is born, &c, a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, Luke ii, 10, 11. Christ is our peace, who hath made both [Jews and Gentiles] one, &c, that he might [on his part] reconcile both unto God by the cross, Eph. ii, 14,16. [Now Jews and Gentiles are equivalent to the world.| God was in Christ re- conciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, [when they believe,] 2 Cor. v, 10. It pleased the Father, &c, having made peace by the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself, by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, &c, hath he reconciled, &c, through death, to present you holy, &c, zf ye con- tinue in the faith, &c, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, &c, which is preached to every creature that is under heaven, Col. i, 19, 23. We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe : [because such obediently submit to the terms of evernal salvation ; for initic] salva- tion depends on no terms on our part,] 1 Tim. iv, 10. The philanthropy [or] kindness of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Tit. iii, 4. The bread of God giveth life unto the world : the bread that I will give for the life of the world, John vi, 33, 51. CHECK. _ [PaRT II. . that they rain no rain uponit. For the vineyard of the Lord is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant plant; and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry, Isa. vy, 3, 7. They have turned unto me the back, and not the face ; though I taught them, rising early, Jer. xxxil, 33. And now, because ye have done all these works, saith the Lord, and I spake unto you, rising up early, and speaking, but ye heard. not ; and | called you, but ye answered not ; therefore, é&c, I will cast you out of my sight, &c ; therefore pray not for this people, &c, for I will not hear thee, Jer. vii, 18, 15, 16. Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, my Father, &c? Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? &c. And I said, after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me ; [return unto me, for I have redeemed thee, Isa. xliv, 72,] but she returned not. And, &c, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel commit- ted adultery, I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the har- lot also, Jer. ii, 4—8: If thou wilt receive my words, &c, so that thou incline thine ear to wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding, &c, then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord; and find the knowledge of God, Prov. ii, 1, &e. As the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave to me the whole house of, Israel, saith the Lord; that they might be unto me for a people, é&c. but they would not hear. Therefore . BECOND.] Jesus said, I am the light of the world. I came, &c, to save the world, John viii, 12; xii, 47. That the world may believe thou hast sent me, John xvii, 21. Thisisa faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, [or, of all men to be received] that Christ came into the world to save* sinners, of whom I am chief, 1 Tim. i, 15. I exhort, that first of all supplica- tions, &c, and giving of thanks be made for all men, &c, for this is good and acceptable, [not in the sight of Zelotes,] but in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is, ésc, one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all, &c. I will, therefore, that men pray every where, &c, without doubting, Labi ae. Mine eyes have seen [Christ] thy salvation, which thou hast pre- pared before the face of all people, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel, [z. e. the Jews,] Luke ti, &c. It is a light thing that thou shouldst be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, [%. e. the Jews,] &e. I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth, Isa. xlix, 6. God, &c, preached before the Gospel to Abraham, saying, In thee, [7. e. thy SCRIPTURE SCALES. 65 Il. &c, I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them, Jer. xiii, 11, 12, 14. This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that [actually] does evil, hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth, cometh to the light, John iii, 19, &c. Jeshurun, [%. e. the righteous, ] waxed fat and kicked, &c. He forsook God, &c, and lightly es- teemed the rock of his salvation, &c. They sacrificed to devils, é&c. And, when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons and daugh- ters. And he said, I will hide my face from them, &c, for a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn to the lowest hell, é&c. I will spend mine arrows upon them, Deut. xxxii, 15, 23. Because I have called, and ye refused, I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded ; but ye have set at naught all my counsel, and would none of my reproof; I also will mock when your destruction cometh as a whirl- wind. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer, &c ; for that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord, &c, Prov. i, 24, &c. . If ye walk contrary to me, &c, I will bring seven times more plagues upon you, &c. And if ye will not be * If Christ came to save sinners, yea, the chief of sinners, did his goodness, impartiality, equity, truth, and holiness, permit him unconditionally to reprobate: any sinner Jess than the chief? And if he came to save sinners, the chief not excepted, why does Zelotes except all that die in unbelief ? If they do not believe, and do their part as redeemed souls, is it right to infer that Christ did not die for them and do his part as the Redeemer or Saviour of all men? Especially since the Scriptures testify that eternal salvation is suspended on our works of faith ;, and that the reprobates perish, because they ‘‘deny in works the Lord that bought them ?” Vou. II. 5 6 seed, which is Christ] shall all na- tions [yea] all families of the earth be blessed, Gal. ii, 8, 16; Gen. xii, 3. In him [the Word made flesh] was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light shineth [even] in the darkness, &c, [that] com- prehended it not. John came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men through it [dV aurs gwiog] might believe, &c. That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, John i, 4, &c. EQUAL CHECK. [PART Il. reformed by these things, I will punish you yet seven times, &c. And if ye wili not for all this hearken to me, &c, I will cast down your carcasses upon the car- casses of your idols, &c, and my soul shall abhor you, Ley. xxvi, 21-30. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit [during the day of salva- tion] he taketh away, &c, and it is withered, and men gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned, John xv, 2-6. Ye shall bow down to the slaughter, because when I called ye did not answer, Isa. lxv, 12. From the preceding scriptures it appears, that as in a vine some branches are nearer the root than others; so among mankind some men have a stronger and more immediate union with Christ than others ; but, so long as their day of salvation lasts, all men have some interest in him; there being as many ways of being in Christ, as there are dis- pensations of Gospel grace. That infants are interested in him, seems evident from Rom. v, 18, and Mark x, 14: and that Cornelius, for ex ample, was in Christ as a just heathen, before he was in him as a Jew- ish proselyte, much more before he’was in him as a Christian believer, is not less evident from Matt. xxv, 29; Psa. 1,23; Luke xvi,10,11. But when the expression, bezng in Christ, is taken in its most confined sense, ‘as it is in some of the epistles, it means a being so fully acquainted with, ‘and so intimately united to Christ, as to enjoy the privileges peculiar to the Christian dispensation, like Cornelius, when he had believed the Gospel of Christ, and was baptized with the Holy Ghost. To say that he was in every respect without Christ before, is to strike a blow at the root: it is to suppose that a man can be accepted out of the Beloved, work righteousness without Christ’s assistance, and “ bring forth fruits meet for repentance,” in a total separation from the vine. Thus itis, how- ever, that the Solifidianism of Zelotes meets with the Pharisaism of ‘Honestus. I. Il. All men should honour the Son [have purged thee [I have done -[by believing on him,] John v, 23. I will draw all men to me, John xil, 32. The free gift came upon all men, Rom. y, 18. The saving grace of God hath appeared unto all men, Tit. ii, 11. God giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, Jamesi, 5. The Lord is good ito all gt loving to every man] the part of a Saviour] and thou wast not purged: [thou hast not done the part of a penitent sinner, | Ezek. xxiv, 18. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door [by the obedience of faith] I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me, Rey. iii, 20. SECOND.] 4 and his tender mercies are over all his works, Psa. cxlv, 9. If one died for all, then were all dead. He died for all, that they which live, should, &c, live to him who died for them, 2 Cor. v, 14, 15. He is despised and rejected of men, &c. We [men] esteemed him not, &c. Surely he was wounded for our transgressions, &c, and with his stripes we .are [initally, and his seed, persevering believers, completely] healed. All we [men] like sheep have gone astray: we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all, &c. He poured out his soul unto death, &c ; he bore the sin [o»35] of the* multitudes, and made inter- cession for the transgressors, Isa. iti, 8-6, 12. If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous : and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, 1 John ui, 1, 2. GENERAL REDEMPTION and FREE GRACE are the gracious spring whence flow the general, sincere, and rational missions, Gospel calls, commands, exhortations, and expos- tulations which follow. God hath reconciled us to him- SCRIPTURE SCALES. ° 67 Of a truth I perceive that God 1s no respecter of persons, Acts x, 34. If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, James ii, 9. It is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who, without respect of persons, judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear; forasmuch as ye know that ye were redeemed, &c, with the precious blood of Chiist, | 1 Pet. i, 17, 18. [How different is this Gospel from the Gospel of the day! And if to elect and to reprobate is to judge that myriads of unborn people shall be eternally loved or hated without any respect to their tempers and actions, what can we say of doctrines, which fix upon God the spot that Solomon describes in the following words?] It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment. He that says to the wicked, Thou art right- eous, [or he that says to what is not, Thou art wicked, and I uncon- ditionally appoint thee for eternal destruction,| him shall the people curse: nations shall abhor him, Prov. xxiv, 23, 24. Through the LIBERTY OF OUR WILL we may IMPROVE Or NEGLECT so great redemption ; we may make, or refuse to make our sincere elec- tion and rational calling sure; as appears from the following scrip- tures :— We pray you, in Christ’s stead, be. * The first signification of the Hebrew word 72 (BR) is a multitude; and as Isaiah uses it in the plural number, I hope Zelotes will not think that I take an undue liberty, when I render it the multitudes: namely, the multitudes of “transgressors” mentioned in the same yerse; or the multitudes of men that ‘have turned every one to his own ways.” See verses 3, 6. P 68 I. self by Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. v, 18, Him [Christ] God hath exalted to give repentance to Israel—[and] to the Gentiles, [i. e. to all man- kind, who are made up of Jews and Gentiles,] Acts v, 31; xi, 18. [Hence it is that] God now com- mandeth all men every where to re- pent; because he will judge the world in righteousness, Acts xvii, 30, 31. Thou [Paul] shalt be his [Christ’s] witness unto all men. To make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery [of redeeming and sane- tifying love,] Acts xxii, 15; Eph. ill, 9. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth, Isa. xlv, 22. Come unto me, all ye that tra- vel [with sin] and are heavy laden [with troubles] and I will give you rest, Matt. xi, 28. Jesus spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in hea- ven, and in earth: go ye therefore and teach [proselyte] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the - Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [A sure proof this that the Son has redeemed all nations, and purchased for them the influ- ences of the Holy Ghost, Matt. xxviii, 18, 19.] Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, &c, and they went forth preaching every where, Mark xvi, 15, 20. Whoso- ever will, let him take of the water of life freely, Rev. xxii, 17. The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that alJ should come to repentance, 2 Pet. iu, 9. Come now [ye rulers of Sodom, ye people of Gomorrah] and let us reason together, saith the Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as SNOW, &c. Ye shall eat the good of the land, Isa. i, 10, 18, 19. EQUAL CHECK. [PART Il. ye reconciled to God, 2 Cor. vy, 20. And they all, with one consent, began to make excuse, &c. 1 have married a wife, and therefore I can- not come, é&c. Then the master of the house being angry said, &c, None of those men, who were bid- den [or called, and refused to make their calling and election sure] shall taste of my supper, Luke xvii, 18. How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in scorning? and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my re- proof: behold, I will pour out my Spirit unto you, Proy. i, 22,23. * I am the Lord thy God, &c, open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it. But my people would not hearken to my voice, and Israel would none of me, Psa. Ixxxi, 10, 11. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, Deut. xxx, 19. Mary hath chosen the good part, Luke x, 42. Choose you this day whom ye will serve, &c, but as for me, and my house, [we have made our choice] we will serve the Lord, Josh. xxiv, 15. He that rejecteth me, &c, hath one that judgeth him. The word [ot the Gospel] that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day, John xii, 48. We will not have this man to reign over us. ‘Those, ~ &c, who would not that I should reign over them, slay them before me, Luke xix, 14, 27. If ye be willing and obedient, &c. But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword ; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, verses 19, 20. SECOND.] I. Ho, every one that thirsteth [for life and happiness] come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money ; come ye, buy wine and milk, with- out money and without price. In- cline* your ear, hear, and your soul shall live ; and I will make an ever- lasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David, &c. Seek ye the Lord while he may be found ; and call upon him while he zs near. Let the wicked forsake his way, &c, and return unto the Lord, for he will abundantly pardon, Isa. lv, 1-7. Wisdom standeth in the top of high places: she crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, &c, Unto ~you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men, &c. Hear, for I will speak excellent things, &c. Receive my instruction, rather than choice gold, &c. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls; for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light, Prov. vii, 2, &c ; Matt. xi, 29, 30. All the people [of bloody devoted Jerusalem] ran together unto them [Peter and John :] and when Peter saw it, he answered, Ye [all the people] are the children of the coye- nant, which God made, saying to Abraham, “And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.” Unto you [all the people] first [as being Jews] God, &c, sent his Son Jesus to bless you [all the people] by turning away every one of you from his iniquities, Acts iu, 9, 11, 12, 25, 26. SCRIPTURE SCALES. 69 II. Thus spake the Lord of hosts, &c. But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his Spirit, &c. Therefore it is come to pass, that as he cried, and they would not hear; so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the Lord of hosts, Zech. vii, 8, 13. I also will choose their delusions, &c, because when I called, none did answer ; when I spake, they did not hear; but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not, Isa. Ixvi, 4. The Jews were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul; con- tradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God [the Gospel of Christ] should first have been spoken to you: but, seeing ye put it from you, and judge your- selves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles: for so hath the Lord commanded, Acts xiii, 45, 46. [Query. How could it be neces- sary “ that the Gospel should first be spoken to those Jews,” if God had eternally fixed, that there should be no Gospel,—no Saviour, for them 7] . * Zelotes represents the ‘‘ sure mercies of David,” and “‘ the everlasting cove- nant,” as absolutely unconditional. But I appeal to Candidus: does not this passage mention four requisites on our part? Inclining our ear: hearing: seek- ing the Lord: and forsaking our wicked way? And do not we accordingly find, Acts xiii, 34, that many of those to whom St. Paul offered those ‘“‘ sure mercies,” missed them by ‘‘ contradicting,” instead of ‘inclining theirear?” 70 E To whom [the Gentiles] I send thee to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God ; that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them who are sanctified by faith that is in me, Acts xxvi, 17, 18. Behold, Now is the accepted time! behold, now is the day of salvation, 2 Cor. vi, 2. Where- fore, beloved, account that the long suffering of the Lord is salvation ; even as our beloved brother Paul also hath written to you [in the next passage,| 2 Pet. ii, 9, 15. De- spisest thou the riches of God’s goodness, and forbearance, and long suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance, and of consequence to eternal salvation? Rom. ui, 4. This is one of the “ clouds of Scripture witnesses, EQUAL CHECK. [PART II. Them that perish because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusions, &c, that they all might be damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in un- righteousness, 2 Thess. ii, 10, &c O Jerusalem, &c, how often would I have gathered together thy children [among whom were the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees] as a hen doth gather her brood un- der her wings, and ye would not? Luke xiii, 34. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Behold, I will bring upon this city, &c, all the evil that I have pronounced against it; be. cause they have hardened their necks that they might not hear my words, Jer. xix, 15. The Lord is our God, and we are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand. ‘To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts as in the provocation, &c, when your fathers saw my works. Forty years long I was grieved with that generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their hearts, &c.— To whom I sware in my wrath, that they should not enter into my rest, Psa. xlv, 7, &c. ” which we produce in favour of redeeming free grace and electing free will. To some peo- ple this cloud appears so big with evidence, and so luminous, that they think Honestus and Zelotes, with all the admirers of Socinus and Calvin, can never raise dust enough to involve it in darkness, at least before those who have not yet permitted prejudice to put out both their eyes. It is worth notice, that Honestus has not one Scripture to prove that any man can be saved without the Redeemer’s atonement. On the contrary, we read that there is salvation “in no other;” that there is “no other name,” or person, “‘ whereby we must be saved ;” and that “0 man cometh to the Father but by him—the light of the world, and the light of men.” And it is remarkable, that although the peculiar gospel of Zelotes is founded upon the doctrine of a partial atonement, there is not in all the Bible one passage that represents “the world” as being made up of the elect only ; not one text which asserts that Christ made an atonement for one part of the world exclusively of the other ; no, nor one word which, being candidly understood according to the con- SECOND. ] SCRIPTURE SCALES. int text, cuts off either man, woman, or child from the benefit of Christ’s redemption; at least so long as the day of grace and initial salvation lasteth. Nay, the very reverse is directly or indirectly asserted: for our Lord threatened his very apostles with a hell, ‘where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched,” if they did not “ pluck out the offending eye.” St. Peter speaks of those who “bring swift destruc- tion upon themselves by denying the Lord that bought them.” And St. Paul mentions “destruction of a brother for whom Christ died ;” yea, and the “much sorer punishment of him who had trodden under foct the Son of God, had counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, [and consequently redeemed,] an unholy thing, and had done despite to the Spirit of grace,” by which Spirit he and other apostates «were once enlightened, and had tasted the heavenly gift—the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,” Heb. x, 29; vi, 4. Hence it appears, that of all the unscriptural doctrines which preju- diced divines have imposed upon the simple, none is more directly con- trary to Scripture than the doctrine of Christ’s particular atonement.— An Arian can produce, “ My Father is greater than I;” and a Papist, «This is my body,” in support of their error; but a Calvinist cannot preduce one word that excludes even Cain and Judas from the tem- porary interest in Christ’s atonement, whereby they had “the cay of initial salvation,” which'they once enjoyed and abused. The tide of Scripture evidence in favour of general redemption is so strong, that at times it carries away both St. Augustine and Calvin, not- withstanding their particular resistance. The former says, A%grotat humanum genus, non morbis corporis, sed peccatis. Jacet toto orbe ter- rarum ab oriente usque ad occidentem grandis egrotus. Ad sanandum grandem egrotum descendit omnipotens Medicus. (Aue. De Verbis Domini, Sermon 59.) “ Manxxinp is sick, not with bodily diseases, but with sins. The nueEe paTIeNnT lies ALL THE WORLD over, stretched from east to west. To heal the huge patient, the omnipotent Physician descends from heaven.” As for Calvin, in a happy moment, he does not scruple to say: Se rori mMuNDO propitium ostendit, cum sine excep- tione omnes ad Christi fidem vocat, que nihil aliud est quam ingressus in vitam. (Cau. in Job, ili, 15, 16.) “God shows himself propitious to ALL THE WORLD, when he, without exception, invites ALL MEN to be- lieve in Christ ; faith being the entrance into life.” Agreeable to this, when he comments upon these words of St. Paul, “There is one Me- diator between God and men, the man Christ,” he says with great truth: Cum itaque ComMUNE mortis sue beneficium omntBUs esse velit, injuriam uli faciunt, qui opinione sua quempiam arcent a spe salutis. (Catv. in 1 Tim. ui, 5.) “Since therefore Christ is willing that the benefit of his death should be common To atu MEN; they do him an injury, who, by their opinion, debar any one from the hope of salvation.” If, Calvin himself being judge, “they do Christ an injury, who by their opinion debar any one from the hope of salvation,” how great, how multiplied an injury does Zelotes do to the Redeemer, by his opinion of particular redemption ; an opinion this, which effectually debars all the unre- deemed from the least well grounded hope of ever escaping the dam- nation of hell, be their endeavours after salvation ever so strong and ever so many. 72 EQUAL CHECK. [PaRT As I set my seal with fuller confidence to the doctrine of our Lord’s Divine carriage upon the cross, when I hear the centurion who headed his executioners cry out, “Truly this was the Son of God:” so I em- brace the doctrine of general redemption with a fuller persuasion of its truth, when I hear Calvin himself say, “Forasmuch as the upshot of a happy life consists in the knowledge of God, lest the door of hap- piness should be shut against any man, God has not only implanted in the minds of men, that which we call THE sEED OF RELIGION; but he has likewise so manifested himself in all the fabric of the world, and presents himself daily to them in so plain a manner, that they cannot open their eyes, but they must needs discover him.” His own words are: Quia ultimus beate vite finis in Dei cognitione positus est, ne cut preclusus esset ad felicitatem aditus, non solum hominum mentibus in- didit illud, quod dicimus RELIGIONIS SEMEN ; sed ita se patefecit in toto mundi opificio, ac se quotidie palam offert, ut aperire oculos nequeant quin eum aspicere cogantur. (Inst. lib. i, cap. 5, sec. 1.) Happy would it have been for us, if Calvin the Calvinist had been of one mind with Calvin the reformer. Had this been the case, he would never haye encouraged those who are called by his name to despise “ THE SEED OF RELIGION which God has implanted in the minds of men, lest the door of happiness should be shut against any one.” Nor would he incon- sistently kave taught his admirers to do Christ, and desponding souls, that very “injury,” against which he justly bears his testimony in one of the preceding quotations. Although Zelotes has a peculiar veneration for Austin and Calvin, yet when they speak of redemption as the oracles .of God, he begs leave to dissent from them both. To maintain, therefore, even against them, his favourite doctrine of absolute election and preterition, he advances some objections, three or four of which deserve our attention, not so much indeed on account of their weight, as on account of the great stress which he lays upon them. Oxsection First. “You assert,’ says he, “that the doctrine of general redemption is Scriptural, and that no man is absolutely repro- bated: but I can produce a text strong enough to convince you of your error. Ifthe majority of mankind were not unconditionally reprobated, our Lord would at least have prayed for them: but this he expressly refused to do in these words, “I pray for them [my disciples:] I pray not for the world,” John xvii, 9. Here the world is evidently excluded from all interest in our Lord’s praying breath; and how much more from all interest in his atoning blood ?” Answer. I have already touched upon this objection, (Third Check, vol. first.) To what I have said there, I now add the following fuller reply :—Our Lord never excluded “the world” from all share in his intercession. When he said, “I pray for them, I pray not for the world ;” it is just as if he had said, “The blessing which I now ask for my believing disciples, I do not ask ‘for the world;’ not because 1 have absolutely reprobated the world, but because the world is not in a capacity of receiving this peculiar blessing.” Therefore, to take occasion from that expression to traduce Christ as a reprobating re- specter of persons, is as ungenerous as to affirm that the master of a SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 73 grammar school is a partial, capricious man, who pays no attention to the greatest part of his scholars, because, when he made critical re- marks upon Homer, he once said, “ My lecture is for the Greek class, and not the Latin.” That this is the easy, natural sense of our Lord’s words, will appear by the following observations. (1.) Does he not just after (verse 11) mention the favour which he did not ask for the world? “Holy Fa- ther, keep, through thy name, those whom thou hast given me, [by the decree of faith,] that they may be one as we are.” (2.) Would it not haye been absurd in Christ to pray the Father to keep “a world” of unbelievers, and to make them one? (38.) Though our Lord prayed at first for his disciples alone, did he not, before he concluded his prayer, (verse 2,) pray for future believers? And then giving the utmost lati- tude to his charitable wishes, did he not pray (verse 21) “that the world might believe” —and (verse 23) “that the world might know that God had sent him?” (4.) Was not this praying that the world might be made partakers of the very biessing which his disciples then enjoyed : witness these words, (ver. 24, 25,) “O righteous Father, the world has not known thee: but I have known thee, and these [believers] have known that thou hast sent me?” (5.) “The world hateth me,” said our Lord. Now if he “never prayed for the world,” how could he be said to have loved and prayed for his enemies? How badly will Ze- lotes be off, if he stands only in the imputed righteousness of a man, who would never pray for the bulk of his enemies or neighbours? But this is not all; for (6. If our Lord “never prayed for the world,” he acted the part of those wicked Pharisees who “laid upon other people’s shoulders heavy burthens which they took care not to touch with one of their fingers ;” for he said to his followers, “ Pray for them who despite- fully use you and persecute you,” [that is, pray for the world,| Matt. v, 44. But if we believe Zelotes, “he said and did not:” like some im- placable preachers who recommend a forgiving temper,she gave good precepts and set a bad example. I ask Candidus’ pardon for detaining him so long about so frivolous an argument: but as it is that which Zelotes most frequently produces in favour of particular redemption, and the absolute reprobation of the world, I thought it my duty to expose his well meant mistake, and to wipe off the blot which his opinion (not he) fixes upon our Lord’s cha- racter ;—an opinion this, which represents Christ’s prayer, “ Father, forgive them,” to be all of a piece with Judas’ kiss. For, if Christ prayed with his lips, that his worldly murderers might be forgiven, while in his heart he absolutely excluded them from all interest in his inter- cession, and in the blood, by which alone they could be forgiven ; might he not as well have said, My praying lips salute, but my reprobating heart betrays you: hail reprobates and be damned ? Oxsection Seconp. “All your carnal reasonings and logical sub- \ tleties can never overthrow the plain word of God. The Scriptures cannot be broken, and they expressly mention particular redemption. Rey. v, 8, 9, we read that ‘four-and-iwenty elders having harps, sung a new song, saying, &c, Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.’ Again, Rev. xiy, 1, &c, we read of one hundred and forty-four thousand ‘harpers 74 EQUAL CHECK. [PART that stood with the Lamb on Mount Sion, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads, &e, singing as it were a new song which no man could learn but the one hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth, &c; these were redeemed from among men.’ Now if all men were redeemed, would not St. John speak nonsense if he said that the elect were redeemed from among men? But as he positively says so, it follows that the generality of men are passed by, or left in a reprobate state absolutely unredeemed.” Answer. ‘There is a redemption by power distinct from, though connected with our redemption by price. That redemption is in many things particular ; consisting chiefly in the actual bestowing of the tem poral, spiritual, or eternal deliverances and blessings which the atoning blood has peculiarly merited for believers ; “Christ being the Saviour of all men, but especially of them that believe.” Various degrees of that redemption are pointed out in the following scriptures, as well as in the passages which you quote out of the book of Revelation. “The angel who redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads. The Lord hath redeemed you from the hand of Pharaoh. When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, for your redemption draweth nigh. Ye are sealed, &c, until the redemption of the purchased possession. We ourselves groan, waiting for the redemption of our body.” When therefore some eminent saints sing, “Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood [sprinkled upon our consciences through faith] out of every kindred,” &c, it is not because Christ shed more blood upon the cross for them than for other people; but because, through the faithful im- provement of the five talents, which sovereign, distinguishing grace had entrusted them with, they excelled in virtue, and “ overcame the accuser of the brethren by the blood of the Lamb,” more gloriously than the generality of their fellow believers do. One or two arguments will, I hope, convince the reader that Zelotes has no right to press into the service of free wrath the texts produced in his objection ; as he certainly does, when he applies them to a parti- cular redemption by price. (1.) God promised to Abraham, that “all the nations, yea, all the kindreds of the earth should be blessed in his seed, that is, in Christ, the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.” And our Lord commands, accordingly, that his redeeming work be preached to “every creature among all nations: but if there be no redemption but that of those elders and saints mentioned Rey. y, 8, 9, and said to be “redeemed to God, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, it’ follows, that every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation,” is left unredeemed in flat contradiction to God’s promise, as well as to the general tenor of the Scriptures. (2.) The number of the saved is greater than that of the redeemed. For St. John, Rev. vii, 9, describes the saved as “a great multitude which no man could number.” But the persons “ redeemed from the earth and redeemed from among men,” are said to be just one hundred and forty. four thousand: whence it follows, either that an “innumerable multi- tude” of men will sing “salvation to the Lamb,” without having been redeemed; or that one hundred and forty-four thousand siuls are “a multitude which no man can number ;” and that as the number of these ‘‘redeemed from the earth and from among men,” is already completed, SECOND. ] SCRIPTURE SCALES. : 75 all the rest of mankind are consigned over to inevitable, finished dam- nation. ‘Thus, according to the objection which I answer, Zelotes him- self is passed by, as well as “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” O ye kindreds and tongues, ye people and nations,—ye English and Welsh, ye Scotch and Irish, awake to your native good sense ; nor dignify any longer with thé name of “doctrines of grace,” inconsistent tenets imported from Geneva,—barbarous tenets that rob you nationally of the inestimable jewel of redemption, and leave you nationally in the lurch with Cain and Judas—with wretches whose re- probation (if we believe Zelotes) was absolutely insured before your happy islands emerged out of the sea, and the sea out of the chaos. Oxzsecrion THIRD. But we are pressed with rational, as well as Scriptural arguments. To show that Christ, who was lavish of his tears over justly reprobated Jerusalem, was so sparing of his blood, that he would not shed one drop of it for the world, and for the reprobated nations therein, much less for the arch reprobate, Judas: to show this, I say, Zelotes asks, “ How could Christ redeem Judas? Was not Judas’ soul actually in hell, beyond the reach of redemption, when Christ bled upon the cross ?” Answer. The fallacy of this argument will be sufficiently pointed out by retorting it thus :—‘ How could Christ redeem David? Was not Dayid’s soul actually in heaven, beyond the need of redemption, when Christ bled upon the ignominious tree 1” The truth is, from the foundation of the world Christ intentionally shed his blood, to procure a temporary salvation for all men, and an “ eternal salvation for them that obey him, and work out their salvation with fear and trembling.” With respect to David and Judas, “in the day of their visitation,” through Christ’s intended sacrifice, they had both an “accepted time ;” and, while the one by penitential faith secured eternal salvation, the other by obstinate unbelief totally fell from initial salvation, and by his own sin “ went to his own,” and not to Adam’s “ place.” Ozsection FourTH. As to the difficulty which Zelotes raises from a. supposed “ defect in Divine wisdom, if Christ offered for all a sacrifice which he foresaw many would not be benefited by :” I once more observe that all men universally are benefited by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. _ For ali men enjoy a day of initial and temporary salvation,.in consequence of Christ’s mediation: and if many do not improve their ' redemption so as to be eternally benefited thereby, their madness is no more a reflection upon God’s wisdom, than the folly of those angels who did not improve their creation. Again: this objection, taken from Divine wisdom, and levelled at our doctrine, is so much the more extraordinary, as, upon the plan of particular redemption, Divine wisdom (to say nothing of Divine veracity, impartiality; and mercy) receives an eternal blot. For how can “ God judge the world in wisdom according to the Gospel?” Rom. ti, 16. How can he wisely upbraid men with their impenitency, and condemn them because “they have not believed in the name of his only begotten Son,” John iii, 18, if there never was for them a Gospel to embrace, repentance to exercise, and an only begotten Son of God to believe in? And now, reader, sum up the evidence arising from the scriptures balanced, the arguments proposed, and the objections answered in tlus 76 EQUAL CHECK. [PART section; and say whether the doctrines of bound will and curtailed redemption, or, which is all one, the doctrines of necessary sin, and absolute, personal, yea, national reprobation, can, with any propriety, be called either sweet “doctrines of grace,” or Scriptural doctrines of wisdom. SECTION X. The doctrine of free grace is farther maintained against Honestus ; and that of free will and just wrath against Zelotes. The scale of FREE GRACE and susT wrath in God. Resistible FREE GRACE is the spring of all our graces and mercies. The Father, as Creator, gives to the Son, as Redeemer, the souls that yield to his paternal draw- ings; and they who resist those drawings, cannot come to the Son for rest and liberty. Ir is Gop, who worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. ['That is, God, as Crea- tor, has wrought in you the power to will and to do what is right: God, as Redeemer, has restored you that noble power which was lost by the fall: and God, as Sanc- tifier, excites and helps you to make a proper use of it. Therefore “srieve him not :” for, as it is his good pleasure to help you now, so, if you “do despite to the Spirit of his grace,” it may be his good pleasure “‘to give you up to a re- probate mind,” and to “swear in his anger that his Spirit shall strive with you” no more. ‘That this is the apostle’s meaning, appears from his own words to those very Phi- lippians, in the opposite scale.] Phil. ii, 13. Thy people [shall, or will be] willing in the day of thy power: or, as we have it in the reading Psalms, In the day of thy power shall the people offer free will offer- ings, Psa. cx, 3. The scale of FREE WILL in man, without FREE wrath in God. Perverse FREE WILL is the spring of all our sins and curses. The Son, as Redeemer, brings to the Father, for the promise of the Holy Ghost, the souls that yield to his filial drawings ; and they who resist those drawings, can- not come to the Father for the Spirit of adoption. WHEREFORE work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Arise and be doing, and the Lord be with you, 1 Chron. xxii, 16. Do all things without disputing, &c, that I may rejoice, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain. I follow after, 7f that I may apprehend that for which I am ap- prehended of Christ. This one thing I do, &c, I press toward the mark, &c. Be followers of me, for many walk—enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is de- struction. 'Those things, which ye have seen in me, do: and the God of peace shail be with you, Phil. ui, 12, &c; ili, 12, &e; iv, 9, &e. I am not [personally] sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Is- rael. But my people, &c, would none of me, Matt. xv, 24; Psa. Ixxxi, 11. He came to his own, and his own received him not, SECOND. ] SCRIPTURE SCALES. : 77 John i, 11. The power of the Lord was present to heal them, but the Pharisees murmured. They rejected the counsel of God against them- selves, Luke v, 17, 30; vii, 30. IfI by the finger [i. e. the power] of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God [the day of God’s power] is come upon you, Luke xi, 15, &c. He did not many mighty works [i. e. he did not mightily exert his power] there, because of their unbelief. He could do there no mighty work, [consistently with his wise plan,] and he marvelled because of their unbelief, [which was the source of their unwillingness,] Matt. xii, 58; Mark vi, 5,6. Now the things which belong unto thy peace, &c, are hid from thine eyes, be- cause thou knewest not the day of [my power, and of] thy visitation, Luke xix, 42, &c. How often would I have gathered thy children, as a hen does gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not, Luke xiii, 84. [Any one of those scriptures shows, that free grace does not necessitate free will; and all of them together make a good measure, running over into Zelotes’ bosom. ] God hath exalted him [Christ] to give repentance, Acts vy, 31. God peradventure [i. e. if they are not judicially given up to a repro- bate mind, and they do not obsti- nately harden themselves] will give them [that oppose themselves] re- pentance to the acknowledging of the truth, 2 Tim. ii, 25. Every good gift, &c, is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, James i, 17. Fazth is the gift of God, Eph. ii, 8. They rehearsed how God had opened the door of faith [in Christ] to the Gen- tiles, Acts xiv, 27. To you it is given, on the behalf of Christ, to believe in him, Phil. i, 29. When the Gentiles heard this they were glad, and as many as were [reraywevor] disposed* for, God is willing that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. iii, 9. God’s goodness leadeth thee to re- pentance, Rom. ii, 4. And the rest of men, which were not killed by these plagues, yet repented not, Rey. ix, 20. Then began he to upbraid the cities, &&c, because they repented not, Matt. ix, 20. I gave her space to repent, and she re- pented not, Rev. ui, 21. Faith cometh by hearing [the work of man,] Rom. x, 17. Lord, I believe, [not thou believest for me,| help thou my unbelief, Mark ix, 24. He upbraided them with their unbelief, Mark xiv, 14. How is it ye have no faith? Mark iy, 40. How can you believe, who receive honour one of another? John v, 44. The publicans believed, &c. And ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might be- lieve, Matt. xxi, 30. Thomas said, I will not believe, John xx, 25. Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith, 1 Tim. V5 EQ These (the Jews of Berea) were more noble [or candid] than those of Thessalonica, in that they re- * The Rev. Mr. Madan, in his “ Scriptural Comment upon the Thirty-nine Articles,” second edition, p- 71, says, ‘‘ This method of construction is attended with the disadvantage of giving the Greek language a sense which it disowns, and therefore to be rejected ;” and in support of this assertion, and of Calvinism, ¥ 78 EQUAL CHECK. - {PART I. Il. [our translators say ordained to] ceived the word with all readmess eternal life believed, Acts xiii, 48. of mind and searched the Scriptures he quotes Mr. Leigh’s “‘ Critica Sacra.” But I think, most unfortunately, since in the very next page we have it under Mr. Leigh’s, and of course under Mr. Ma- dan’s vwn hand, that the learned scholiast ‘‘ Syrus renders it [the controyerted word] ‘ dispositi,’ [pisposrp,] for he knew not that the heretics of our day would dream of understanding reraypevor, &c, to signify INWARDLY DisposED.” Now as ‘the remoustrants” are immediately after by name represented as ‘‘ the heretics of our day,” I beg leave to vindicate their heresy: though I fear it must be at the expense of Mr. Madan’s and Mr. Leigh’s “‘ orthodoxy.” First, then, take notice, reader, that these gentlemen grant us all we contend for, when they grant that the word which our translators render ‘‘ ordained,” means also ‘disposed, placed, ordered,” or *‘ ranged, as soldiers that keep their ranks in the field of battle,” which is the ordinary meaning of the expression in the classics. Now, according to Mr. Madan’s scheme, the ‘‘ disposition” of the persons that believed was merely ‘extrinsic, outward.” They had no hand in the matter, God ‘‘disposed” them by his necessitating grace, as Bezaleel “‘ dis- posed” the twelve precious stones which adorned Aaron’s breastplate. But, according to our supposed ‘‘ heresy,” the free will of those candid Gentiles (in subordination to free grace) had a hand in ‘‘ disposing them to take the kingdom of heaven by violence.” They were like willing soldiers, who obey the orders of their general, and ‘ range” or ‘‘ dispose” themselves to storm a fortified town. (2.) But, says Mr. Madan, “the Greek language disowns this sense.” To this assertion I oppose all the Greek lexicons I am acquainted with, and (for the sake of my English readers) I produce Johnson’s English dictionary, who, under the word ‘‘tactics,” which comes from the controverted word ‘ tatto,” informs us that ‘‘tactics” is ‘the art of ‘ranging’ men in the field of battle 7” and every body knows that before men can be ranged in the field, two things are absolutely necessary ; an authoritative, directing skill in the general, and an active, obe- dient submission in the soldiers. This was exactly the case with the Gentiles mentioned in the text; before they could be ‘‘ disposed for eternal life,” two things were absolutely requisite; the helpful teaching of God’s free grace, and the submissive yielding of their own free will, touched by that grace which the ‘‘indisposed (at least at that time) received in vain.” (3.) It is remarkable that the word reraypevos occurs but in one other place in the New Testament, Rom. xiii, 1. ‘The powers that are, are reraypevor,*or- dained or placed.” And I grant that there it signifies a Divine, ‘‘ extrinsic” appointment only. But why? ‘Truly because the apost’e immediately adds, vzo ze dex, “* They are ordained or placed or Gov.” Now, if the word reraypevos alone necessarily signified ‘‘ ordained, disposed, or placed or Gop,” as Mr. Ma- dan’s scheme requires; the apostle would have given himself a needless trouble in adding the words, ‘‘ or Gop,” when he wrote to the Romans; and as St. Luke adds them not in our text, it is a proof that he leaves us at liberty to think, ac- cording to the doctrine of the Gospel axioms, that the Gentiles, who believed, were ‘‘disposed” to it by the concurrence of free grace and free will—of Gop and THEMSELVES. God ‘‘ worked,” to use St. Paul’s words, and they ‘* worked out.” (4.) A similar scripture will throw light upon our text. Rom. ix, 22, we read that ‘God endureth with much long suffering the vessels of wrath xarnoricpeva ritTep for destruction.” The word ‘ fitted,” in the original, is exactly in the sdme voice and tense as the word ‘‘ ordained” or ‘‘ disposed” in the text. Now if Mr, Macan’s observation about ‘the Greek language” be just, and if the Gen- tiles who believed were entirely ‘‘dispgsed or Gop to eternal life,” so these ‘ yes- sels of wrath” were entirely “ fitted or Gop for destruction.” But if he, and every good man, shudders at the horrid idea of worshipping a God who abso- lutely ‘‘ fits” his own creatures ‘for destruction :’—if the words kxarnpricpeva ets azwAcav mean not only ‘inwardly fitted,” but seLr rirrep rather than Gop ritTeD ‘for destruction,” why should not reraypevor ers Cwny acwrtoy Mean SELF DISPOSED as well as Gop pisposep “for eternal life ?” (5.) St. Luke, who wrote the Acts, is the best explainer of the meaning of his ¢ SECOMM.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 79 KR If. daily, whether those things were so: therefore many of them be- lieved, Acts xvii, 11, 12. He that hath an ear to hear, let They have ears to hear, and hear him hear what the Spirit saith. Rev. not; for they are a rebellious house, li, 7. izek. xil, 2. own expression. Accordingly, Luke ii, 51, we find that he applies to Christ a word answering to, and compounded of that of our text. He was, says he, (vzo- racsopevos) ‘* subject or subjected to his parents.” Now I appeal to my readers, and ask whether the remonstrants deserve the name of “ dreaming heretics” for believing, (1.) That our Lord’s subjection to his parents was not merely “ out- ward” and passive, as that of an undutiful child who is subject to his superiors, when, rod in hand, they have forced him to submit. And (2.) That it was “in. ward” and active, or, to speak plainer, that ‘‘ he subjected himself” of his own free will to his parents. (6.) St. Paul informs us that the ‘‘ veil of Moses is yet upon the heart of the Jews, when they read” the Old Testament; and one would be tempted to think that Calvin’s veil is yet upon the eyes of his admirers, when they read the New , Testament. What else could have hindered such learned men as Mr. Leigh and Mr. Madan from taking notice, that when the sacred writers use the passive voice, they do it frequently in a sense which answers to the Hebrew voice “hith- pahel,” which means ‘to cause oneself to do a thing.” I beg leave to produce some instances. 1 Cor. xiv, 32, ‘‘The spirits of the prophets uzoraccerar are sub- * ject [that is, subject themselves] to the prophets.” Rom. x, 3, ‘‘ Oux uzerayncav, They have not been subjected, or, (as our translators, Calvinists as they were, have not scrupled to render it,) They have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.” Acts ii, 40, ‘‘cwSy7e, Be ye saved, or save yourselves.” Eph. v, 22, ‘‘ Wives, vroraccecOc, be subject or. submit yourselves to your own husbands.” 1 Peter v, 6, ‘‘ raretvwSnre, Be humble, or humble yourselves.” James iv, 7, ‘‘ vroraynre, Be ye submissive,” or, as we have it in our Bibles, ‘submit yourselves to God,” &c, &c. I hope these examples will convince my readers, that, if our translators had shown themselves ‘‘ heretics,” and men unacquainted with “the Greek language,” supposing they had rendered our text, ‘‘ As many as (through grace) had disposed themselves, or were (inwardly) disposed for eter, nal life, believed,” they can hardly pass for orthodox or good Grecians now, since they have so often been guilty of the pretended error, which Mr. Leigh supposes peculiar to the ‘‘ dreaming heretics of our day.” (7.) All the Scriptures show that man and free will have their part to do in the work of salvation, as well as Christ and free grace. If this is denied, Mappeal to the multitude of passages which fill my second Scale; and J ask, Is it not strange, that a doctrine, supported by a variety of scriptures, should be called “heresy” by men that, ‘‘ as real Protestants,” profess to admit the Scriptures as the rule of their faith. I shall conclude this note by an appeal to the context. (8.) St. Paul having called the Jews to believe in Christ, bids them ‘‘ beware,” Acts xiii, 40, lest they should be found among the despisers that perish in their unbelief. Now how absurd would this caution have been, if a forcible decree of absolute election or reprobation had irreversibly ordained them to eternal life, or to eternal death! Would the apostle have betrayed more folly if he had bid them “beware” lest the sun should rise or set at its appointed time? Again, verse 46, we are informed that these unbelievers ‘(judged themselves unworthy of eternal life,” and ‘‘ put the word” of God’s grace ‘‘ from them.” But if Mr. Ma- dan’s scheme were Scriptural, would not the historian have said, that God, from the foundation of the world, had absolutely “judged them unworthy of eternal life,” and therefore had never ‘‘ put” or sent to ‘‘ them” the word of his grace ? Once more: we are told, verse 45, that indulged envy, which the Jews were filled with, made them “ speak against those things which were spoken by Paul, that is, made thom disbelieve, and show their unbelief. Now is it not highly reasonable to understand the words of the text thus, according to that part of the context : ‘‘ As many as” did not obstinately harbour envy, prejudice, love of hon 80 EQUAL I. Can the Ethiopian change his skin, and the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good [without my gracious help] that are accustomed to do evil, Jer. xiii, 23. Neither knoweth any man the Father, save, &c, he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him; [and he will reveal him unto babes, as appears from the context,] Matt. x1, 25, 27. Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, [that Jesus is the Christ, &c,] but my Father, Matt. xvi, 17. CHECK. [Part Hi. [It is very remarkable that the Lord, to show his readiness to help those obstinate offenders, says, just after] O Jerusalem, wilt thou not be made clean? When shall it once be? God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble; [i. e to babes,] &c. Submit therefore yourselves to God, &c, humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up, James iv, 6, &c. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, John vii, 17. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, Psa. xxv, 14. To understand aright some passages in St. John’s Gospel, we must remember that, wherever the Gospel of Christ is preached, the Father particularly draws to the Son as Redeemer, those that believe in him as Creator. And this he does, sometimes by cords of love, sometimes by cords of fear, and always by cords of conviction and humiliation. They that yield to these drawings become “ babes, poor in spirit,” and mem- bers of “the little flock” of humble souls, “to whom it is the Father’s good pleasure to give the kingdom. For he giveth grace to the num- BLE ;”—yea, “he giveth grace and glory, and no good thing will he withhold from them that” follow his drawings, and “lead a godly life.” our, or worldiy mindedness :—‘‘ As many as” did not ‘* put the word from them, .and judge themselves unworthy of eternal life, believed?” Nay, might we not properly explain the text thus, according to the doctrine of the talents, and the progressive dispensations of Divine grace, so frequently mentioned in the Scrip. tures: ‘‘ As many as believed In God, believed also” in Christ, whom Paul par- ticularly preached at that time;—as many as were humble and teachable, received the ingrafted word:” for ‘‘God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble. His secret is with them that fear him, and he will show them his covenant.” (9.) But what need is there of appealing to the context? Does not the text answer for itself, while Mr. Madan’s sense of it affords a sufficient antidote to all who dislike absurd consequences, and are afraid of traducing the Holy One of Israel? Let reason decide. If ‘‘as many as [were in Antioch] were [Calvinisti- cally] ordained to eternal life,” believed under that sermon of St. Paul, (for almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God,) it follows, that all who believed not “then,” were eternally shut up in unbelief; that all the elect believed at once ; that they who do not believe at one time shall never believe at another; and that when Paul returned to Antioch, few souls, if any, could be converted by his ministry; God having at once taken ‘‘as many as were ordained to eternal life,” and left all the rest to the devil. But, (10.) The most dreadful consequence is yet behind. If they that believed did it merely because they ‘t were absolutely ordained of God to eternal life,” it fol- lows, by a parity of reason, that those who disbelieved, did it merely because they were absolutely ordained of God to eternal death: God having bound them by the help of Adam in everlasting chains of unbelief and sin. Thus, while proud, wicked, stubborn unbelievers are entirely exculpated, the God of all mercies is indirectly charged with free wrath, and finished damnation. « SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 81 Those convinced, humbled souls, gonscious of their lost estate, and inquiring the way to heaven, as honest Cornelius, and the trembling jailer—those souls, I say, the Father in a particular manner gives to the Son, as being prepared for him, and just ready to enter into his dispen- sation. “They believe in God, they must also believe in Christ ;” and the part of the Gospel that eminently suits them, is that which Paul preached to the penitent jailer ; and Peter to the devout centurion. The Jews about Capernaum showed great readiness to follow Jesus: put it was out of curiosity, and not out of hunger after righteousness. Their hearts went more after loaves and fishes, than after grace and glory. Ina word, they continued to be grossly unfaithful to their light, under the dispensation of the Father, or of God as Creator. Hence it is, that our Lord said to them, “ Labour not for the meat which perish- eth, but for that which endureth to everlasting life.” Mind your souls as well as your bodies: be no more practical Atheists. To vindicate - themselves they pretended to have a great desire to serve God. “ What shall we do,” said they, “that we may work the works of God?” “This is the work of God,” replied our Lord: “this is the thing which God” peculiarly requires of those who are under nts dispensation,—* that ye believe on him whom he hath sent,”—1. e. that ye submit to »y dispen- sation. Here the Jews began to cavil and say, “ What sign showest thou, that we may believe thee?” Our Lord, to give them to under- stand that they were not so ready to believe upon proper evidence as they professed to be, said to them, “ Ye have seen me” and my miracles, “and yet ye believe not.” Then comes the verse, on which Zelotes founds his doctrine of absolute grace to the elect, and of absolute wrath to all the rest of mankind: «All that the Father [particularly] giveth me,” because they are particularly convinced that they want a mediator between God and them ; and because they are obedient tg his drawings, and to the light of their dispensation ;—all these, says our Lord, “shall or will come unto me,” and I will be as ready to receive them, as the Father is to draw them to me, for “him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out :” I will admit him to the priwileges of my dispensation ; and, if he be faithful, I wii! even introduce him into the dispensation of the Holy Ghost,—into the kingdom, that does not consist in meat and drink, nor yet in bare penitential righteousness, but also in “ peace and joy i the Holy Ghost.” “And this is the Father’s will, that, of all whom he has given me,” that I may bless them with the blessings of my dispensation, “I should lose nothing” by my negligence as a Saviour, or as a Shepherd: although some will lose themselves by their own per- verseness and wilful apostasy. That this is our Lord’s meaning, is evident from his own doctrine about his disciples being “the salt of the earth,” and about some “losing their savour,” and “losing their own soul.” But above all, this appears from his express declaration con- cerning one of his apostles. This being premised, I balance the favour- ite text of Zelotes thus :— I. I. All that the Father giveth me[by I have manifested thy name [O the decree of faith, according to the Father] to the men whom thou hast order of the dispensations] shall [or given me out of the world. Thine Vor. I. 6 P ‘ $2 pp ee)! Rud! shee r will] come to me; and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out. [If he be lost it will not be by my losing him, but by his losing his own soul. It will not be by my casting him out, but by his casting himself out. Witness the young man, who thought our Lord’s terms too hard; and “went away sorrowful :” witness again Judas, who “went out,” and of his own EQUAL CHECK. [PART Il. ‘ they were [they belonged to thy dispensation, they believed in thee] and thou gavest them me, [they en- tered my dispensation, and believed in me.] Those that thou gavest me, I have kept [according to the rules of my dispensation] and none of them is lost Bur [he that has de- stroyed himself, Judas,] the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, John xvii, 6, 12. accord “ drew back unto perdition.””] John vi, 37. Inquire we now what scriptures were fulfilled by the perdition of Judas. They are either general or particular: (1.) The general are’ such as these: “'The turning away of the simple shall slay them,” Proy. i, 32. “When the righteous man turneth from his righteousness, [and who can be a ‘righteous man’ without true faith ?] he shall die in his sin.” Again: “ When I say to the righteous,” that “he shall surely live, if he trust to his righteousness, and commit iniquity, he shall die for it,” Ezek. iii, 20; xxxui, 13. (2.) The particular scriptures fulfilled by the destruction of Judas are these: Psa. xli, 9, “ Mine own familiar friend in whom [ trusted, who did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” These words are expressly applied to Judas by our Lord himself, John xu, 18, and they demonstrate that Judas was not always a cursed hypocrite, unless Zelotes can make appear that our Lord reposed his trust in a hypocrite; whom he had chosen for his “own familiar friend.” Again: “Let his days be few, and let another take his office, or his bishopric.” These words are quoted from Psa. cix, and particu- larly applied to Judas by St. Peter, Acts i, 20. Now, to know whether Judas’ perdition was absolute, flowing from the unconditional reproba- tion of God, and not froth Judas’ foreseen backsliding, we need only compare the two Psalms where his sin and perdition are described. The one informs us, that before he lifted up his heel against Christ, he was Christ's own familiar friend, and so sincere that the Searcher of hearts trusted in him: and the other Psalm describes the cause of Judas’ per- sonal reprobation thus: “ Let his days be few, and let another take his office,” &c, “because that [though he once knew how to tread in the steps of the merciful Lord, who honoured him with a share in his fami- liar friendship, yet] he remembered not to show merey, but persecuted the poor, that he might even slay the broken in heart. As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him: as he clothed himself with cursing like as with a garment, so let it come into his bowels like water,” Psa. cix, 8, 16, &c. Hence it is evident, that if Judas was lost agreeably to the Scriptural prediction of his perdition; and if that very prophecy informs us that “his days were few, because he remembered not to show mercy, &c,” we horribly wrong God when we suppose that this means, because God never remembered to show any mercy to Judas, because God was a _graceless God to Iscariot thousands of years before the infant culprit SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 83 drew his first breath. Brethren and fathers, as many as are yet con- cerned for our Creator’s honour, and our Saviour’s reputation, resolutely bear your testimony with David and the Holy Ghost, against this doc- trine ; so shall Zelotes blush to charge still the Father of mercies with the absolute reprobation of Judas, not only in opposition to all good nature, truth, and equity ; but against as plain a declaration of God, as any that can be found in all the Scriptures. «Let his days be few, and let another take his office, &c, because he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor, that he might [betray innocent blood, and] even slay the broken in heart.”* * To say that God stood in need of Judas’ wickedness to deliver his Son to the Jews, is not less absurd than impious. ‘‘God has no need of the sinful man.” Any boy that had once heara our Lord preach in the temple, and seen him go to the garden of Gethsemane, might have given as proper an information to the high priest, and been as proper a guide to the mob, as Judas: especially as Christ was not less determined to deliver himself, than the Jews were to apprehend him. With regard to the notion that Judas was a wicked man—an absolute unheliever —a cursed hypocrite when our Lord gave him a place in his familiar friendship, and raised him to the dignity of an apostle, it is both unscriptural and scandalous. (1.) Unscriptural: for the Scripture informs us, that when the Lord immediately proceeds to an election of that nature, ‘‘he looketh on the heart,” 1 Sam. xvi, 7. Again: when the eleven apostles prayed that God would overrule the lot which they were about to cast for a proper person to succeed Judas, they said, ‘‘ Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which of these two thou hast chosen. that he might take part of the ministry, from which Judas by transgres- sion fell,” Acts i, 24. Now as Judas fell by transgression, he was undoubtedly raised by righteousness, unless Zelotes can make appear, that he rose the same way he fell; and, that as he fell by a bribe, so he gave some of our Lord’s friends a bribe, to get himself nominated to one of the twelve apostolic bishoprics: but even then, how does this agree with our Lord’s ‘‘ knowing the heart,” and choos- ing accordingly? (2.) This notion is scandalous: it sets Christ in the most con- temptible light. How will he condemn, in the great day, men of power in the Church, who for by-ends commit the care of souls to the most wicked of men? How will he even find fault with them, if he did set them the example himself, in passing by all the honest and good men in Judea, to go and set the apostolic mitre upon the head of a thief—of a ‘‘ wolf in sheep’s clothing?” In the name of wis- dom I ask, Could Christ do this, and yet remain’ the ‘good Shepherd?” How different is the account that St. Paul gives us of his own election to the apostle- ship. ‘The glorious Gospel of God was committed to my charge,” says he; ‘and I thank Christ, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, put- ting me into the ministry,” 1 Tim. i, 11,12. Now, if we represent Christ as put- ting Paul into the ministry because he counted him faithful, and Judas because hé counted him unfaithful—a thief—a traitor—a cursed hypocrite, do we not make Christ a Proteus? Are his ways equal? Has he not two weights? God, I grant, sets sometimes a wicked king over a wicked people, but it is according to the ordinary course of human affairs, and in his anger; to chastise a sinful nation with a royal rod. But what had the unformed Christian Church done to deserve being scourged with the rod of apostolic wickedness? And what course of human affairs obliged our Lord to fix upon a wicked man in a new election to a new dignity—and, what is most striking, in an election to which he proceeded without the interposition of any free agent but himself? -O Zelotes, mistake me not: if I plead the cause of Judas’ sincerity, when he ‘left all to follow Christ,” and when our Lord passed by thousands, immediately to choose him for his ‘‘ own familiar friend in whom he trusted ;”—for a preacher of his Gospel, and an apostle of his Church; I do not do it so much for Judas’ sake, as for the honour of Christ, and the comfort of his timorous, doubting followers. Alas! if Christ could show distinguishing favour and familiar friendship to aman, on whom he had absolutely set his black seal of unconditional reprobation—to a man whom, from the beginning of the world, he had without any provocation marked out for * 84 EQUAL CHECK. {rar To conclude: if God has taken such particular care to clear himself from the charge of absolutely appointing Judas to be a “ son of perdition !” Nay, if Curisr himself asserts that the Farner gave him Judas, as well as the other apostles :—and if the Hoty Guosr declares, by the mouth of David, that Judas was once Christ’s familiar friend, and as such honoured with his trust and confidence; is it not evident, that the doctrine of free wrath, and of any man’s (even Judas’) absolute, uncon- ditional reprobation is as gross an imposition upon Bible Christians, as it is a foul blot upon all the Divine perfections? I. Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you, [John vii, 37. He that is of God, heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because you are not of God—i. e. because ye are not godly, whatever ye pre- tend.| My sheep [those that really belong to my dispensation, and compose my little flock] my sheep, I say, hear my voice, [they mind, understand, approve, embrace my doctrine,| and they follow me [in the narrow way of faith and obe- dience :] and [in that way] I give unto them eternal life, and [in that way] they shall never perish, nei- ther shall any pluck them out of my hand. [For who shall harm them if they be followers of that which is good? 1 Peter ii, 13.] My Father who gave them me, [who agreed, that where my dis- pensation is opened, those who truly believe on him as Creator, should be peculiarly given me as head of the Christian Church, to make them Christian priests and _a goat, and for unavoidable damnation; Il. He that believeth not is condemn- ed already, because he hath not be- lieved, &c. And this is the [ground of unbelief and] condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than — light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that [buries his ta- lent of light, and] doeth evil, hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, /est his deeds should be re- proved. But he that doth truth [he that occupies till I come with more light] cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made mani- fest, that they are wrought in God, John ii, 18, &c. [All that our Lord meant, then, when he said to the Pharisees, “Ye believe not, be- cause ye are not of my sheep,” is explained in such scriptures as these.] He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much, Luke xvi, 10. How can ye believe, who receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God? [Had you been faithful to the light of con- if he could converse, eat, drink, travel, lodge, and pray for years with a man to whom he bore from everlasting, and will bear to all eternity, a settled ill will, an immortal hatred, where is sincerity? where is the Lamb without blemish? the Lamb of Godin whose mouth no guile was ever found? If Christ be such a sly damner of one of his twelve apostles as the ‘doctrines of grace” (so called) represent him to be, who can trust him ? What professor—what Gospei minister can assure himself that Christ has not chosen and called him for purposes as sinister as those for which it is supposed that Judas was chosen, and called to be Christ’s familiar friend? Nay, if Christ, barely on account of Adam’s sin, left Judas in the lurch, and even betrayed him into a deeper hell by a mock call, may he not have done the same by Zelotes, by me, and by all the professors in the world? O ye ‘doctrines of grace,” if you are as sweet as honey, in the mouth of Zelotes, as soon as I have eaten you, my belly is bitter ; poison corrodes my vitals; Imust either part with you, my reason, or my peace, SECOND.] I, kings unto him:] my Father, I say, who gave them me, 1s greater than all, and none shall pluck them [that thus hear my voice and follow me] out of my Father’s hand : for I and my Father are one [in nature, power, and faithfulness, to show that “the way of the Lord is strength to the upright ; but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity,” Prov. x, 29.] John x, 2, 26, &c. No man can come unto me ex- cept the Father draw him, [and he be faithful to the Father’s attrac- tion:] every man, therefore, that hath heard and learned of [that is, submitted to] the Father |and to his drawings] cometh unto me. There are some of you that believe not, &c. Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, ex- cept ut be given him of my Father, John vi, 44, 45, 64, 65. The meaning is, that no man can believe in the Son, who has not first a degree of true faith in the Father. “Ye believe in God, believe also in me,” says Christ. “All must honour the Son, as they honour the Father.” All, therefore, that do not “learn of,” that is, submit to, and honour the Father, cannot come to the Son and pay him hom. age. He that obstinately refuses to take the first step in the faith, cannot take the second. To show, therefore, that Zelotes cannot with propriety ground the doctrine of free wrath upon John vi, any more than upon John x, I need only prove the three propositions contained in the opposite Scale. SCRIPTURE SCALES. 85 II. science, you would have believed Moses; and] had ye believed Mo- ses, ye would have believed me: but if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? John y, 44, &c. [If ye believe not in God, how shall ye believe in me? If you dishonour my Father, how can you honour me 1] [First proposition. The Fa- ther draws all to himself, and gives to the Son all those who yield to his drawings. Witness the following scriptures.| Allthe day long I have © stretched forth my hand to [draw] a disobedient people, Rom. x, 21. Despisest thou the riches of God’s forbearance, not considering that his goodness leadeth [that is, gently draweth] thee to repentance, [and of consequence to faith in a Medi- ator between God and man?] Rom. li, 4. Of those whom thow hast given me none is lost [hitherto] but [one, Judas, who is already so com- pletely lost, that I may now call him] a son of perdition, John xvii, 12. Seconp proposition. The Son likewise, “ who is the light that en- hghtens every man, draws all to himself,” and then brings to the Fa- ther those who yield to his attraction, “that they may receive the adop- tion of sons.” Witness the follow- ing scriptures :—“ And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me, John xu, 32. Come unto me, all ye that labour [and are restless] and I will give you rest.” If you come to me, I will plainly reveal to you the Fa- ther : I will enable you by my peaceful Spirit to call him Anza, Faruer, with delightful assurance : [for] no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he, to whomsoever the Son will reveal him [by the Holy Ghost,] Matt. xi, 27, 28. TurrD PROPOSITION. These drawings of the Father, and of the Son, are not irresistible, as appears from the following scriptures : “ Pecause 86 EQUAL CHECK. [Parr I have stretched out my hands, and no man [comparatively] regarded [my drawings,] I will mock when your destruction cometh as a whirl- wind, Prov. i, 24, 27. These things I say unto you [obstinate Phari- sees,] that you might be [drawn unto me, and] saved, &c, and [notwith- standmg my drawings] ye will not come unto me, that ye might haye life,” John v, 34, 40. ‘The preceding propositions are founded upon the proportion of faith, upon the relations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and upon the doc- trine of the dispensations explained in the Essay on Truth. Should Zelotes compare these propositions, he will see that if the Father does not particularly give all men to the Son, that they may receive the peculiar blessings of the Christian dispensation ; and if the Son does not explicitly reveal the Father to all men by the Spirit of adoption, or the baptism of the Holy Ghost ; it is not out of free, repro- bating wrath ; but merely for the two following reasons: (1.) Asin the political world all men are not called to be princes and kings; so in the religious world all are not blessed with five talents ; all are not called to believe explicitly in the Son and in the Holy Ghost, or to be “made kings and priests to God” in the Christian Church. (2.) Of the many that are called to this honour, few (comparatively) are obedient to the heavenly calling; and, therefore, “few are chosen” to “receive the crown of Christian righteousness :” or, as our Lord expresses it, few “are counted worthy to stand before the Son of man” among them that have been faithful to their five talents. But, as all men have one talent till they have buried it, and God has judicially taken it from them: as all men are at least under the dispensation of the Father, as a gracious and faithful Creator: as Christ, “the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” draws all men implicitly to this merciful Crea- tor ; while the Spirit, as “the saving grace which has appeared unto all men, implicitly teaches them to deny ungodliness,” and to live soberly, righteously, and piously in this present world: as this is the case, I say, what can we think of the absolute election or reprobation of individuals, which insures saving grace and heaven to some, while (through the denial of every degree of saving grace) it secures damning sin and ever- lasting burnings to others ? If it be asked, how it has happened that so many divines have em- braced these tenets? I reply, It has been chiefly owing to their inat- tention to the doctrine of the dispensations. Being altogether talken up with the particular dispensations of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, they overlooked, as Peter once did, the general dispensation of the Father, which is the basis of all the superior economies of Divine grace. They paid no manner of attention to the noble testimony, which that apostle bore when, parting with his last scrap of Jewish bigotry, he said ; “Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him.” As if he had said, Though distinguishing grace should never give two talents to a heathen that fears God and works righteousness ; though he should never explicitly hear of the Son, andof the Holy Ghost ; yet shall he enter, as a faithful servant, into fhe joy of his merciful Lord, when many “children of the kingdom shall be thrust out :” for it is revealed upon earth, and of consequence it is decreed SECOND. ] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 87 in heaven, that they who are chosen and called to partake of the Divine peace, which is essential to the peculiar dispensations of the Son, and of the unspeakable joy, which is essential to the peculiar dispensation of the Holy Ghost, shall be reprobated, or “ thrust out,” if they do not “make their high calling and election sure :” while they that were oniy chosen and called to the righteousness essential to the general dispensation of the Father, shall “receive the reward of the inherit- ance,” if they do but “walk worthy of their znferior election and cal}. ip? a “Methinks that Zelotes, instead of producing solid arguments in favour of his doctrines, complains that I bring certain strange things to his ears ; and that the distinction between the Christian dispensation, and the other economies of grace, by which I have solved his Calvinistic diff. culties, has absolutely no foundation in the Scripture. That I may convince him of his mistake in this respect, to what I have said on this subject in the Essay on Truth, I add the following proof of my deal. ing in old truths, and not in “novel chimeras.” St. Paul, 1 Cor. ix, 17, declares that “the dispensation of the Gospel of Christ [which m its fulness takes in the ministration of the Spirit] was committed unto him.” Eph. i, 10, he*calls this dispensation “the dispensation of the fulness of times, in which God gathers in one all things in Christ.” Chap. iti, 2, &c, after mentioning “the dispensation of the grace of God given him,” as an apostle of Christ, he calls it “ preachmg among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,” and the “making all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which had been hid in God from the beginning of the world.” Col. i, 25, &c, speaking of the Christian Church, in opposition to the Jewish, he says, “ Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God, which is given to me for you, &c, even the mystery which hath been hid from ages, but now is made manifest to his saints :” and he informs them that this mystery, now revealed, was “Christ in them, the hope of glory.” Again, what he calls here the mystery hidden before, but now made manifest to Christians, he calls in another place “the new testa- ment,—the ministration of righteousness,—where the Spirit of the Lord is”’—and where “there is liberty,” even the glorious liberty of the chil- dren of God; observing, that although the Mosaic dispensation or “ mi- nistration” was “glorious,” yet that of Christ exceeds in glory,” 2 Cor. iil, 6, &c. To deny the doctrine of the dispensations is to deny that God made various covenants with the children of men since the fall: it is at least to confound all those covenants with which the various Gospel dispensa- tions stand or fall. And to do so is not to divide the word of God aright, but to make a doctrinal farrago, and increase the confusion that, reigns in mystical Babel. From the preceding quotations out of St. Paul’s Epistles, it follows, therefore, either that there was no Gospel in the world, before the Gospel which was “hid from ages,” and “made manifest” in St. Paul’s days “to God’s saints,” when this mystery, “ Christ in them the hope of glory,” was revealed to them by the Holy Ghost: or, (which to me appears*an indubitable truth,) that the evangelical dispensation of Adam and Noah was bright; that of Abraham and Moses brighter ; that of initial Christianity, or of John the Baptist, explicitly setting forth 88 EQUAL CHECK. [parr “the Lamb ot God that taxeth away the sins of the world,” brighter still; and that of perfect Christianity, (or of Christ revealed in us by the power of the Holy Ghost,) the brightest of all. SECTION XI. A ratwnal and Scriptural view of St. Paul’s meaning in the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans—Some of the deepest passages of that chapter are thrown into the Scripture Scales, and by being weighed with parallel teats, appear to have nothing to do with free wrath and Calvinistic reprobation. . Ir Zelotes find himself pressed by the weights of my second Scale, he will probably try to screen his “doctrines of grace,” by retreating with them behind the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. But lam beforehand with him: and appealing to that chapter, I beg leave to show that the passages in it, which at first sight seem to favour the doctrine of free wrath, are subversive of it, when they are candidly explained according to the context, and the rest of the scriptures. leading propositions open the section. I I. To deny that God out of mere distinguishing grace, may and does grant Church blessings, or the bless- ings of the covenant of peculiarity, to some men, making them com- paratively vessels to honour ; and making of consequence other men comparatively vessels to dishonour, or vessels Jess honourable: to deny this, I say, is to oppose the doctrine of the dispensations, and to rob God of a gracious. sovereignty, which he justly claims. Il. God is too gracious uncondi- _ tionally to reprobate, i. e. ordain to eternal death, any of his creatures. Ill. In the day of initial salva- tion, they who through grace believe in their light, are condztionally ves- sels of mercy, or God’s elect, ac- cording to one or another dispensa- tion of his grace. IV. God justly gives up to final blindness of mind, and complete hardness of heart, them that reso- lutely shut their eyes, and harden their hearts to the end of their day of initial salvation. Five couple of Il. To insinuate that God, out of mere distinguishing wrath, fixes the curse of absolute rejection upon a number of unborn men, for whom he never had any mercy, and whom he designs to call into being only to show that he can make and break vessels of wrath—to insinuate this, I say, is to attribute to God a@ tyran- nical sovereignty, which he justly abhors. God is too holy and too just not to reprobate his obstinately rebel- lious creatures. In the day of initial salvation, they who unnecessarily do despite to the Spirit of grace and disbelieve, are conditionally vessels of wrath, that “ fit themselves for destruction.” Perverse free will in us, and not free wrath in God, or necessity from Adam, is the cause of our avoidable unbelief: and our personal avoidable unbelief is the cause of our complete personal reprobation, both at the end of the day of grace, and in the day of judgment. SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 89 I. ; Il. V. There can be no sovereign, | There can never be sovereign, distinguishing free grace in a good distinguishing free wrath in a just God ; because goodness can bestow . God ; because justice cannot inflict free, undeserved gifts. free, undeserved punishments. Reason and conscience should alone, one would think, convince us that St. Paul, in Rom. ix, does not plead for a right in God so to hate any of his unformed creatures as to intend, make, and fit them for destruetion, merely to show his absolute sovereignty and irresistible power. ‘The apostle knew too well the God of love, to represent him as a mighty potter, who takes an unaccountable pleasure to form rational vessels, and to endue them with keen sensibility, only to have the glory of absolutely filling them, by the help of Adam, with sin and wickedness on earth, and then with fire and brimstone in hell. This is the conceit of the consistent admirers of unconditional election and rejection, who build it chiefly upon Rom. ix. Should you ask, why they fix so dread- ful a meaning on that portion of Scripture; I answer, that through in- attention and prejudice, they overlook the two keys which the apostle gives us to open his meaning, one of which we find in the three first, and the other in the three last verses of that perverted chapter. In the three first verses St. Paul expresses the “continual sor- row,” which he “had in his heart,” for the obstinacy of his country- men, the Jews, who so depended upon their national prerogatives, as Jews; their Church privileges, as children of Abraham; and their Pharisaic righteousness of the law, as observers of the Mosaic ceremo- nies, that they detested the doctrine of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. Now, if the apostle had believed that God, by a wise decree of preteri- tion, had irreversibly ordained them to eternal death “to illustrate his glory by their damnation,” as Calvin says; how ridiculous would it have been in him to sorrow night and day about the execution of God’s wise design! If God, from the beginning of the world, had absolutely determined to make the unbelieving Jews personally and absolutely vessels of wrath, to the praise of the glory of his sovereign free wrath ; how wicked would it have been in St. Paul to begin the next chapter by saying, “My heart’s desire and prayer to God for unbelieving Israel—for the obstinate Jews, is that they might be saved !” Would he not rather have meekly submitted to the will of God, and said, like Eli, “It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good?’ Did it become him—nay, was it not next to rebellion in him, so passionately to set his heart against a decree made (as we are told) on purpose to display the absoluteness of Divine sovereignty? And would not the Jews have retorted his own words! “ Who art thou, O vain man, that repliest against God” by wishing night and day the salvation of “ vessels of wrath :” of men whom he hath absolutely set apart for destruction ? “But if the apostle did not intend to establish the absolute, personal preterition of the rejected Jews and their fellow reprobates, what could he mean by that mysterious chapter?” I reply: He meant in general to vindicate God’s conduct in casting off the Jews, and adopting the Gentiles. Tris deserves some explanation. When St. Paul insinuated to the Jews that they were rejected as a Church and people, and that the uncircumcised Gentiles (even as many as believed on Jesus of 90 EQUAL CHECK. [parr Nazareth) were now the chosen nation, “the peculiar people,” and Church of God, his countrymen were greatly offended: and yet, as “the apostle of the Gentiles,” to “provoke the Jews to jealousy,” he was obliged peculiarly to enforce this doctrine among them. They generally gave him audience till he touched upon it. But when he “waxed bold,” and told them plainly that Christ had bid him “ depart from Jerusalem,” as from an accursed city ; and had “ sent him far thence unto the Gentiles,” they could contain themselves no longer ; and “ lift. ing up their voices, they said, Away with such a fellow from the. earth,” Acts xiti, 46; xxii, 21.* : When St. Paul wrote to Rome, the metropolis of the Gentile world, where there were g great many Jews, the Holy Ghost directed him to clear up the question concerning the general election of the Gentiles, and the general rejection of the Jews. And this he did, both for the comfort of the humble, Gentile believers, and for the humiliation of his proud, self-elected countrymen ; that being provoked to jealousy, they, or at least some of them, might with the Gentiles make their personal calling and election sure by believing in Christ. As the Jews were gene- rally incensed against him, and he had a most disagreeable truth to write, he dips his pen in the oil of brotherly love, and begins the chapter by a most awful protestation of his tender attachment to them, and sorrowful concern for their salvation, hoping that this would soften them, and reconcile their prejudiced minds. But if he had répresented them as absolute reprobates, and vessels of wrath irreversibly ordained of God to destruction, he would absurdly have defeated his own design, and exasperated them more than ever against his doctrine and his person. To suppose that he told them with one breath, he wished to be accursed from Christ for them, and with the next breath insinuated that God had absolutely accursed them with unconditional, personal reprobation, is a notion so excessively big with absurdity, that at times Zelotes himself can scarcely swallow it down. Who indeed can believe that St. Paul made himself so ridiculous as to weep tears of the most ardent loye over the free wrath of his reprobating Creator? Who can imagine that the pious apostle painted out “the God of all grace,” as a God full of immortal hatred to most of his countrymen: while he represented himself as a person continually racked with the tenderest feelings of a matchless affection for them all; thus impiously raising his own reputation, as a benevolent man, upon the ruins of the reputation of his malevolent God? Come we now to the middle part of the chapter. St. Paul, having * It is remarkable that Jewish rage first broke out against our Lord, when he touched their great Diana—the doctrine of their absolute election. You think, said he, to be saved, merely because you are Abraham’s children, and God’s chosen, peculiar people. ‘“ But I tell you of a truth,” God is not so partial to Israel as you suppose. ‘‘ Many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, but to none of them was Elias sent, but to a Zidonian [heathen] widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the days Elisha, yet none of them was cleansed save Naaman the Syrian,” Luke iv, 25, &c. The Jews never forgave our Lord that levelling saying. If he narrowly escaped their fury at Nazareth, it was only to meet it increased sevenfold in the holy city. So fierce and implacable are the tempers to which some professors work up themselves, by drinking into un- scriptural notions of election ! SECOND.] SCRIPTURS SCALES. 91 prepared the Jews for the disagreeable niessage which he was about to deliver, begins to attack their Pharisaic prejudices concerning their absolute right, as children of Abraham, to be God’s Church and people, exclusively of the rest of the world whom they looked upon as reprobated dogs of the Gentiles. To drive the unbelieving Jews out of this shelter- ing place, he indirectly advances two doctrines: (1.) That God, as the Creator and supreme Benefactor of men, may do what he pleases with his peculiar favours; and that as he had now as indubitable a right freely to give five talents of Church privileges to the Gentiles, as he had once to bestow three talents of Church privileges upon the Jews. And, (2.) That God had as much right to set the seal of his wrath upon them, as upon Pharaoh himself, if they continued to imitate the inflexibleness of that proud unbeliever ; inexorable unbelief being the sin that fits men for destruction, and pulls down the wrath of Ged upon the children of disobedience. The first of those doctrines he proves by a reasonable appeal to con- science: (1.) Concerning the absurdity of replying against God, i. e. against a being of infinite wisdom, goodness, justice, and power. And (2.) Concerning a right which a potter has of the same “lump of clay” to make one vessel for* honourable, and another for comparatively dis. honourable uses. The argument carries conviction along with it. Were utensils capable of thought, the basin, in which our Lord washed his disciples’ feet, (a comparatively dishonourable use,) could never rea- sonably complain that the potter had not made it the cup in which Christ consecrated the sacramental wine. By a parity of reason, the king’s soldiers and servants cannot justly be dissatisfied because he has not made them all generals and prime ministers. And what reason had the Jews to complain, that God put the Gentiles on a level with, or even above them? May he not, without being arraigned at the bar of slothful servants, who have buried their talents, give a peculiar, extraordinary blessing when he pleases, and to whom he pleases? «Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” Shall the foot say, Why am I not the head? and the knee, Why am [ not the shoulder? Or, to allude to the parable of the labour- ers, “if God chooses to hire the Gentiles, and send them into his favourite vineyard, blessing them with Church privileges as he did the Jews; shall the eye of the Jews “be evil because God is good” to these newly hired labourers? “ May he not do what he pleases with his own ?” * TI have lived these fifteen years in a part of England where a multitude of potters make.all manner of iron and earthen vessels. Some of these mechanics are by no means conspicuous for good sense, and others are at times besotted through excessive drinking; but I never yet saw or heard of one so excessively foolish as to make, even in a drunken fit, a vessel on purpose to break it, to show that he had power over the work of his own hands. Such, however, is the folly that Zelotes’ scheme imputes to God. Nay, if a potter makes vessels on pur- pose to break them, he is only a fool; but if he could make sensible vessels like dogs, and formed them on purpose to roast them alive, and that he might show his sovereign power, would you not execrate his cruelty as much as you would pity his madness? But, what would you think of the man if he made five or ten such vessels for absolute destruction, while he made one for absolute salvation, and then assumed the title of gracious and merciful potter, and called his potting schemes ‘‘ schemes of grace ?” 92 EQUAL CHECK. [PART To this rational argument St. Paul adds another (ad hominem) peculiarly adapted to the Jews, who supposed it a kind of sacrilege to deny that, as children of Abraham, they were absolutely “ the chosen nation,” and “the temple of the Lord.” To convince them that God was not so partial to the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as they imagined, the apostle reminds them that God had excluded the first born of those favoured patriarchs from the peculiar blessings which by birthright belonged to them: doing it sometimes on account of the sin of those first born, and sometimes previously to any personal demerit of theirs, that he might show that his purpose, according to election to peculiar privileges and Church prerogatives, does “not stand of works, but of him that” chooseth, and “calleth” of his sovereign, distinguish- ing grace. St. Paul confirms this part of his doctrine by the instance of Ishmael and Isaac, who were both sons of Abraham: God haying preferred Isaac to Ishmael, because Isaac was the child of his own pro- mise, and of Abraham’s faith by Sarah, a free woman, who was a type of grace and the Gospel of Christ : whereas Ishmael was only the child of Abraham’s natural strength by Agar, an Egyptian bondswoman, who was a type of nature and the Mosaic dispensation. With peculiar wisdom the apostle dwells upon the still more striking instance of Isaac’s sons, Esau and Jacob, who had not only the same godly father, but the same free and pious mother; the younger of whom was nevertheless preferred to the elder without any apparent reason. He leaves the Jews to think how much more this might be the case, when there is an apparent cause, as in the case of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, Jacob’s three eldest sons, who, through incest, treachery, and murder, forfeited the blessing of the first born ; a bless- ing this which by that forfeiture devolved on Judah, Jacob’s fourth son, whose tribe became the first and most powerful of all the tribes of Israel, and had of consequence the honour of producing the Mes- siah, “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” St. Paul’s argument is mas- terly, and runs thus :—If God has again and again excluded some of Abraham’s posterity from the blessing of the peculiar covenant, which he made with that patriarch concerning the “ promised seed :”—if he said, “In Isaac,” Jacob, and Judah, “shall thy seed [the Messiah] be called,” and not in Ishmael, Esau, and Reuben, the first born sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; how absurd is it in the Jews to suppose that merely because they are descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they shall absolutely share the blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom? If God excluded from the birthright Ishmael the scoffer, Esau the seller of his birthright, and Reuben the defiler of Bilhah, his father’s wife; why might not Israel (his son called out of Egypt) his first born among nations, forfeit his birthright through unbelief? And why should not the Gentile world, God’s prodigal son, inherit the blessing of the first born, if they submitted to the obedience of faith, and with the younger son in the parable, returned from “the .far country” to their father’s house; while the elder son insolently quar- reled with God, reproached his brother, absolutely refused to come in, and thus made his calling void, and his reprobation sure? ‘he apostle’s argument is like a two-edged sword. With one edge he cuts down the bigotry of the Jews, by the above-mentioned appeals > SECOND. | SCRIPTURE SCALES. 93 to the history of their forefathers ; and with the other edge he strikes at their unbelief, by an appeal to the destruction of Pharaoh ; insinu- ating that God as Maker, Preserver, and Governor of men, has an undoubted right to fix the gracious or righteous terms, on which he will finally bestow salvation ; or inflict damnation on his rational crea- tures. With the greatest propriety St. Paul brings in Pharaoh, to illustrate the odious nature, fatal consequences, and dreadful punishment of unbelief. No example was better known, or could be more striking to the Jews. They had been taught from their infancy, with how “much long suffering” God had “ endured” that notorious unbeliever ; “raising him up,” supporting him, and bearing with his insolence day after day, even after he had fitted himself for destruction. ‘They had been informed, that the Lord had often reprieved that father of the faithless, that, in case he again and again hardened himself, (as Omniscience saw he would do,) he might be again and again scourged, till the madness of his infidelity should drive him into the very jaws of destruction; God having on purpose spared him, yea,* “raised him up” after every plague, that if he refused to yield, he might be made a more conspicuous monument of Divine vengeance, and be more glori- ously overthrown by matchless power. So should “God’s name,” i. e. his adorable perfections, and righteous proceedings, “be declared throughout all the earth.” And so should unbelief appear to all the world in its own odious and infernal colours. St. Paul having thus indirectly, and with his usual prudence and brevity, given a double stab to the bigotry of the unbelieving Jews, who fancied themselves unconditionally elected, and whom he had repre- sented as conditionally reprobated ; lest they should mistake his mean- ing as Zeloies does, he concludes the chapter thus: “ What shall we say then?” What is the inference which I draw from the preceding arguments? One which is obvious, namely, this: “That the Gentiles, [typified by Jacob the younger brother,] who followed not professedly after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the Christian righteousness which is of faith. But Israel,” or the Jews, who profes- sedly “followed after the law of Mosaic righteousness, [as the sports- man Esau did after his game,] have not attained to the law of Mosaic or Christian righteousness :” they are neither justified as Jews, nor sanctified as Christians. “True; and the reason is, because God had absolutely passed them by from all eternity, that he might in time make them vessels of wrath fitted for destruction.” So insinuates Zelotes. But happily for the honour of the Gospel, St. Paul declares just the reverse. “ Wherefore,” says he, did not the reprobated Jews *Is it not strange that Zelotes should infer, from this expression, that God had originally ‘raised up,” that is, created Pharaoh, on purpose to damn him? Is it not evident that Pharaoh justly looked upon every plague as a death? Witness his own words, “‘Intreat the Lord your God that he may take away from me this death only,” Exod. x, 17. And if every plague was a death to Pharaoh, was not every removal of a plague a kind of resurrection, a ruising him up, together with his kingdom, from a state of destruction, according to these words of the Egyptians, ‘‘ Knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?” How reasonable and Scriptural is this sense! Huw dreadful, I had almost said, how diaholical is that of Zelotes ! 94 EQUAL CHECK. : [part attain to righteousness? ‘fo open the eyes of Zelotes, if any thing will, he answers his own question thus: “ Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the external works’ of the Mosaic law” - opposed to Christian faith. “For they stumbled at that stumbling stone,” Christ, who is “a rock of offence” to unbelievers, and “the rock of ages” to believers. “As it is written, Behold I lay in Zion a rock,” that some shall, through their obstinate unbelief, make “a rock of offence.” And others, through their humble faith, a rocky founda- tion, according to the decrees of conditional reprobation and election : «“ He that believeth not shall be damned,—and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed,” Rom. ix, 1-33; Mark xvi, 16. That Zelotes should mistake the apostle’s meaning when it is so clearly fixed in the latter part of the chapter is unaccountable: but that he should support by it his peculiar notion of absolute reprobation is really astonishing. The unbelieving Jews are undoubtedly the persons whom the apostle had first in view when he asserted God’s night of appointing that obstinate unbelievers shall be “ vessels of wrath.” But hear what he said of those REPROBATED JEws to the ELECTED Gentiles, in the very next chapter but one. “I speak to van Gentiles, &c, if by any means I may provoke to emulation them that are my flesh [the Jews] and might save some of them. If some of the branches [the unbelieving Jew s] be broken off, &c, because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou [believing Gentile] standest by faith. Be not high minded but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee, &c. Continue in his goodness, other- wise thou also shalt be cut off,’ and treated as a vessel of wrath. “And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in,” and treated as vessels of mercy, Rom. xi, 13, &c. But what need is there of going to Rom. xi to show the inconsistency of the Calvinistic doctrines of free grace in Christ and free wrath in Adam? Of everlasting love to some and everlasting hate to others? Does not Rom. ix itself afford us another powerful antidote? If the elect were from eternity God’s beloved people, while the non-elect were the devil’s people, hated of their Maker: and if God’s love and hatred are equally unchangeable, whether free agents change from holiness to sin, or from sin to holiness; what shall we make of these words? “TI will call them my people which were not my people; and her beloved which was not beloved. And where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people : there [upon their believing] shall they be called the children of God,” Rom. ix, 25, 26. What a golden key is here to open our doctrine of conditional election, and to shut Zelotes’ doctrine of absolute reprobation ! ° Having thus given a general view of what appears to me from con- science, reason, Scripture, and the context, to be St. Paul’s meaning in that deep chapter ; I present the reader with a particular and Scriptural explanation of some passages in it which do not puzzle Honestus a little, and by which Zelotes supports the doctrines of bound will and fibe wrath with some plausibility. II. It is not [primarily] of him that Ye will not come to me 9 willeth, [i God’s way,] nor is it might have life, John y, 40. 0 ’ SECOND. ] I. [at all] of him that willeth [in oppo- sition to God’s will, as the self- righteous Jews did, ] Romans ix, 16. It is not [primarily] of him that runneth, but* of God that showeth mercy, Romans ix, 16. [EXsn¢w] I will have mercy on whom I will [or rather cAsw I should] have mercy, Romans ix, 15. |Ovcraipytw] I will have com- passion on whom I will [or rather aixréips) I should] have compassion, Romans ix, 15. SCRIPTURE SCALES. 95 Il. soever will, let him come, Revela- tion xxii, 17. I have set before ‘you life and death, &c, choose, Deut. xxx, 19. I would, &c, and ye would not, Luke xi, 34. I went, &c, lest by any means I should run or had. run in vain, Gal. ii, 2. So run that [through mercy] you may obtain, 1 Corinth- ians ix, 24. Whoso forsaketh his sin shall have mercy, Proverbs xxviii, 13. Let the wicked forsake his way, and, &c, the Lord will have mercy upon him, Isaiah lv, 7. He shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy, James ii, 13. All the paths of the Lord are mercy to such as keep his covenant, Psalm xxy, 10. As the heaven is high above the earth; so great is his mercy toward them that fear him, Psalm ciii, 11. The things that belong unto thy peace are hid from thine eyes, &c, because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation, Luke xix, 44. How is it that ye do not discern this time, yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is nght? Luke xii, 56,57. Hear, O heavens, &c, I have nourished children, and they have rebelled against me. ‘The ox knoweth his owner, &c, but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. It is a people of no understanding ; therefore he that formed them will show them no favour, Isa. i, 3; xxvii, 11. And God said to Solomon, Because thou hast asked for thyself understanding, &c, lo, I have given thee a wise and understanding heart, 1 Kings iii, 11, 12. Because he considereth, &c, he shall not die,—he shall surely live, Ezek. xvii, 28. [Who can help seeing through this cloud of scriptures, that “God has mercy on whom he should have mercy,” according to his Divine attributes ; extending initial mercy to all, according to his long suffering and impartiality; and showing eternal mercy, according * In familiar and Scripture language the effect is frequently ascribed to the chief cause; while, for brevity’s sake, inferior causes or agents are passed over in silence. Thus David says, ‘‘ Except the Lord build the house, their labour is but vain that build it.” St. Paul says, “‘I laboured, yet not I, but the grace of God.” And we say, ‘“ Admiral Hawke has beat the French fleet.” Would it not be absurd in Zelotes to strain these expressions so as to make absolutely nothing of the mason’s work in the building of a house; of the apostle’s preach- ing in the conversion of those Gentiles; and of the bravery of the officers and sailors in the victory got over the French by the English admiral? It is never- theless upon such frivolous conclusions as these that Zelotes generally rests the enormous weight of Ais peculiar doctrines. 96 EQUAL CHECK. [PART to his holiness and truth, to them that use and improve their talent of understanding, so as to love him and keep his commandments ?] The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God ac- cording to election might stand not of works, but of him that calleth [i. e. that God might show, he may and will choose some of Abraham’s posterity to some peculiar privi- leges which he does not confer upon others: and likewise to teach us that grace and the new man mysti- cally typified by Jacob, shall have the reward of the inheritance,—a reward this, which fallen nature and the old man, mystically typified by Esau, shall never receive : to teach us this] it was said to Rebecca, The elder shall serve the younger Thus saith the Lord,—Did I plainly appear to the house of thy father, &c, and did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, &c. Why kick ye at my sacrifice? Wherefore the Lord God saith, I said indeed that thy house should walk before me for ever. But now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me [ will honour; and the that despise me shall be lightly esteemed, 1 Samuel 1, 27, &c. Again: the Lord said to Samuel, [I have not chosen,] I have refused him [Eliab] for the Lord seeth not as man seeth: the Lord looketh at the heart [and chooseth in conse- [in his posterity* though not in his quence : accordingly, when] “Jesse * Mr. Henry says with great truth, ‘‘ All this choosing” of Jacob and refusing of Esau ‘‘was typical, and intended to shadow forth some other election and rejection.” And although he was a Calvinist, he does, in many respects, justice to St. Paul’s meaning. ‘This difference,” says he, ‘‘that was put between Jacob and Esau, he [the apostle] farther illustrates by a quotation from Mal. i, 2, where it is said, not of Jacob and Esau the persons, but the Edomites and Israelites their posterity: ‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated.’ The people of Israel were taken into the covenant of peculiarity, had the land of Canaan given them, were blessed with the more signal appearances of God for them in special protection, supplies; and deliverances, while the Edomites were rejected, [from the covenant of peculiarity,] had no temple, altars, priests, prophets; no such particular care of them, &c. Others understand it of the election and rejection of particular persons; some loved and others hated from eternity. But the apostle speaks of Jacob and Esau, not in their own persons, but as ancestors: Jacob the people and Esau the people: nor doth God damn any, or decree so to do, merely because he will do it, without any reason taken from their own deserts, &c. The choosing of Jacob the younger was to intimate that the Jews, though the natural seed of Abraham, and the first born of the Church, should be laid aside: and the Gentiles, who were as the younger brother, should be taken in in their stead, and have the birthright and blessing.” He concludes his comment upon the whole chapter by these words, which exactly answer to the double key I have given to the reader: ‘‘ Upon the whole matter the unbelieving Jews have no re2son to quarrel with God for rejecting them: they had a fair offer of righteousness and life, and salvation, made upon Gospel terms, which they did not like, and would not come up to; and therefore if they perish they may thank themselves. Their blood is upon their own heads.” What precedes is pure truth, and strongly confirms my doctrine. But what fol lows is pure Calvinism, and shows the inconsistency of the most judicious writers in that scheme. ‘‘ Were the Jews hardened? It was because it was his own (God’s) pleasure to deny them softening grace, &c. Two sorts of vessels God forms out of the great lump of fallen mankind: (1.) ‘ Vessels of wrath: vessels filled with wrath, as a vessel of wine isa vessel filled with wine, ‘full of the fury of the Lord,’ &c. (2.) ‘Vessels of mercy,’ filled with merey.” And again: “he (the apostle) answers by resolving all into the Divine sovereignty. We are the SECOND.] I. person :] that is, the younger shall have the blessing of the first born. And it was accordingly conferred upon Jacob in these words, Be lord over thy brethren, Gen. xxvii, 29. To conclude, therefore, from Jacob’s superior blessing, that Esau was absolutely cursed and repro- bated of God, is as absurd as to suppose that Manasseh, Joseph’s eldest son, was also an absolute reprobate, because Ephraim, his younger brother, had Jacob’s chief blessing: for the old patriarch re-’ fusing to put his right hand upon the head of Manasseh, said, “ Truly his younger brother shall be greater than he,” Genesis xlviii, 19. But would Zelotes himself infer from such words that Manasseh was personally appointed from all eter- nity to disbelieve and be damned, and Ephraim to believe and be saved; that the purpose of God according to absolute reprobation and election might stand “not of works* but of him that capriciously and irresistibly calleth” some to fin- ished salvation in Christ, and others SCRIPTURE SCALES. 97 II. made seven of his sons to pass be- fore the Lord, Samuel said, The ‘Lord hath not chosen these, 1 Sam. xvi, 7, 10. The Lord hath sought him a man after hig own heart, [David,] because thou [Saul] hast not kept that which the Lord com- manded thee. Once more: the Lord has rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine that is better than thou,” chap. xiii, 14; xv, 28. The kingdom of Israel was an unpromised gift to Saul and to David, and yet God’s election to and reprobation from that dignity were according to dispositions and works. How much more may this be said of God’s election to or re- probation from a crown of glory! a crown this, which God hath pro- mised by way of reward to them that love him; refusing it by way of punishment to them that hate him; whom he clothes in hell with shame and with a vengeful curse, according to their works and his own declaration which follows :— thing formed, and he is the former, and it does not become us to challenge or arraign his wisdom in ordering and disposing of us into this or that shape or figure.” That is, in plain English, free wrath, or, to speak smoothly as a Calvin- ist, Divine sovereignty may order and dispose us into the shape of vessels of wrath before we have done either» good or evil. How could Mr. Henry thus con- tradict himself, and write for and against truth? Why, he was a moderate Calwvin- ist: as moderate, he wrote glorious truths; and, as a Calvinist, horrid insinua- tions. * This phrase: ‘‘ That the purpose of God according to election might stand not of works but of him that calleth,” is to be understood merely of those blessings which distinguishing grace bestows upon some men and not upon others, and which do not necessarily affect their eternal salvation or their eternal damnation. In this sense.it was that God, for the above-mentioned reasons, preferred Jacob. to Esau. In this sense he still prefers a Jew to a Hottentot, and a Christian to a Jew; giving a Christian the Old and New Testament, while the Jew has only the Old, and the Hottentot has neither. Far from denying the reality of this sovereign, distinguishing grace, which is independent on all works, and flows entirely from the superabounding kindness of “him that calleth,” I have parti cularly maintained it, vol. i, p. 505. ‘This is St. Paul’s edifying meaning, t , which I have not the least objection. But when Zelotes stretches the phrase so. far as to make it mean that God ordains people to eternal life or eternal death, “not of works but of him that” without reason forcibly ‘ calleth some to believe and be saved, leaving others necessarily to disbelieve and be damned: when Zelotes does this, I say, my reason and conscience are equally frighted, and I beg leave to dissent from him for the reasons mentioned in this section. Vou. II. 7 rae 98 to finished damnation in Adam? That God abhors such a proceed. ing is evident from the scriptures which fill my left scale, and in par- ticular from the opposite texts. It is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, Rom. ix, 13. Zelotes, who catches at whatever seems to countenance his doctrine of free wrath, thinks that this serip- ture demonstrates the electing and reprobating partiality, on which his favourite doctrines are founded. To EQUAL CHECK. [PART 1% “Yet saith the [Predestinarian] house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? Are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you every one according to his ways. Re- pent and turn, &c, so iniquity shall not be your ruin,” Ezekiel xviii, 29, &c. “I will do unto them according to their way; and ac- cording to their deserts [secundum merita] will I judge them, and they shall know that I am the Lord,” Ezekiel vii, 27. To these scrip tures you may add all the multi- tude of texts where God declares that he will judge, i. e. justify or condemn, reward or punish, finally elect or finally reprobate men for, by, according to, or because of their works. God is love. God is loving to every man, and his tender mercies [in the accepted time] are over all his works. Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal, &c, 1 John iv, 8: Psa. cxly, in the common prayers, Ezek. xxxiii, 17. see his mistake, we need only consider, that in the Scripture language a love of preference is emphatically called Jove ; and an inferior degree of leye is comparatively called hatred. « Pious Jacob was not such a churlish man as positively to hate any body, much less Leah—his cousin and his wife: nevertheless, we read, “The Lord saw that Leah was hated: the Lord hath heard that I was hated: now, therefore, my hus- band will love me:” i. e. Jacob will prefer me to Rachel, his barren wife, Gen. xxix, 31, 32. Again: Moses makes a law concerning “a man that hath two wives, one beloved and another hated,” without inti- mating that it is wrong in the husband to hate, that is, to be less fond of one of his wives than of the other, Deut. xxi, 15. Once more: our Lord was not the chaplain of the old murderer, that he should command us positively to hate our fathers, mothers, and wives: for he, who thus “hateth another, is a murderer.” Nevertheless, he not only says, “ He that hateth his life [that invaluable gift of God] shall keep it unto life eternal ; and he that loveth his life shall lose it:” but he declares, “If any man hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and ‘brethren, and sisters, he cannot be my disciple,” Luke xiv, 26. Now, “Christ evidently means, that whosoever does not love his father, &c, EEO ee ClClCTmTmTLTmTm.mee eee. _ SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 99 and his own life Jess than him, cannot be his sincere disciple. By a similar idiom it is said, “ Esau have I hated :” an expression this, which no more means that God had absolutely rejected Esau, and appointed him to the pit of destruction, than Christ meant that we should abso- lutely throw away our lives, reject our fathers, wives, and children, and abandon them to destruction. Ii. * Whom he will he hardeneth, Rom. ix, 18. That is, God judicially gives up to a reprobate mind whom he will, not according to Calvinistic caprice, but according to the rectitude of his own nature: and according to this rectitude displayed in the Gospel, he will give up all those who, by obstinately hardening their hearts to the last, turn the day of salvation into a day of final provocation, see Psalm xcv, 8, &c. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them, John xii, 40. That is, he hath judicially given them up to their own blindness and hardness. They had said so long, We will not see, that he said at last in his just anger, They shall not see; determined to withdraw the abused, forfeited light of his grace; and so they were blinded. The Lord [in the above-mention- ed sense | hardened Pharaoh’s heart, [for his unparalleled cruelty to Is- rael,| Exod. i, 10, 22; vii, 13. See the next note. through the deceitfulness of sin, Heb. ui, 18. la The god of this world [not the Almighty] hath, [by their own free consent] blinded the minds of them that believe not. Now is the day of salvation. Despisest thou the riches of God’s goodness, forbear- ance, and long suffering? not know- ing that the goodness of God lead- eth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness, and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath, 2 Cor. iv, 4; vi, 2; Rom. ii, 4, 5. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, who says, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand ; and, seeing, ye shall see, and shall net perceive. For this people’s heart is waxed gross [through their obstinately resisting the light ;] and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them, Matt. xiii, 14, 15. Pharaoh hardened his heart, and hearkened not, Exod. vili, 15. Ze dekiah stiffened his neck, and har- dened his heart from turning unte the Lord, 2 Chron, xxxvi, 13. Take heed lest any of you be hardened Happy is the man that feareth alway; but he that hardeneth his heart [as Pharaoh did] shall fall into mischief, [God will give him up,] Prov. xxviii, 14. They are * The reader is desired to take notice, that in this and the following para- graphs, where I produce scriptures expressive of God’s just wrath, I have shift- ed the numbers that mark to which axiom the passage belongs. And this I have done: (1.) Because there is no free wrath in God. (2.) Because, when there is wrath in him, man’s perverseness is the just cause of it. And (3.) Because in point of evil, man has the wretched diabolical honour of being first cause; and therefore, No. I. is his shameful prerogative, according to the principles laid down Sec. III. 100 EQUAL CHECK. [PART without excuse : because, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, &c. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, &c. For this cause God gave them up to vile affections, &c. And even as they did not like to retam God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, Rom. i, 20, 28. II. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why does he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Rom. ix, 19. The rigid Calvinists triumph greatly in this objection started by St. Paul. They suppose that it can be reasonably levelled at no doctrine but their own, which teach- es, that God by zrresistible decrees has unconditionally ordained some men to eternal life, and others to eternal death; and therefore their doctrine is that of the apostle. To show the absurdity of this conclu- sion, I need only remind the reader once more, that in this chapter St. Paul establishes two doctrines : (1.) That God may admit whem he will I. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Gen. xviii, 25. That thou mightest be justified in thy saying, and clear when thou art judged, Psa. li, 4. Com. Prayer. Who but Zelotes could justify an imaginary being that should, by the channel of irresistible decrees, pour sin and wrath into vessels made on purpose to hold both; and should call himself the God of love, the Holy One of Israel, and a God of judgment? Nay, who would not detest a king, who should absolutely contrive the contracted wickedness and crimes of his subjects, that he might justly sentence them to eter- nal torments, to show his sovereign. ty and power? into the covenant of peculiarity, out of pure, distinguishing, sovereign grace: and (2.) That he had an absolute right of hardening whom he will upon Gospel terms, i. e. of taking the talent of *softening grace from all that imitate the obstinate unbelief of Pharaoh; such mflexible unbelievers being the only people whom God will harden or give up to a reprobate mind. Now in both those respects the objection proposed is pertinent, as the apostle’s answers plainly show. With regard to the first doctrine, that is, the doctrine of that distinguishing grace, which puts more honour upon one vessel than upon another ; calling Abraham to be the Lord’s “pleasant vessel,” while Lot or Moab is only his “wash pot ;” the apostle answers: “ Nay, but, O man, who art thou who repliest against God? shall the thing formed say: to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” Why am I a “wash pot,” and not a “pleasant vessel?” “Hath not the potter power over the clay,” &c. Beside,'is it not a blessing to be comparatively a “ vessel to dishonour?” _ Had not Ishmael and Esau a blessing, though it was inferior to that of Isaac and Jacob? Is not a wash pot as good in its place as a drinking cup? Is not a righteous Gentile—a Melchisedec, or a Job, &c, as acceptable to God, according to his dispensation, as a devout Jew anda * Mr. Henry comments thus upon these words, “ I will harden his heart,” that is, ‘‘ withdraw softening grace,” which God undoubtedly did upon just proyoca- tion. Whence it follows that, inconsistent Calvinists being judges, Pharaoh himself had once softening grace; it being impossible for God to withdraw from Pharaoh’s heart what never was there. Query. Was this softening grace, which God withdrew from Pharaoh, of the reprobating or of the electing kind ? SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 101 sincere Christian according to theirs? -With respect to the second doc- trine, that of hardening obstinate unbelievers, and “making his wrathfut power known” upon them: after tacitly granting that it is impossible to resist God’s absolute will, the apostle intimates in his laconic, and yet comprehensive way of writing, that God has a right to find fault with, and display his wrathful power upon hardened sinners, because “he har- dens” none, but such as have personally made themselves “vessels of wrath,” and “ fitted themselves for destruction” by doing despite to the Spirit of his grace, instead of improving their day of initial salvation : and he insinuates, that even then, God, instead of presently dealing with them according to their deserts, “endures them with much long suffer- ing,” which, according to St. Peter’s doctrine, is to be accounted a de- gree of salvation. Therefore in both senses the objection is pertinently proposed, and justly answered by the apostle, without the help of sove- reign free wrath, and Calvinistic reprobation. I Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour® Rom. ix, 21. Ihave observed again and again that the apostle with his two-edged sword defends two doctrines: (1.) The right which God, our sovereign benefactor, has to give five talents, or one talent to whom he pleases, that is, to admit some people to the covenant of peculiarity, while he leaves others under.a more general dispensation of grace and favour. Thus a Jew was once a vessel to honour, a person honoured far above a Gentile, and a Gentile, in comparison to a Jew, might be called “a vessel to dishonour.” Moab, to use again the psalmist’s expression, was once only God’s ‘wash pot,” Psa. lx, 8, while Israel was his “pleasant vessel.” But now the case is altered: the Jews are nationally become the “ vessel wherein there is no pleasure,” and the Gentiles are the “ pleasant ves- sel.” And where is the injustice of this proceeding? If a potter may make of the same lump of clay what vessel he pleases, some for the dining room, and others for the meanest apartment, all good and useful in their respective places ; why should not God have the same . Il. The vessel that he [the potter] made of clay, was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as seemed good to the potter, &c. O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter, says the Lord, &c. At what instant I shall speak concern- ing a nation, &c, to destroy [for its wickedness :] if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, &c, to build it, of at do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them, Jer. xviii, 4. When St. Paul wrote Rom. ix, 21, he had probably an eye to the preceding passage of Jeremiah, which is alone sufficient to rectify the mistakes of Zelotes; there be- ing scarce a stronger text to prove that God’s decrees respeeting our salvation and destruction are condi- tional. Never did “Sergeant uF” guard the genuine doctrines of grace more valiantly, or give Cal- vinism a more desperate thrust than he does in the potter’s house by the pen of Jeremiah. However, lest that prophet’s testimony should not appear sufficiently weighty to Ze- i02 LF liberty? Why should he not, if he chooses it, place some moral vessels above others, and raise the Gentiles to the honour of being his peculiar people?’ An unspeakable honour this, which was before granted to the Jews only. The apostle’s second doctrine respects “vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath,” which in the present case must be carefully distinguished from the “vessels to honour,” or to nobler uses, and “the vessels to dishonour,” or to less noble uses: and, if I mistake not, this distinction is one of those things which, as St. Peter observes, EQUAL CHECK. [PART Il. lotes, I strengthen it by an express declaration of God himself :— “ Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, saith the Lord ; and not that he should return from his ways and live? Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is net equal [in point of election to eternal life, and appointment to’ eternal death.] Hear now, O house of Israel, Is not my way equal? When a righteous man turneth away from his nght- eousness, &c, for his iniquity shall he die. Agam: when a wicked man turneth from his wickedness, &c, he shall save his soul -alive, Ezek. xviii, 23, &c. are “hard to be understood in Paul’s epistles.” ‘The importance of it appears from this consideration : God may, as a just and gracious sovereign, absolutely make a moral vessel for a more or less honourable use, as he pleases; such a pre- ference of one vessel to another being no more inconsistent with Divine goodness, than the king’s appointing one of his subjects lord of the bed chamber, and another only groom of the stable, is inconsistent with royal good nature. But this is not the case with respect ww “ vessels of mercy” and “vessels of wrath.” If you insinuate, with Zelotes, that an absolute God, to show his absolute love and wrath, absolutely made some men to fill them unconditionally and eternally with love and mercy, and others to fill them unconditionally and eternally with hatred and wrath, by way of reward and punishment, you “change the truth of God into a lie,” and serve the great Diana of the Calvinists more than the righteous Judge of all the earth. Whatever Zelotes may think of it, God never made an adult a vessel of eternal mercy that did not first submit to the obedience of faith; nor did he ever absolutely look upon any man as a vessel of wrath, that had not by personal, obstinate unbelief first fitted himself for destruction. Considering then the comparison of the potter as referring in a secondary sense to the “vessels of mercy,” and to the “vessels of wrath,” it cqnveys the following rational and Scriptural ideas :—May not God, as the righteous maker of moral vessels. Sil with mercy or with wrath whom he will, according to his essential wisdom and rectitude? May he not shed abroad his pardoning mercy and love in the heart of a believing Gentile, as well as in the. breast of a believing Jew? And may he not give up to a reprobate mind, yea, fill with the sense of his just wrath a stubborn Jew, a Caiaphas, as well as a refractory Gentile, a Pharaoh? Have not Jews and Gentiles a common original ? And may not the Author of their common existence, as their impartial law giver, determine to save or damn individuals, upon the gracious and equitable terms of the Gospel dispensations? Is he bound absolutely to give all the blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom to Abraham’s posterity, and absolutely to reprobate the rest of the world? Has a Jew more right SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 103 to “reply against God” than a Gentile? When God propounds his terms of salvation, does it become any man to “say to him that formed him, Why hast thou made me thus” subject to thy government ? Why must I submit to thy terms? If God without injustice could appoint that Christ should descend from Isaac, and not from Ishmael ; if, before Esau and Jacob had done any good or evil, he could fix that the blood of Jacob, and not that of Esau, should yun in his Son’s veins; though Esau was Isaac’s child as well as Jacob: how much more may he, without break- ing the promise, made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, fix that the free- willing believer, whether Jew or Gentile, shall be a “vessel of mercy prepared for glory,” chiefly by free grace; and that the free-willng unbeliever shall be a “vessel of wrath, fitted,” chiefly by free will, “for just destruction ?” Is not this doctrine agreeable to our Lord’s expostula- tion, With “the light of life. which lightens every man, you will not come unto me that you might have life—more abundant life—yea, life evermore ?” Does it not perfectly tally with the great, irrespective decrees of conditional election and reprobation, “ He that believeth, and is bap- tized,” that is, he that shows his faith by correspondent works, when hi Lord comes to reckon with him, “shall be saved: and he that believeth not,” though he” were baptized, “shall be damned?” And is it not astonishing, that when St. Paul’s meaning in Rom ix, can be so easily opened by the silver and golden key, which God himself has sent us from heaven, I mean reason and Scripture, so many pious divines should go to Geneva, and humbly borrow Calvin’s wooden and iron key, I mean his election and reprobation? Two keys these, which are in as great repute among injudicious Protestants, as the keys of his holiness are among simple Papists. Nor do I see what great difference there is between the Romish and the Geneva keys: if the former open and shut a fool’s paradise, or a knave’s purgatory, do not the latter shut us all up in finished salvation or finished damnation ? Zelotes indeed does not often use the power of the keys; one key does generally for him. He is 2: times so ashamed of the iron key, which is black and heavy ; and so pleased with the wooden key, which is light and finely gilt ; that instead of holding them out fairly and jointly as St. Peter’s pictures do the keys of hell and heaven, he makes the shining key alone glitter in the sight of his charmed hearers. Now and then, however, when he is driven to a corner by a judicious opponent, he pulls out his iron key, and holding it forth in triumph, he asks, “ Who has resisted his will?” To these wrested words of St. Paul he probably adds two or three perverted scriptures— Which I beg leave to weigh next in my Scales. Shall [natural evil] be inthe city, | They have [done moral evil]— and the Lord hath not done it [for they have built the high places of the punishment of the ungodly, and Baal to burn their sons with fire, for the greater good of the godly?] &c, which I commanded not, nor Amos iu, 6. spake it, neither came it into my mind—neither came it into my heart, Jer. xix, 5; vii, 31. The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre: thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness, Psa. xly, 6. Abhor that which is evil, Rom. xii, 9. Thus saith the Lord, I will bring [natural] evil upon this city, &c, because they have hardened 104 EQUAL CHECK. [PART their necks, that they might not hear my words, Jer. xix, 15. There- fore, when David says, that “the Lord does whatsoever pleaseth him,” he does not speak of either man’s sin or duty, but only of God’s own work, which Hx absolutely intends to perform. (1.) Not of man’s sin: for “God is not a God that hath pleasure in wickeaness,” Psa. y, 4. Nor (2.) Of man’s duty: for though a master may do his servant’s work, yet he can never do his servant’s duty. It can never be a mas- ter’s duty to obey his own commands: the servant must do it himself, or his duty (as duty) must remain for ever undone. There are certain men, &c, who* were before of old ordained to this condemnation, &c,[namely, the con- demnation of] the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, [whom] he [God] hath reserved in ever!ssting chains unto the judgment of the great day, Jude, verses 4, 6. 2 To them that are disobedient, &c, he is a rock of offence, even to them who stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed: [or rather] L Ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying, &c, our Lord Jesus Christ, [as lawgiver, judge, and king, | &c. These be they who separate them- selves [from their self-denying brethren] sensual, not having the Spirit [i. e. having quenched the Spirit]—walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words [whereby they creep in unawares into rich wi- dows’ houses ; seducing the fattest of the flock, and] having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage, verses 4, 16, 19. Ye will not come to me that ye might have life, John vy, 40. Ye put the word of God from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eter nal life, Acts xiii, 46. whereunto [namely, to be disobe- dient] theyt have even disposed [or settled] themselves, 1 Peter ii, 7, 8. * The words xada TOoyEYPappEevat rendered ‘‘ before of old ordained,” literally, mean “ formerly forewritten, foretypified, or foredescribed.” The condemnation of these backsliders, or apostates, was of old forewritten by David, Psa. exxy, 5; and by Ezekiel, chap. xviii, 24. Their lusts were of old foretypified by those of Sodom; their apostasy by that of the fallen angels; and their perdition by that of the Israelites, whom the Lord ‘‘saved out of the land of Egypt,” and ‘afterward destroyed” for their unbelief; three typical descriptions these, which St. Jude himself immediately produces, verses 5, 6, 7; together with Enoch’s prophecy of the Lord’s coming ‘“‘to convince them of all their ungodly deeds” and hard speeches,” verses 15,17. Is it not strange then that Zelotes should build his notions of absolute reprobation upon a little mistake of our translators, which is contrary both to the Greek and to the context? ‘* Beloved,” says St. Jude, verse 17, ‘‘remember ye the words [xpweignpevwy, ‘ forespoken,’ answering to xpoysyoappevot, ‘forewritten,’ and not ‘foreappointed,’] which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” For the apostles, no doubt, often enlarged upon these words of their Master: ‘“ Because iniquity shall abound the love of many shall wax cold [and they will fall away;} but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” + A beautiful face may have some freckles. Our translation is good, but it has its blemishes; nor is it one of the least to represent God as appointing men to be ~ SECOND. | SCRIPTURE SCALES, 105 I shall close the preceding scriptures by some arguments which show the absurdity of supposing that there can be any free wrath in a just and good God. (1.) When Adan, with all his posterity in his loins, came forth out of the hands of his Maker, he was pronounced very good, disobedient. ‘To vindicate all the Divine perfections, which such a doctrine in- jures, of the two meanings that the word fairly bears in the original, I need cnly choose that which is not repugnant to reason and Scripture. If charity, which * thinketh no evil and hopeth all things” consistently with reason,—if charity, 1 say, obliges us to put the best construction upon the words of our neighbour, how much more should decency oblige us to do it with respect to the word of God? When a modest person drops a word, that bears either a chaste or an un- chaste meaning, is it not cruel absolutely to fix an “‘ unchaste” meaning upon it? To show that St. Peter’s words bear the meaning which I fix to them, I need only prove two things. (1.) That the original word cre$ncav, which is translated “ap- pointed,” means also ‘‘ settled” or ‘‘ disposed.” And (2.) That a passive word in the Greek tongue frequently bears the meaning of the Hebrew voice called “ hith- pahel,” which signifies the making oneself to do a thing, or the being caused by oneself to do it: a voice this, which in some degree answers to the middle voice of the Greeks, some tenses of which equally bear an active or a passive sense. To prove the first point, I appeal only to two texts, where the word 7Snue undoubtedly bears the meaning which I contend for. Luke xxi, 14, Seode “ snrtzs it in your hearts;” and Luke ix, 62, evSeros ‘* fit,” or more literally “ well pisPposED for the kingdom of God.” And to prove my second proposition, (beside what I have already said upon that head, in my note upon Mr. Madan’s mistake, p- 77,) I present the critical reader with indubitable instances of it, even in our translation. Jude, verse 10, @Scipovra:, they are corrupted, or, ‘‘they corrupt THEMSELVES.” 2 Cor. xi, 13, peracynparionevor, being transformed, or, ‘ transform. ® ing themselves.” Acts xviii, 6, aurwy avriraccopevwr, literally, they being opposed, or, as we have it in our Bibles, ‘‘ when they opposed themselves.” John xx, 14, eorpagn, She (Mary) was turned, or ‘“‘she turned herself.” Matt. xvi, 23, Jesus oroages, being turned, or, “turning himself” Matt. xxvii, 3, Judas perapednSecs, having been penitent, or, ‘having repented himself,” &c, &c. In such cases as these the sacred writers use indifferently the active and passive voice, because klzn acts, and is acted upon: he is worked upon, and he works. Thus we read Acts iii, 19, emorps Ware, “convert,” namely, yourselves, ‘actively ;” though our translators render it passively, ‘“‘ be converted:” and Luke xxii, 32, our Lord, speaking to Peter, does not say, extorpagers, “‘ when thou art converted,” passively ; but actively, exiotpeWas, ‘‘ when thou hast converted,” namely, “‘ thyself.” Now, if in so many cases our translators have justly rendered passive words, by werds expressing ‘‘a being acted upon by ourselves,” I desire Zelotes to show, by any one good argument, taken from criticism, Scripture, reason, conscience, or de- cency, that we must render the word of our text ‘‘they were appointed,” namely, by God, ‘tc be disobedient,” wlien the word ereSycav may with as much propriety as in all the preceding cases, be rendered they disposed, set, or ‘‘ settled them- selves unto disobedience.” What has the Holy One of Israel done to us, that we should dishonour him by charging our disobedience upon ‘‘his appointment ?” Are we so fond of the doctrines of grace, finished salvation, and finished damna- tion, that, in order to maintain the latter, we must represent God as appointing, out of sovereign, distinguishing free wrath, the disobedience of the reprobates, that by securing the ‘“‘ means”—their unbelief and sin, he may also secure the * end”—their everlasting burnings ? Zeiotss makes too much of some figurative expressions in the sacred writings. He forgets, that what is said of God, must always be understood in such a man- ner as becomes God. If it would be absurd to take literally what the Scriptures say of God’s “plucking his right hand out of his bosom;” of ‘‘ his awakening as one out of sleep ;” of ‘his riding upon the heavens;” of bis ‘‘smelling a sweet savour from a burnt offering ;” of his ‘‘ lending an ear,” &c, is it not much more absurd to take the three following texts in a literal sense? (1.) 2 Sam. xvi, 10, “The Lord said unto him, [Shimei,] Curse David.” Is it not evident that David's meaning in these words is only this? ‘The Lord, by bringing me to the de- plorable circumstances in which I now find myself, has justly given an oppor p . : 106 - * ‘EQUAL CHECK. [wart as being “ made in the likeness of God,” and “ after the image of him,” who is a perfect compound of every possible perfection. God spake those words in time ; but if we believe Zelotes, the supposed decree of absolute, personal rejection, was made before time ; God having fixed, from all eternity, that Esau should be absolutely hated. Now, as Esau stood in and with Adam, before he fell in and with him; and as God could not but consider him as standing and righteous, before he consi- dered him fallen and sinful ; it necessarily follows, either that Calvinism tunity to Shimei to insult me with impunity, and to upbraid me publicly with my crimes. This opportunity I call ‘a bidding,’ to humble myself under the hand of God, who lashes my guilty soul by this afflictive providence ; but I would not insinuate that God literally said to Shimei, ‘Curse David,’ any more than I would affirm that he said to me, Murder Uriah.” (2.) God is represented, 2 Sam. xii, 11, as saying to David, ‘I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them to thy neighbour, and he shall lie with them in the sight of this sun, for thou didst it secretly, but I will do it before all Israel.” And accordingly God took the bridle of his restraining power out of Absalom’s heart, who had already murdered his own brother, and was, it seems, by that time a vessel of wrath self fitted for destruction. The Divine restraint being thus removed, the corrupted youth rushes upon the ‘‘ outward” commission of those crimes which he had perhaps a hundred times committed in “‘ intention,” and from which the Lord had hitherto kept him, out of regard for his pious father —a regard this, which David had now forfeitea py his atrocious crimes. The meaning of the whole passage seems then to be this: ‘* Thou shalt be treated as thou hast served Uriah. Thy wild son Absalom has already robbed thee of thy crown, and defiled thy wives in his ambitious, libidinous heart. When thou _ wast a good man—a man after my own heart, I hindered him from going such lengths in wickedness, but now I will hinder him no more: he shall be thy scourge; thou sinnedst secretly against Uriah, but I will stand in the way of thy wicked son no longer, and he shall retaliate before the sun.” ‘This implies only a passive permission, and a providential opportunity to commit a crime “outwardly,” nor could wicked men ever proceed to the ‘‘ external execution” of their designs without such opportunities. (3.) By a like figure of speech we read, Psa. ev, 25, that ‘‘ God turned the “heart of the Egyptians to hate his people, and to deal subtilly with his servants.” But how did he do this? Was it by doing the devil’s work ? by infusing hatred into the hearts of the Egyptians? No: it was merely by blessing and multiply- ing the Israelites, as the preceding words demonstrate: ‘‘ He increased his people greatly, and made them stronger than their enemies.” Hence it was that fear, envy, jealousy, and hatred, were naturally stirred up in the breasts of the Egyp- tians. I repeat it; not to explain such scriptures in the manner becoming the God of holiness is far more detestable than to assert, that ‘‘ the Ancient of Days” literally wears a robe, and his own white hair, because Daniel, after having seen an emblematic vision of his majesty and purity, said, ‘‘ His garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head was like the pure wool.” For every body must allow, that it is far less indecent “literally” to hold forth God as a venerable Jacob, than to represent him “literally” as a mischievous, sin-infusing Belial. (4.) With regard to Jer. xx, 7, ‘‘O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was de- ceived,” Mr. Sellon justly observes: (1.) That the Hebrew word here translated ‘“deceive,” signifies also to ‘“‘entice” or ‘‘ persuade,” as the margin shows, And (2.) That the context requires the last sense; the prophet expressing his natural backwardness to preach, and saying, ‘‘O Lord, thou hast persuaded me” to do it, “and I was persuaded.” It is a pity, that when a word has two meanings, the one honourable, and the other injurious to God, the worst should once be prefer- red to the better. If Zelotes take these hints, he will no more avail himself of some figurative expressions, and of some mistakes of our translators, to repregent God as the author of sin and the deceiver of men. When wicked men have long resisted the truth, God may indeed, and frequently does, judicially “ give them up to believe a destructive lie ;” but he is no more the author of the lie, than he is Beelzebub, ‘‘the father of lies.” ‘ . SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 107 is a system of false doctrine; or, that the God of love, holiness, and equity, once hated his righteous creature, once reprobated the innocent, and said by his decree, “ Cain, Esau, Saul and Judas are very good, for they are seminal parts of Adam my son, whom I pronounce very good, Gen. i, 31. But I actually hate those parts of my unsullied workman- ship: without any actual cause, I detest mine own perfect image. Yea, I turn my eyes from their present complete goodness, that I may hate them for their future pre-ordained iniquity.” Suppose the God of love had transformed himself into the evil principle of the Manichees, what could he haye done worse than thus to hate with immortal hatred, and absolutely to reprobate his innocent, his pure, his spotless offspring, at the very time in which he pronounced it very good? If Zelotes shud- ders at his own doctrine, and finds himself obliged to grant, that so long, at least, as Adam stood, Cain, Esau, Saul, and Judas stood with him, and in him were actually loved, conditionally chosen, and wonderfully blessed of God in paradise ; it follows that the doctrine of God’s everlasting hate, and of the eternal, absolute rejection of those whom Zelotes consi- ders as the four great reprobates, is founded on the grossest contradic- tion imaginable. 2. But Zelotes possibly complains that I am unfair, because I point out the deformity of his “doctrine of grace,” without saying one word of its beauty. “Why do you not,” says he, “speak of God’s absolute everlasting love to Jacob, as well as of his absolute, everlasting hate to Esau, Pharaoh, and Judas? Is it right to make always the worst of things?” Indeed, Zelotes, if I am not mistaken, your absolute election is full as subversive of Christ’s Gospel, as your absolute reprobation. The Scripture informs us, that when Adam fell he lost the favour, as well as the image of God; and that he became “a vessel of wrath” from head to foot: but if everlasting, changeless love. still embraced innumerable parts of his seed, his fall was by no means so grievous and universal as the Scriptures represent it: for “a multitude, which no man can number,” ever stood, and shall ever stand on the Rock of ages: a rock this which, if we believe Zelotes, is made of unchangeable, absolute, sovereign, everlasting love for the elect, and of unchangeable, absolute, sovereign, everlasting wrath for the reprobates. 3. But this is only part of the mischief that necessarily flows from the fictitious doctrmes of grace. ‘They make the cup of trembling, which our Lord drank in Gethsemane, and the sacrifice which he offered on Calvary, in a great degree insignificant. Christ’s office as high priest was to sprinkle the burning throne with his precious blood, and to “turn away wrath” by the sacrifice of himself: but if there neyer was either a burning throne, or any wrath flaming against the elect; if unchangeable love ever embraced them, how greatly is the oblation of Christ’s blood depreciated? Might he not almost have saved himself the trouble of coming down from heaven to “turn away a wrath” which never flamed against the elect, and which shall never cease to flame against the reprobates ? 4.«From God’s preaching the Gospel to our first parents it appears that they were of the number of the elect, and Zelotes himself is of opinion that they belonged to the little flock. If this was the case, according to the doctrine of free, sovereign, unchangeable, everlasting 108 "EQUAL CHECK. [PART love to the elect, it necessarily follows, that Adam himself was never a child of wrath. Nor does it require more faith to believe that our first parents were God’s pleasant children, when they sated themselves with forbidden fruit, than to believe that David and Bathsheba were persons after God’s own heart, when they defiled Uriah’s bed. Hence it follows that the doctrine of God’s everlasting love, in the Crispian sense of the word, is absolutely false, or that Adam himself was a child of changeless, everlasting love, when he made his wife, the ser- pent, and his own belly, his trinity under the fatal tree: while Cain — was a child of everlasting wrath, when God said of him, in his father’s loins, that he was very good. Thus we still find ourselves at the shrine of the great Diana of the Calvinists, singing the new song of salvation and damnation finished from everlasting to everlasting, according to the doctrine laid down by the Westminster divines in their catechism: “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass.” 5. This leads me to a third argument. If God from all eternity did “unchangeably ordain” all events, and, in particular, that the man Christ should absolutely die to save a certain, fixed number of men, who (by the by) never were children of wrath, and therefore never were in the least danger of perishing: if he unalterably appointed that the devil should tempt, and absolutely prevail over a certain fixed number of men who were children of wrath, before temptation and sin made them so: if this is the case, I say, how idle was Christ’s redeeming work! How foolish the tempter’s restless labour! How absurd Zelotes’ preaching! How full of inconsistency his law messa- ges of wrath to the elect, and his Gospel messages of free grace to the reprobates! And how true the doctrine, which has lately appeared in print, and sums up the Crispian gospel in these sentences :—Ye, elect, shall be saved do what ye will; and ye, reprobates, shall be damned, do what ye can; for in the day of his power the Almighty will make you all absolutely willing to go to the place which he has unconditionally ordained you for, be it heaven or hell; God, if we believe the Westminster divines, in their catechism, “ haying unchange- ably foreordained whatever comes to pass in time, especially concern- ing angels and men.” An unscriptural doctrine this, which charges all sin and damnation upon God, and perfectly agrees with the doctrine of the consistent Calvinists, I mean the doctrine of finished salvation and finished damnation, thus summed up by Bishop Burnet in his exposition of the seventeenth article: “They think, &c, that he,” God, “decreed Adam’s sin, the lapse of his posterity, and Christ’s death, together with the salvation and damnation of such men as should be most for his own glory: that to those that were to be saved he decreed to give such efficacious assistances as should certainly put them in the way of salvation; and to those whom he rejected, he decreed to give sucn assistances and means only as should render them inexcusable.” Just as if those people could ever be inewedsable who only do what their almighty Creator has “unchangeably foreor- dained !” SECOND.| SCRIPTURE SCALES- 109 SECTION XII. Directions to understand the Scripture doctrine of election and reproba- tion—What election and reprobation are UNCONDITIONAL, and what coNDITIONAL— There is an unconditional election of sovereign, dis- tinguishing grace, and a conditional election of impartial, rewarding goodness—The difficulties which attend the doctrines of election and reprobation are solved by means of the Gospel dispensations; and those doctrines are illustrated by the parable of the talents—A Scriptural view of our election in Christ. Wuen good men, like Zelotes and Honestus, warmly contend about a doctrine; charging one another with heresy in their controversial heats, each has certainly a part of the truth on his side. Would you have the whole, Candidus? Only act the part. of an attentive moderator between them: embrace their extremes at once, and you will embrace truth in her seamless garment,—the complete “truth as it is in Jesus.” This is demonstrable by their opposite sentiments about the doctrine of election. Zelotes will hear only of an uncondi- tional, and Honestus only of a conditional election: but the word of God is for both; and our wisdom consists in neither separating nor confounding what the Holy Ghost has joined, and yet distinguished. To understand the Scripture doctrine of election, take the following directions: 1. God is a God of truth. His righteous ways are as far above our hypocritical ways, as heaven is above hell: every calling, therefore, implies an election on his part. Who can believe that God ever demeans his majestic veracity so far as to call people, whom he does not choose should obey his call? Who can think that the Most High plays boyish tricks? And if he chooses that those whom he calls should come, a sincere election has undoubtedly preceded his” calling. Nor are the well-known words of our Lord, Matt. xxii, 44, “Many are called, but few are chosen,” at all contrary to this asser- tion: for the context evidently shows that the meaning of this compen- dious elliptic saying is, “ Many are called’’ to faith and holiness, “ but few are chosen” to the rewards of faith and holiness. “Many are called” to be God’s servants, and to receive his talents, “but few,” ‘comparatively, “are chosen” to enjoy the blessing of “ good and faith- ful” servants. “Many are called to run the race but few are chosen to receive the prize.” Not because God has absolutely reprobated any, in the Calvinian sense of the words,-but because few are willing to “deny themselves ;” few care to “labour ;” few are faithful, few “so run that they may obtain;” few “make their initial calling and election sure” to the end; and of the many that are called to enter into the kingdom of God, few strive so to do; and therefore few “shall be able,” see Luke xiii, 24. 2. According to the dispensation of “the saving grace of God, whigh hath appeared to all men;” so long as the “day of salva- tion” lasts, all men are sincerely called, and therefore sincerely chosen to believe in their light, to fear God, and to work right- eousness. This general election and calling may be illustrated by the general benevolence of a good king toward all his subjects. a 110 EQUAL CHECK, * PART Whether they are peasants or courtiers, he elects them all to loy- alty, that is, he chooses that they should all be loyal; and in con- sequence of this choice, by his royal statutes, he calls them all to be so. But when a rebellion breaks out, many do not “make their calling and election sure ;” that is, many join the rebels, and in so doing forfeit their titles, estates, and lives. However, as many as oppose the rebels become hereby peculiarly entitled to the privileges of loyal subjects, which are greater or less according to their rank, and according to the boroughs or cities of which they have the free- dom. Upon this general plan, as many of Adam’s sons as, in any one part of the earth, make God’s general calling and election sure, by actually fearing God, &c, are rewardable elect, according to the Faruer’s dispensation: that is, God actually approves of them, con- sidered as obedient persons, and he designs eternally to reward their sincere obedience, if they “continue faithful unto death,” Col. i, 23; Rey. ii, 10. 3. Distinguishing, or particular grace, chooses, and, of ¢ consequence, *calls some men to believe explicitly in the,Messiah to come, or in the Messiah already come ; and as many as sincerely do so, are rewardable elect according to the Soy’s dispensation, when it is distinguished from that of the Sririr, as in John vii, 38, 39; for in general Christ’s dis- pensation takes in that of the Holy Ghost, especially since “«« Christ is glorified,” and when he is “known after the flesh nomore.” Compare John xvi, 7, with 2 Cor. vy, 16. 4. A still higher degree of distinguishing grace elects, and of conse- quence calls, believers in Christ to take by force the kingdom which consists in “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost ;” and as many as make this calling and election sure, are God’s rewardable elect, according to the dispensation of the Holy Ghost. ~ 5, All true worshippers belong to one or another of thee three classes of elect. The first class is made up of devowt heathens, who worship in the court of the Gentiles. The second class is formed of devout Jews, cr of such babes i Christ as are yet comparatively carnal, like John’s disciples, or those of our Lord before the day of pentecost. These worship in the holy place. And the third class is composed of those holy souls who, by being fully possessed of Christ’s Spirit, deserve to be called Christians in the full sense of the word. ‘These (which, in our Laodicean days, I fear, are a little flock indeed) are all perfected in one, and, having “entered within the veil,” worship now “in the holy of holies.” 6. In order to eternal saleanienk those three classes of elect mus} not only “make their calling and election sure,” by continuing to-day in the faith of their dispensation; but also by going on “from faith to faith ;” by rising from one dispensation to another, if they are called to it; and, above all, by (“patiently continuing in well doing,” or by “ being faithful unto death ;” none but such “having the promise of a crown of life that fadeth not away.” 7. Distinguishing grace not only chooses some persons to see the felicity of God’s chosen in the two great covenants of peculiarity, called the law of Moses, and the Gospel of Christ ; but it elects thera also to peculiar dignities, or uncommon services in those dispensations. Thus ¢ OND.| SCRIPTURE SCALES. 111 Moses was elected to be the great prophet and lawgiver of the Jews: Aaron to be the first high priest of the Jewish dispensation: Saul, David, and Solomon, to be the three first kings of God’s chosen nation. Thus again the seventy were chosen above ‘the multitude of the other disciples, the twelve above the seventy ; Peter, James, and John, above the twelve; and St. Paul, it seems, above Peter, James, and John. The following scriptures refer to this kind of extraordinary choice—to this election of peculiar grace :—“ Moses his chosen stood in the gap. The man’s rod whom J shall choose shall blossom. The man whom the Lord shall choose, he shall be holy,” that is, he shall be set apart for the priesthood. “He chose David his servant, and took him from the sheep fold. Before I formed thee,” Jeremiah, “in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee,” or, i set thee apart, “and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Of his disciples he chose twelve apostles. “He,” Paul, “is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles.” Agreeably to the doctrine of these peculiar elections to singular services, it is even said of Cyrus, a heathen king, by whose means the Jews were to be delivered from the Babylonish captivity: “ Cyrus is my shepherd, and shall” or will “‘ perform ail my pleasure, saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid, &c. For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name, though thou hast not known me.” Once more: David, speaking of God’s choosing the tribe of Judah before all the other tribes, says: «“ Moreover he refused the tabernacle cf Joseph, and” reprobated, or « chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose” or elected “the tribe of Judah, the Mount Sion, which he” peculiarly “loved.” But what have all thése civil or ecclesiastical elections of persons and places to do with our election to a crown of glory ? Will Zelotes affirm that Saul and Jehu are certainly in heaven, because they were as remarkably chosen to the crown as David himself? And though St. Paul knew that he was “a chosen vessel, set apart from his mother’s womb” for great services in the Church, does he not inform us that he “so ran as to obtain the crown ;” and that he “kept his body under lest, after he had preached to,” and saved “ others, he himself should become a castaway—a reprobate ?” 8. Do not forget that frequently the word chosen, or elect, means principal, choice, having a peculiar degree of superiority, or excellence. _ This is evident from the following texts: “The wragh of God smote down the chosen of Israel,” Psa. Ixxviii, 31. “I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, and precious,” 1 Peter ii, 6. “The elder to the elect lady,” 2 John 1. And it would be the height of Calvinian ortho- doxy to suppose that the prophet’s words, “Thy choicest,” or, as the original properly means, “ thy elect valleys shall be full of chariots,” are to be understood of Calvinian election. To render Zelotes less confi- dent in that election, one would think it sufficient to throw into the Seripture Scales, and weigh before him, the following passages, which are literally translated from the original :— For Israel, nie elect, I have He [Kish] had a son whose called thee, Isa. xiv, 4 name was Saul, an elect, 1 Sam - 1X, on 112 I. The election hath obtained it, Rom. xi, 7. I have made a covenant with my chosen [or elect.| I have exalted one chosen out of the people. Mine elect shall inherit it, Psa. xxxix, 3, 19 ; Isa. Ixv, 9. The children of thy elect sister greet thee, 2 John 13. His elect, whom he hath chosen, Mark xiii, 20. I endure all things for the elect’s sake, 2'Tim. 11,10. O ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones, 1 Chron. xvi, 13. I charge thee before the* elect angels, 1 Tim. v, 21. And shall not God avenge his own elect’? Luke xviii, 7. " EQUAL CHECK. [Part Il. ; Query. Is Saul also among the elect as well as among the prophets ? Set on a pot: fill it with the bones of the election, Ezek. xxiv, 4. She committed her whoredoms with the elect of Assyria, Ezek. xxili, 7. The tongue of the just is Receive know- . as chosen silver. ledge rather than elect gold, Prov. x, 20; viii, 10. They shall cut down thine elect cedars, Jer. xii, 7. He [Jacob] chose all the elect of Israel, 2 Sam. x, 9. Moab is spoiled, his elect young men are gone down to the slaugh- ter, Jer. xlvili, 15. His [Pha- raoh’s] elect captains also are drowned, Exod. xy, 4. Amaziah gathered Judah toge- ther, é&c, and found them three hundred thousand elect, able to go forth to war, 2 Chron. xxv, 5. _ I grant that our translators, in some of the preceding passages, have used the word choice, and not the word elect. They say, for example, “ choice cedars,” and not “ elect cedars ;” but if they were afraid to make us suspect the dignity of Calvinian election, 1 am not. And @s the original is on my side, the candid reader will not expect such serupu- lousness of me, who wish to act the part of a reconciler, and not that of a Calvinist. 9. God’s choosing and ‘calling us to “come up higher” on the lad- der of the dispensations of his grace, is called election and yocation. Thus the doctrine which St. Paul insists much upon in his Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, is, that now Jews and Gentiles are equally elected and called to the privileges of the Christian dispensation. Nor does St. Peter dissent from him in this respect. Once indeed he took it for granted that the Gentiles were all reprobates; see Acts x. But when he was divested of his Jewish prejudices, and wrote to the believers who were “scattered throughout Pontus,” &c, he said “the Church that is at Baby- lon, elected together with you, saluteth you,” 1 Peter y, 13. Just as * If the expression “ elect angel” is taken in a vague sense, which is most pro- bable, it means holy, beloved angels, who are elected to the rewards of faithful obedience. If it be taken in a particular sense, it means those angels who, like Gabriel, are selected from the multitude of the heavenly host, and sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation, and especially to guard such eminent preachers as Timothy and St. Paulwere. In either sense, therefore, the words elect angels, which Zelotes greedily catches at to prop up his scheme, have nothing to do with Calvinianelection. That the word elect sometimes means darling or beloved, will appear evident to those who compare the following pas- sages : “‘Behold mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth,” Isa. xlii, 1. ‘This is * my belaved Sen in whum I am well pleased,” Matt. iii, 17. * SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 113 if he had said, Think not that the election to the obedience of faith in Christ is confined to Judea, Pontus, or Galatia. No: God calls both Jews and Gentiles, even in Babylon, to believe in his Son. And as a proof that this calling and election are sincere, with pleasure I inform you that several have already believed, and formed themselves into a Christian Church, which saluteth you, not only as being elected with you to hear the Christian Gospel ; but as making their “election to so great salvation sure” through actual belief of “the truth as it is in Jesus.” Therefore I do not scruple, in every sense of the word, to say that they are “elected together with you,” and you may boldly con- sider them already as holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.” A glorious proof. this that Christ has broken down the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles; Babylon, in this respect, being as much elected as Jerusalem. But more of this in the next section. 10. To conclude: off all the directions which can be given to clear up the doctrine of election with respect to our eternal concerns, none appears to me so important as the following. Carefully distinguish be- tween our election to run the race of faith and holiness, according to one or other of the Divine *dispensations; and between our election to receive the prize—a crown of glory. St. Paul, speaking to Christians ’ of the first of these elections, says, “ God has chosen us that we should _be holy.” And our Lord, describing the second election, says, “‘ Many are called, but few chosen. Well done, good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” The former of these elections is always unconditional ; but the latter is always suspended upon the reasonable condition of persevering in the obedience of faith. To show the propriety and importance of the preceding directions, I need only apply them to the parable of the talents, which displays every branch of the doctrine of election. ‘The kingdom of heaven,” says Christ [if it be considered with respect to God’s gracious and righteous dispensations toward the various classes of his moral vessels or servants] “is as a man who called, [and, ot consequence, first freely chose] his own servants.” Observe here that every man is unconditionally chosen and called to serve God in his universal temple. Some may be compared to earthen vessels, made, chosen, and called to be useful in the court of the Gen- tiles, like humble Gibeonites: some to silver vessels, made, chosen, and called to be useful in the holy place, like pious Jews: and others te golden, 1. e. most precious and honourable vessels, made, chosen, and called to be useful in the holiest of all, like true Christians. Hence it appears that God has assigned to all his moral vessels their proper place and use in his great temple, the universe. If they are unprofit- able and unfit for the Master’s use, it is not because he makes them so; but because they received a bad taint from their parents upon the wheel of generation, and afterward refuse to purge themselves by means of the talent of light, grace, and power, which is bestowed upon them as the seed of regeneration, according to their respective dispensations. The difference that sovereign grace makes between God’s servants, or, if you please, between his moral vessels, is evidently asserted by St. - Paul, 2 Tim. 1,19, &c. “The Lord,” says he, “knoweth them that are his :” that is, he approves the godly, the vessels of mercy, the clean Vou. II. 8 . 114 EQUAL CHECK. [PaRT vessels under every dispensation. ‘Let then every one that nameth the name of Christ,” and who is, of consequence, under the strictest of all the dispensations, “ depart from iniquity: for in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth ; and some to honour,* and some to dishonour. If a man purge himself from these” [that are to dishonour] whether he be a vessel of gold, silver, wood, or earth, “he shall,” according to his dispensation, “be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work ;” though it should be only the work of a Gibeonite, hewing wood and drawing water. And if a Christianized Saul seeks to slay these spiritual Gibeonites in his zeal for the children of Israel, God himself will plead their cause: for he honours, in every dispensation, vessels that are clean and sanctified, according to his own decree, “Them that honour me, I will peculiarly honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.” That is, although those that honour me should be only fit to be compared to wooden or earthen vessels, like the deyout soldiers of Cornelius, I will honour them with a place in my heayenly house. And were those that despise me compared to silyer vessels, like the sons of Eli; or to a golden vessel, like Judas; if repentance do not interpose, they shall be broken with a rod of iron like vessels of wrath ; and after “sleeping in the dust, they shall awake to the eyer- lasting contempt” due to their sins; it being written among the decrees_ of Heaven, “If any man defile” the vessel, or “ temple of God, him shall God destroy.” Such will be the fearful end of those, who, by their wilful unbelief, make themselves positively unclean vessels. “For to them that are unbelieving is nothing pure, but even their mind and con- science are defiled.” And these vessels of just wrath and positive dis- honour must be carefully distinguished from those whom God compara- ‘tively makes vessels of dishonour, by giving them fewer talents than he idoes to his upper servants. Return we now to the parable of the talents and to the several classes ‘of servants, which St. Paul compares to several classes of vessels, in God’s great house below. “'To one of them” says our Lord, (to the ‘Christian, I suppose,) according to the election of most particular, distinguishing grace, “he gave five talents.” 'To another, suppose the Jew, still according to the election of particular grace, “he gave two talents.” “ And to another,” suppose the heathen, according to the decree of general grace, “he gave one talent.” Hence it appears that God reprobates no man absolutely, and is no Calvinistical respecter of per- sons; for, adds our Lord in the parable, “he gave to every one according to his several ability,” or circumstances, Matt. xxy, 15. This first distribution of grace and privileges is previous to all works, and to it belong (as I have shown by parallel scriptures) those words of * St. Paul having guarded the doctrine of sovereign, distinguishing grace, by the different matter, earth, wood, silver, &c, of which the vessels are formed: and not making any distinction between ‘‘ vessels of dishonour” and “vessels of wrath,” as he does in Rom. ix, it necessarily follows, according to the doctrine of rewarding grace, that the expression ‘vessels to honour,” and “vessels to dishonour,” should not be taken here in a comparative sense, -as in Rom. ix; but in a positive sense; and then they answer to “ vessels -sanctified,” and to “‘ vessels not purged ;” expressions which occur in the context, _and fix the apostle’s meaning. rs 4 : : . SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 115 the apostle, “The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to” sovereign, dis- tinguishing election to certain remarkable favours, “ might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said, The elder shall serve the younger—Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,” i. e. [have pre- ferred Jacob to Esau, in point of family honour; and the Israelites to the Edomites with respect to the covenant of peculiarity. And with as much propriety it might be said, in point of super-angelical dignity, Michael the archangel have I loved, and Gabriel the angel have I hated : i. e. | have reprobated the latter from a degree of dignity and favour to which I have elected the former. Thus far the parable illustrates the doctrine of sovereign free grace, and of an unconditional election to receive and use different measures of grace; and thus far I walk hand in hand with Zelotes, because thus far he speaks as the oracles of God, except when he hints at his doctrine of absolute reprobation: for at such times he makes it his business to insinuate that there are some men to whom God never gave so much as one talent of saving grace, in flat opposition to that clause of the parable, “he gave to every one” one or two true talents at least: I say true, because whatever dreadful hints Zelotes may throw out to the contrary, I dare not allow the thought that the true Ged deals in false coin ; or that, because he is the God of all grace, he deals also in damning grace :—damning grace I call it; for in the very nature of things, all grace bestowed upon an absolute reprobate—upon a man hated of God with an everlasting hate, and given up from his mother’s womb unavoid- ably to sin and be damned: all grace, I say, flowing from such a repro- bating God to such a reprobated man is no better than a serpent, whose headis Calvin’s absolute reprobation and its tail Zelotes’ finished damnation. Zelotes, I fear, objects to the sovereign, free, distinguishing grace which I contend for, chiefly because it has no connection with the bound will, and distinguishing free wrath which characterize his opinions. Accordingly he soon takes his leave of me and the parable of the talents, the middle part of which illustrates what he calls my heresy, that is, the doctrine of free will. (1.) The doctrine of obedient free will, which our Lord secures thus :—“'Then he that had received five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents,” &c. And, (2.) The doctrine of perverse free will, which Christ lays down in these words :—“ But he that had received one talent went and digged in the earth, and hid his Lord’s money,” Here Christ, for brevity’s sake, points out unfaithful free will in the lowest dispensation only: sloth and unfaithfulness being by no means necessary consequences of the least number of talents. For while some Christians bury their five, and some Jews their two talents, some heathens so improve their one talent as to verify our Lord’s doctrine, “The last shall be first.” The third part of the parable illustrates the doctrine of rewarding grace, or of conditional election to, and reprobation from the rewards with which Divine grace crowns human faithfulness. I call this election and this reprobation conditional, because they are entirely suspended upon the good or bad use which our faithful, or unfaithful free will makes of the talent or talents bestowed upon us by free grace; as appears by the rest of the parable: “ After a long time the Lord of those servants, 116 EQUAL CHECK. [PART cometh, and feckoneth with them,” proceeding first to the election of rewarding grace. “He that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.” Here you see in an exemplifying glass the doctrine which Zelotes abhors, and which St. John recommends thus: “Beloved, if our heart condemn ps not, then have we confidence toward God. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment,” 1 John iii, 21; iv, 17. His Lord [instead of driving him to hell as a poor, blind, unawakened creature, who never knew himself; or as a proud, self-righteous Pharisee, who was never convinced of sin] said unto him, “ Well done, thou good and faithful servant, [thou vessel of mercy,] thou hast been faithful over a few things, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord” through my merciful Gospel charter, and the passport of thy sincere, blood-besprinkled obedience. ‘The servant, who through free grace and faithfulness had gained two talents, beside the two which distinguishing grace had given him, came next ; and when he had been elected into the joy of his Lord in the same gracious manner, the trial of the faithless heathen came on. His plea would almost make one think that Zelotes had instilled into him his hard doctrine of reprobation. He is not ashamed to preach it to Christ him- self. “Lord,” says he, “I knew thee, that thou art a hard man,” who didst contrive my reprobation from the beginning of the world, and gavest me only one talent of common grace, twenty of which would not amount to one dram of saving grace. “I knew thee,” I say, “that thou art an austere” master, “reaping,” or wanting to reap where thou hast not sowed the seed of effectual grace ; “and gathering,” or wanting to gather “ where thou hast not strewed” one grain of true grace; “and I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent,” thy ineffectual, false, common grace “in the earth. Lo, there thou hast that is thine. His Lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, &c, thou oughtest to have put my money to the exchangers,” who sometimes exchange to such advantage for the poor, that their “little one becomes a thousand.” Hadst thou made this proper use of my ‘‘ common grace,” as thou callest it, “at my coming I should have received mine own with « usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath ten talents: for every one that hath” to purpose, ‘ shall have abundance : but from him that hath not” to purpose, “shall be taken away even that which he hath”—his unimproved, hidden talent: ‘‘and cast ye the un- profitable servant into outer darkness ;” i. e. into hell: “there shall be weeping and ynashing of teeth,” Matt. xxv, 15, 31. Hence it appears that a man may be freely elected to receive one, two, or five talents— freely chosen to trade with them, and afterward be justly reprobated, or cast away into outer darkness for not improving his talent, that is, for not ‘‘ making his calling and election sure.” Zelotes, indeed, as if he were conscious that the parable of the talents overthrows all his doctrinal peculiarities, endeavours to explain it away by saying that it does not represent God’s conduct toward his people with respect to grace and salvation, but only with regard to paris and natural gifts. To this I answer, (1.) The Scriptures no where mention a day of account, in which God will reward and punish his servants according to their natural parts, exclusively of their moral actions.= SECOND. ] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 117 (2.) The servants had all the same master. Luke xix, 38, they are all represented as receiving “one pound” each, to “occupy,” or trade till their master came. He that did not improve his pound, or talent, is called “ wicked” on that account. Now the non-improvement of a natural talent, suppose for poetry or husbandry, can never constitute a man “wicked ;” nothing can do this but the non-improvement of a talent of grace. (3.) We have as much reason to affirm that the oil of the virgins, mentioned in the beginning of the chapter, and the good works of the godly, mentioned at the end of it, were “not of a gracious nature,” as to assert it of the improvement of the pound, which constituted some of the servants “good and faithful.” (4.) It is absurd to suppose that Christ will ever take some men into his joy, and will command others to be cast into outer darkness, for improving or not improving the natural talent of speaking, writing, or singing in a masterly manner. (5.) The description of the day of judgment, that closes the chapter, is a key to the two preceding parables. On the one hand the door is shut against the foolish virgins merely for their apostasy—for having burned out all their oil of faith working by love, so that their “Tamps went out.” ‘The slothful servant is cast into outer darkness merely for not improving his talent of opportunity and power to believe, and to work righteousness according to the light of his dispensation. And the goats are sent into hell merely for not having done the works of faith. On the other hand, (considering salvation according to its second causes,) the wise virgins go in with the bridegroom, because their lamps are not gone out, and they have oil in their vessels ; the faithful servants enter into the joy of the Lord, because they have improved their talents; and the sheep go into life eternal, because they have done the works of faith. The three parts of that plain chapter make a threefold cord, which, I apprehend, Zelotes cannot break, without breaking all the rules of morality, criticism, and common sense. e I shall close my parabolic illustration of the Scripture doctrine of un- conditional and conditional election, by presenting Zelotes and Honestus with a short view of our election in Christ; that is, of our election to receive freely, and to use faithfully, the five talents of the Christian dis- pensation, that we may reap all the benefits annexed to “ making that high calling and election sure.” : is Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual bless- ings in heavenly things zn [the per- son and dispensation of ] Christ: according as he hath* chosen us [to believe] in him, before the founda- tion of the world: that [in making our high calling and election sure] Il. Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world? [Yes, but not absolute- ly, for Zelotes knows that all the poor are not elected in his way: and St. James insinuates that their election to “the kingdom of hea- ven” is suspended on faith and love ; for he adds that] God hath chosen * This passage will be explained in the next section. In the merntime I desire the reader to take notice that the election of which St. Paul writes is not of the Antinomian kind; I mean, it is not Calvinian election, which insures eternal salvation to all fallen believers. That the apostle was an utter stranger to such a doctrine, appears from his own words to those elect Ephesians: ‘‘ Putting awav 7 118 5 I. we should be holy and without blame before him in love, Eph. i, 3, 4. [If Zelotes be offended at my in- sinuating that St. Paul’s phrase “ in Christ” is sometimes an ellipsis— a short way of speaking which con- veys the idea of our Lord’s Gospel and dispensation ; I appeal to the reader’s candour, and to the mean- ing of the following texts :—“ Babes in Christ. Urbane, our helper in Christ. 'The Churches of Judea, which were in Christ. Baptized into Christ. The Mosaic veil is done away in Christ. In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth no- thing,” &c. Again: when St. Paul tells us that “his bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace,” does he not mean the chain with which he was personally bound, as a preacher of the Christian faith? And would not Zelotes make him- self ridiculous, if he asserted that St. Paul’s “bonds in Christ” were those with which he was bound zn the person of Christ in the garden of Gethsemane 7] There is a remnant [of Jews, who believe] according to the elec- tion of grace [who, through sancti- fication of the Spirit to obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, make their calling and elec- tion sure according to the Christian dispensation, 1 Pet.i,2.] The elec- tion [those Jews who make their election to the blessings of the Christian dispensation sure by faith in Christ] hath obtained it [right- eousness | and the rest were blinded : EQUAL CHECK. (parr Il. the poor, rich in faith, and [of con- sequence] heirs of the kingdom, which he hath promised to. them that love hin, [i. e. to them that are rich in the “ faith which works by love,” ] James i, 5. Know this also, that the Lord hath chosen to himself [i. e. to his rewards of grace and glory, not this or that man out of mere caprice, but] the man that is godly: [that is] the man after his own heart. (Com. Prayers, Psa. iv, 3; 1 Sam._ xiii, — 14.) God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation [yea, out of mere distinguishing grace, he has chosen you to partake of the great salvation of Christians; not indeed absolutely, but] through sanctification of the Spirit, and be- lief of the truth, [as it is in Jesus — the truth as it is revealed under the Christian dispensation, | 2 Thess. ii, 13. Many are called [to repentance, yea, many are “chosen, that they should be holy,” Eph. i, 4,] but few are chosen [to receive the reward of perfected holiness—the reward of the inheritance,| Matt. xx, 16. Wherefore, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election suRE: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall, 2 Pet. i, 10. Put on, therefore, as the elect of God, bowels of mercies. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that lying, speak truth: let him that stole steal no more: be not drunk: let not for- nication or uncleanness be once named among you, &c, for this ye know, that no unclean person, &c, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ. Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience,” that is, upon the disobedient children, who, by their bad works, lose their inheritance in the kingdom of God. Is it not surprising, that when St. Paul has thus warned the Ephesians against Antino- mian deceptions, he should be represented as deceiving those very Ephesians first, by teaching them a doctrine which implies that no crimes, be they ever so atrocious, can depriye fallen believers of their ‘inheritance in the kingdom of Christ 2” SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 3 fis Ir. [that is, the unbelieving Jews have hath showed no mercy, Col. i iii, 12 not obtained righteousness, because James ii, 13. _ they sought it not by faith, but by » blindly opposing their Pharisaic works of the law to Christ and the humble obedience of faith,] Rom. xi, 5, 7; ix, 32. If I am not mistaken, the balance of the preceding scriptures shows that Honestus and Zelotes are equally in the wrong: Honestus, for not rejoicing in free grace, in the election of grace, and in God’s power, love; and faithfulness, which are engaged to keep believers while they keep in the way of duty: and Zelotes, for corrupting the genuine doc- trines of grace by his doctrines of Calvinian election, necessity, and unconditional reprobation from eternal life. SECTION XIII. A view of St. Paul’s doctrine of election, laid down in Eph. i—That ’ © election consists in God’s choosing, from the beginning of the world, that the Gentiles should now share, through faith, the blessings of the Gospel of Christ, together with the believing Jews, who BEFORE were alone the chosen nation and peculiar people of God—lIt is an election from the obscure dispensation of the heathens to the luminous dispensation of the Christians ; and not an election from a state of absolute ruin, to a state of finished salvation—tIt is as absurd to main- tain Calvinian election from Eph. i, as to support Calvinian repro- bation by Rom. ix— What we are to understand by the “ book of life,” and by the “names” written therein from the foundation of the world —A conclusion to the first part of this work. Wuew Zelotes is made ashamed of what Calvin calls “ the horrible decree,” he seems to give it up ;—I have nothing to do with reprobation, says he, my business is with election. ‘Thus he is no sooner beaten out of Rom. ix, than he retires behind Eph. i, where he thinks he can make a more honourable defence. It may not be amiss, therefore, to follow him there also, and to show him that he entirely mistakes the “predes- tination,” “ purpose,” and “ election,” mentioned in that chapter. The design of the apostle in his Epistle to the Ephesians is twofold. In the three first chapters he extols their gracious election, their free vocation, and the unspeakable privileges of both; and in the three last, ' he exhorts them to walk worthy of their election and calling; warning them against Antinomian deceivers ; and threatening them with the loss of their heavenly inheritance if they followed their filthy tenets and im- moral example. This epistle therefore is a compendium of the New Testament: the former part contains a strong check to Pharisaism, or the doctrine of self-righteous boasters ; and the latter part a severe check to Antinomianism, or to the doctrine and deeds of the Nicolaitans; see Eph. v, 5,6; Rev. ii, 6, 15, 20. To be a little more explicit: in the three first chapters St. Paul en- deayours to impress the hearts of the Ephesians with a deep sense of 120 : EQUAL CHECK. [PART God’s free grace in Christ Jesus, whereby he had compassionately called, and of consequence mercifully elected them, ignorant and miserable sin- ners of the Gentiles as they were, to partake “of all the blessings of the Christian dispensation. The apostle tries to inflame them with grateful love to Christ, for setting them on a level with his “ peculiar people, the Jews, to whom pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the [explicit] promises; whose were the fathers, and of whom Christ came, as con- cerning the flesh.” To prove that this is St. Paul’s design, I produce his own words, with short illustrations in brackets: “ Remember, [says he,] that ye were in time past GrenTrzxs in the flesh, called uncireumcision by the cireum- cision [&c, abhorred by the circumcised Jews, because you were uncir- cumcised heathens. Remember] that at that time ye were without [the knowledge of | Christ [not having so much as heard of the Messiah,] being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, [hating the Jews, and © hated of them,] strangers to the covenants of promise [which God had made with Abraham, ‘Isaac, and Jacob,] having no [covenant] hope, and without [a covenant] God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus [who has sent us into all the world to preach the Gospel to every creaturet] ” Ye [Gentiles,] who were sometimes afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ : for he is our peace, who hath made orm [Jews and Gentiles] one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, &c, that he might reconcile both [Jews and Gentiles] to God, &ce, by the cross ; having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you [Gentiles] who were afar off, and to them that were nigh, [that is, to the Jews.] For through him we sora [Jews and Gentiles] have an access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye [Gentiles] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the [Jewish] saints, and of the household [or peculiar people] of Godj and are built upon the foundation of the [Christian] apostles, and [Jewish] prophets ; Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone [which unites the Jews and Gentiles who believe, as a corner stone joins the two walls which meet upon it, &c.] In whom you also [Gentiles of Ephesus] are builded together [with us believing Jews ] for a habitation of God through the Spirit,” Eph. ii, 11, &e. The apostle explains his meaning still more clearly in the next ehap- ter. “For this cause,” [namely, that you might be quickened together with us (see Eph. ii, 5, 6, in the original,) unto Christ, that you might be raised up together, and placed together with us in heavenly privileges in or by Jesus Christ.] “For this cause, I Paul am the prisoner of Christ for you Gentiles; if ye have heard of the pispensaTion of the grace of God, which is given me to you warp: how he made known to me [once a Jewish bigot ] the mystery, &c, that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of the promise of Christ by the Gospel, whereof I am made a minister, &c, that I should preach among the Gentiles [as Peter does among the Jews] the unsearchable riches of Christ, &c. Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribu- lations for you [Gentiles] which is your glory,” Eph. iii, 1-18. The two preceding paragraphs are two keys, which St. Paul gives to open his meaning with, and to make,us understand “God’s eternal pur- SECOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 121 pose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord, of gathering all ings in Christ,” by calling the Gentiles to be partakers of the Gospel of Christ, as well as the Jews: a “mystery” this, which had been hid in God from the beginning of the world, Eph. iii, 9; God having then purposed to take the Gentiles into the covenant of peculiarity : although, for particular reasons, he did it only in St. Paul’s days, and chiefly by his instrumentality. What pity is it then that Zelotes should cast the veil of his prejudices over so glaring a truth; and should avail himself of the apostle’s laconic style, and of our inattention to impose Calvin’s predestination upon us! Does not the context demonstrate that St. Paul speaks only of God’s predestinating and electing THE GeENTILES IN GENERAL (and among them the Ephesians) to share the prerogatives of the Christian dispensation? Is it not evident, that as the unbelieving Jews boasted much of their being saved by the work of circumcision, through Abraham, St. Paul keeps the believing Gentiles humble, by re- minding them that “by grace they were saved—{that is, made partakers of the great salvation of Christians] through faith : and that not of them- selves, [nor of their forefathers,] it was the gift of God, not of works,” not of circumcision or Mosaic ceremonies, “lest any of them should boast” like the Jews, who, by their fatal glorying in Abraham and in themselves, had hardened their hearts against Christ’s Gospel, and brought God’s curse upon their Church and nation? In a word, is it not clear that St. Paul no more speaks of God’s having predestinated this Englishman, or that man of Ephesus to be absolutely saved; and this Scotch woman, or that Ephesian widow to be absolutely damned, than he has absolutely predestinated Honestus to be mufti, and Zelotes to be pope? This being premised, I present the reader with what appears to me to be the genuine sense of the chapter, upon which Zelotes founds his doc- trine of an absolute, particular, and personal ‘election of some men to eternal life glory. << Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us,” Jews and Gentiles, who do not put the word of his grace from us, and reject his gracious counsel against ourselves “ with all spiritual blessings and heavenly” things “ in Christ : according as he hath chosen us,” Jews and Gentiles, “‘ in Aim before the foundation of the world, that we,” Jews and Gentiles, “should be holy, and without blame before him in love,” as all Christians ought to be: “having predestinated us,” Jews and Gentiles, “unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,—by which he hath made both” Jews and Gentiles “onz, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; making in himself of twain,” i. e. Jews and Gentiles, “ one new man,” i. e. one new ecclesiastical body, which is at unity in itself, though it be composed of Jews and Gentiles, who were before supposed to be absolutely irrecon- cilable, Eph. i, 14. And this he hath done “to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us,” Jews and Gentiles, equally ac- cepted in the Beloved ; in whom we,” Jews and Gentiles, “ have redemp- tion through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace: wherein he hath abounded to us,” Jews and Gentiles, “in all wisdom and prudence ; having made known unto us,” Jews and Gen- tiles, “ the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fulness of times,” 122 EQUAL CHECK. [part i. e. under his last dispensation, which is the Chena “he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven,” 1. e. angels and glorified saints, “and which are on earth,” i. e. Jews and Gentiles, “even in Him,” who is the head of all: “in whom also we,” Jews and Gentiles, “have obtained,” through faith, “a common inherit- ance, being” equally “ predestinated” to share the blessings of the Chris- tian dispensation, “according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own” gracious “ will: that we,” Jews, “who First trusted in Christ,” (for the rrrsr Gospel offer was always made to the Jews, and the rirst Christian Church was entirely composed of Jews, compare Acts ii, 5, with Acts ui, 26, and Acts xiii, 46,)—* that we,” Jews, I say, “should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ ; in whom ye,” Gentiles, “also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation; in whom also, mi¢reutavreg, having believed, ye were sealed” as well as we “ with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our” common “ inheritance, &c. Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, &c, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you m my prayers; that, &c, ye may know what is the hope of his calling” of you Gentiles, “ and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints :” i. e. in them that “obey the heavenly callin whether they be Jews or Gentiles, Eph. i, 3-18. This easy exposition is likewise confirmed by the beginning of the next chapter. “And you,” Gentiles, “who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in time past ye walked according to, &e, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, among whom we all,” Jews and Gentiles, “had our conversation in time past,” &c, see Rom. i, ii. “You,” I say, and us, “God, who is rich in mercy” toward all, “for his great love wherewith he loved us,’ Jews and Gentiles, “hath quickened us together with Christ. By grace ye are saved” through faith as well as we: that is, ye are sayed by the free grace of God in Christ, as the first cause; and by your believing the Gospel of Christ, which is GRacE anD TRUTH, John i, 17, as the second cause. “For, through him, we Boru,” Jews and Gen- tiles, “ have access by one Spirit unto the Father,” Eph. ii, 1-5, 18. If Zelotes doubts yet whether the apostle treats in this epistle of the | predestination and election of the Gentiles, to partake of the blessings of Christianity, together with the Jews; let him consider what the com- mentators of his own party have candidly said of the design of the epis- tle; and his good sense will soon make him see the scope of the parts which I have produced. I appeal first to Diodati, one of Calvin’s successors, who opens his exposition by these words: “The summary of it [the Epistle to the Ephesians] is that he [the apostle] gives God thanks for the infinite ben- efit of eternal salvation and redemption in Christ, communicated out of mere grace and election through faith in the Gospel, to the apostle first, and his companions of the Jewish nation ; then afterward to the Ephe- sians, who were Gentiles, &c, by the ministry of St. Paul appomted by God to preach to the Gentiles the mystery of their calling im grace, which was before unknown to the world.” Burkitt says the same thing in fewer words: “ This excellent epistle Divinely sets forth, &o ~~ . SEUOND.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 123 the marvellous dispensation of God to the Gentiles in revealing Christ to rem.” Mr. Henry touches thus upon the truth which I endeavour: to clear up: “In the former part [of the epistle] he [St. Paul] repre- sents the great privilege of the Ephesians, who, being in time past idol- atrous HEATHENS, were now converted [and of consequence chosen and called] to Christianity, and received into covenant with God.” And again: “ This epistle has much of common concernment to all Chris- tians; especially to all who, having been Gentiles, &c, were converted to Christianity.” See one more flash of truth breaking out of a Cal- vinistic cloud. Pool, speaking of the mystery which God had made known to Paul by revelation, raises this objection after Estius: “ But the mystery of the calling [and consequently of the election] of the Gentiles, of which it is evident the apostle speaks, was not unknown to the prophets,” &c. Why then does he say that tt was not made known ? and Pool answers, That the prophets knew not explicitly, “quod Gen- tiles pares essent Judeis quoad consortium gratie Dei,”—* that the Gentiles should be put on a level with the Jews, with respect to a COMMON INTEREST in God’s grace.” (Syn. Crit. on Eph. iii, 5.) If Zelotes do not regard the preceding testimonies, let him at least believe St. Paul himself, who, explicitly speaking of the calling and election of the Gentiles, which he names “the mystery of Christ,” mentions his having “wrote about it afore in few words; whereby (adds he) when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in that mys- tery,” Eph. iu, 3! Hence it is evident, that the apostle, in the preced- ing part of the epistle, treats of God’s electing the Gentiles to the pre- rogatives of Christianity: an election this by which they are admitted to share in privileges, which the apostles themselves, for a considerable time after the day of pentecost, durst not offer to any but their own countrymen, as appears by Acts x, xi ;—in privileges, which multitudes of Jewish converts would never allow the believing Gentiles to enjoy ; tormenting them with Judaism, and saying, “Except ye be circum- cised,” i. e. except ye turn Jews as well as Christians, “ye cannot be saved.” Compare Acts xv, with the Epistle to the Galatians. But what has this electicn from Gentilism to Christianity—this “ abolishing the enmity” between Jews and Gentiles, “even the law of command- ments, contained in Mosaic ordinances, for to make of twain one new man,” to make of Jews and Gentiles “one new chosen nation, and peculiar people,” called Christians ;—what has such an election, I say, to do with the election maintained by Zelotes?) Who does not see that the general election of all the Gentiles from the obscure dispensation of the heathens, to the luminous dispensation of the Christians, (as the sound of the Gospel trump shall gradually reach them,) is the very reverse of Zelotes’ particular election? an election by which (if we believe him) God only tithes (if I may so speak) the damned world of the Gentiles ; absolutely setting apart for himself a dozen people, if so many, in an English village; half a dozen, it may be, in a Scotch dis- trict ; and a less number, perhaps, in an Irish hamlet; Calvinistically passing by the rest of their neighbours ; that is, absolutely giving them up to necessary sin and unavoidable damnation : binding them fast with the chain of Adam’s unatoned sin; and, to make sure work, sealing them with the seal of his free wrath, even before the fall of Adam: for 124 EQUAL CHECK. [part if we may credit Zelotes, this world was made arrer the decree by which God secured the commission of Adam’s sin, and the damna. tion of his reprobate posterity. ; From the preceding observations I draw the following inference :— Seldom did the perverter of truth play a bolder and more ar game than when he transformed himself into an angel of light, and produced Rom. ix, and Eph. i, as demonstrations of the truth of Calvinian reprobation and election. St. Paul ‘maintains, in Rom. ix, that the Jews, as a circumcised nation, are rejected from the covenant of peculiarity ; that God has an indubitable right to extend to whom he pleases’ the peculiar mercy which he before confined to the circum. cised race ; and that he now, according to the ancient purpose of his grace, extends that mercy to the Gentiles, i. e. to all other nations, among which, of consequence, the Gospel of Christ gradually spreads, Therefore, insinuates Zelotes, God has absolutely given over to neces- sary sin and certain damnation (it may be) the best half of the English, | Scotch, and Irish. These poor roprobates, if we believe his doctrines of grace, were unconditionally cast away, not only from their mother’s womb, but also from the time that He, who “tasted death for every man,” forbade all his wounds to pour forth one single drop of blood for them. Nay, they were from all eternity intentionally made to be necessarily “vessels of wrath” to all eternity. But in the name of wisdom I ask, what has Zelotes’ conclusion’ to do with St. Paul’s premises? Has the one any more agreement with the other, than kindness with cruelty, Christ with Moloch, and sense with nonsense? Again :— In Eph. i, the apostle “makes known” to the Ephesians “ the mys- tery of God’s will, who purposed in himself, predestinated, or resolved, before the foundation of the world, that, in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he would gather together in one all things in Christ,” and call the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, to partake of the “unsearchable riches of Christ” by faith. But Zelotes, instead of gladdening the hearts of his countrymen by the Gospel news of this extensive grace, and gene- ral election of the Gentiles, takes occasion from it to confine redemption, to preach narrow grace, and to insinuate the personal Calvinistie elec. tion of some of’ his neighbours. Suppose Peter Penitent, Martha For- ward, and Matthew Fulsome : an election this which is inseparable from the personal, absolute, eternal reprobation of his other neighbours : suppose John Endeavour, Thomas Doubter, George Honest, and James Worker, to say nothing of Miss Wanton, Mr. Cheat, Sarah Cannibal, and Samuel Hottentot. For it is evident that if none of Zelotes’ next neighbours are in “the book of life” but the three first mentioned ; if * those three can never be put out of the book, sin they ever so grievous- 4 ly ; and not one of the others can possibly be put in, live they ever so . righteously—it is evident, I say, upon this footing, that the salvation of some of Zelotes’ neighbours, and the damnation of all the rest, are ab- — solutely necessary ; or, to speak his own language, absolutely “ finished.” Thus the gracious election of the Gentiles, which filled St. Paul’s soul with transports of grateful joy, and would be a perpetual spring of con- solation to us, European Gentiles, if it were preached in a Scriptural manner :—this gracious election, I say, becomes, by Zelotes’ mistake, , hi a SECOND.] ’ SCRIPTURE SCALES. 125 the source of all the presumptuous comforts which flow from Calvin’s luscious, Antinomian election; and of all the tormenting fears which arise from his severe, Pharisaic reprobation. Having just mentioned “the book of life,” so triumphantly produced by Zelotes, it may not be amiss to hear what he and his antagonist Ho- nestus think about it. Throw we then their partial sentiments into the Scripture Scales, and by balancing them according to the method of the sanctuary, let us see the meaning of that mysterious expression. Il Help, &c, my fellow labourers, whose names are written in the book of life, Phil. iv, 3. All that dwell on the earth, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, shall worship him [the beast, | Rev. xvii, 8. Whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, Rey. xvii, 8. Whosoever worketh abomination, &c, shall in no wise enter into it, [the city of God,] but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life, Rev. xvi, 27. And whosoever was not found writ- ten in the Lamb’s book of life, was cast into the lake of fire, Rev. xx, 15. At that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book, Dan. Another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books according to their works, Rey. xx, 12. If thou wilt not forgive, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written [from the foundation of the world.} And the Lord said to Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book, [a sure proof this that he was before in the book, | Ezek. xxxii, 32, 33. Let them [persecutors ] be blotted out of the book* of life, Psa. xix, 28. They that feared the Lord spake often one to another, and the Lord heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that feared the Lord: and they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when ] make up my jewels, Mal. ii, 16. I will not blot out his name [the name of him that overcometh] out of the book of life, Rey. iii, 5. If any man shall take away from the words of, &c, this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, Rey. xxii, 19. ' The balance of these scriptures evidently shows: (1.) That from the fotndation of the world, God decreed to reward the righteous with eter- nal life. (2.) That, to show us the cer/ainty of this decree, the sacred writers, by a striking, oriental metaphor, represent it as “ written in a book,” which they call “the book of life.” (3.) That to carry on the allegory, the names of the righteous are said to be written in that book, and the names of the wicked not to be found in it; while the names of ~ apostates are said to be “blotted out of it.” (4.) That the names writ- ‘ten in this metaphorical “book of life” (if I may use the expression) are to be understood of natures, properties, and characters; in the sense in which Isaiah says of Christ, «« His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, and Prince of Peace ;” or, in the sense in which God pro- xii, 1. * I take the liberty to say ‘the hook of life,” and not ‘the book of the liv- ing,” because our translators themselves, Gen. ii, 7, have rendered the very same ' word ‘‘the breath of life,” and not ‘‘ the breath of the lixing.” > 126 EQUAL CHECK. [PART SECOND. claimed his name to Moses; calling himself merciful, gracious, and long suffering.. Whence it follows, that the “names written in the book of life from the foundation of the world are not Matthew Fulsome, Sa- rah Forward, or William Fanciful; but True Penitent, Obedient Be- liever, Good Servant, or “ Faithful unto Death.” And lastly, that it is as absurd to take this metaphor of the “book of life” literally, as to suppose that all David’s hairs shall be glorified, and his tears literally bottled up in heaven, because it is said, “’The very hairs of your head are numbered. All my members were written in thy book. Put thou my tears into thy bottle; are they not written in thy book 7” If Zelotes and Honestus condescend to weigh the preceding observa- tions, their prejudices will, I hope, gradually subside ; and while the one sends back to Geneva the false, intoxicating election recommended by Calvin, the other will bring us over from Ephesus the true, comfort- able election maintained by St. Paul. That in the meantime we may. all be thankful for our evangelical calling, improve our Gospel privileges, | make our Scriptural election sure, and, as the apostle writes to the Ephesians, “‘ walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called,” is the ardent wish of my soul, which I canmot express in words more pro- per than those which I have just used in “receiving a child into the congregation of Christ’s flock, and incorporating him into God’s holy Church :—Heavenly Father, we give thee humble thanks, that thou hast vouchsafed to call us [and of consequence to choose us first] to the knowledge of thy grace and faith in thee. Increase this knowledge, and confirm this faith in us evermore ; that we may receive the fulness of thy grace, live the rest of our life according to this beginning, con- tinue Christ’s faithful soldiers to our lives’ end, and ever remain in the number of God’s faithful and elect children, through Jesus Cast our Lord.” (Office of Baptism.) This truly Christian prayer shall conclude this section, and the first part of the Scripture Scales. Zelotes and Honestus have at this time given one another as much truth as they can well stand under. In a few days their strength will be recovered; they will meet again to fight it out, each from his scale: and when they shall have spent all their ammunition, they will, I hope, shake hands and be friends. But if they should be obstinate, and still jostle, instead of embracing each other, we will charge the peace. “ When we are for a Scriptural peace, if they still prepare themselves for battle,” we will bind them with all the cords we can borrow from reason, revelation, and experience. And if they then will not be quiet and agree, by a new kind of a metamorphose we will change them into scales; we will tie them,to the solid beam of truth, and expose them in booksellers’ shops, where they shall hang in logical chains, an eye-sore to bigots,—a terror to doctrinal clippers, who openly diminish the coin of the Church,—a comfort to those who are persecuted for truth and righteousness’ sake, an encouragement to those who, like their Master, equally hate the doctrine of the Nicolai- tans, and that of the Pharisees,—a new cuxck to those who spoil all by overdoing,—and a contrivance useful, I hope, to novices, and to unwary professors, who, through an excess of simplicity, or for want of scales, frequently take of masters in Israel a bare half shekel for “ the full shekel of the sanctuary.” ZELOTES AND HONESTUS RECONCILED: OR, THE THIRD PART AN EQUAL CHECK TO PHARISAISM AND ANTINOMIANISM: BEING THE SECOND PART OF THE SCRIPTURE SCALES TO WEIGH THE GOLD OF GOSPEL TRUTH, TO BALANCE A MULTITUDE OF OPPOSITE SCRIPTURES, TO PROVE THE GOSPEL MARRIAGE OF FREE GRACE AND FREE WILL, AND RESTORE PRIMITIVE HARMONY TO THE GOSPEL OF THE DAY. St non est Dei gratia, gkomodo salvat mundum? Si non est liberum arbitrium, quomod judicat mundum?—Aug. PREFACE TO THE THIRD PART OF AN EQUAL CHECK. The reconciler invites the contending parties to end the controversy; and m order to this he beseeches them not to involve the question in clouds of evasive cavils or personal reflections ; but to come to the point, and break, of they can, either the one or the other of his Scripture Scales ; and if they cannot, to admit them both, and by that means to give glory to God and the truth, and be reconciled to all the Gospel, and to one another. Berne fully persuaded that Christianity suffers greatly by the opposite mistakes of the mere Solifidians and of the mere moralists, we embrace the truths and reject the errors which are maintained by these contrary parties. For by equally admitting the doctrines of grace and the doc- trines of justice ;—by equally contending for faith and for morality, we adopt what is truly excellent in each system; we reconcile Zelotes and Honestus ; we bear our testimony against their contentious partiality ; and, to the best of our knowledge, we maintain the whole truth as it is in Jesus. If we are mistaken, we shall be thankful to those who will set us right. Plain scriptures, close arguments, and friendly expostula- tions are the weapons we choose. We humbly hope that the unpreju- diced reader will find no other in these pages: and to engage our oppo- nents to use such only, we present to them the following petition :— For the sake of candour, of truth, of peace,—for the reader’s sake ; and above all, for the sake of Christ, and the honour of Christianity ;— whoever ye are that shall next enter the lists against us, do not wire- draw the controversy by uncharitably attacking our persons, and absurdly judging our spirits, instead of weighing our arguments and considering the scriptures which we produce. Nor pass over fifty solid reasons, and a hundred plain passages, to cayil about non-essentials, and to lay the stress of your answer upon mistakes which do not affect the strength of the cause, and which we are ready to correct as soon as they shall be pointed out. Keep close to the question: do not divert the reader’s mind by start- ing from the point in hand upon the most frivolous occasions ; nor raise dust to obscure what is to be cleared up. An example will illustrate my meaning: Mr. Sellon, in vimdicating the Church of England from _ the charge of Calvinism, observes, that her catechism is, quite anti- Calvinistic, and that we ought to judge of her doctrine by her own cate. Vor. II. 9 130 PREFACE TO THE THIRD PART chism, and not by Ponet’s Calvinian catechism, which poor young King Edward was prevailed upon to recommend some time after the establish. ment of our Church. Mr. Toplady, in his Historie Proof, instead of considering the question, which is, Whether it is not fitter to gather the doctrine of our Church from her own anti-Calyinian catechism than from Ponet’s Calvinian catechism; Mr. Toplady, I say, in his answer to Mr. Sellon, fastens upon the phrase poor young King Edward, and works it to such a degree, that he raises from it clouds of shining dust and pillars of black smoke ; filling, if I remember right, a whole section with the praises of King Edward, and with reflections upon Mr. Sellon. And, in his bright cloud of praise, and dark cloud of dispraise, the ques- tion is so entirely lost, that I doubt if one in a hundred of his readers has the least idea of it after reading two or three of the many pages which he has written on this head. By such means as these it is that he has made a ten’ or twelve shilling book, in which the Church of © England is condemned to wear the badge of the Church of Geneva. And the Calvinists conclude Mr. Toplady has proved that she is bound to wear it; for they have paid dear forthe proof. That very gentleman, if fame is. to be credited, has some thoughts of attacking the Checks. If he favour me with just remarks upon my mistakes (for I have probably made more than one ; though I hope none of a capital nature) he shall have my sincere thanks: but if he inyolve the question in clouds of personal reflections and of idle digressions, he will only give me an opportunity of initiating the public more and more unto the mysteries of Logica Genevensis. I therefore intreat him, if he think me worthy of his notice, to remember that the capital questions— the questions on which the fall of the Calvyinian, or of the anti-Calvinian doctrines of grace turn, are not whether I am a fool and a kmaye; and whether I have made some mistakes in attacking Antinomianism ; but whether those mistakes affect the truth of the anti-Solifidian and anti- Pharisaic Gospel which we defend: whether the two Gospel axioms are not equally true: whether our second Scale is not as Scriptural as the first: whether the doctrines of justice and obedience are not as important in their places as the doctrines of grace and mercy: whether the plan of reconciliation laid down,in section iv, and the marriage of free grace and free will, described in section xi, are not truly evangelical : whether God can judge the world in righteousness and wisdom, if man be not a free, unnecessitated agent : whether the justification of obedient believers, by the works oF rarru, is not as Scriptural as the justification of sinners by rarru itself: whether the eternal salvation of adults is not of remu- nerative justice as well as of free grace: whether that salvation does not secondarily depend on the evangelical, derived worthiness of obe-— dient, persevering believers ; as it primarily depends on the original and ’ ; i , OF AN EQUAL CHECK. 131 proper merits of our atoning and interceding Redeemer: whether man is in a state of probation ; or, if you please, whether the Calvinian doc- trines of finished salvation and finished damnation are true: whether there is not a day of initial salvatien for all mankind, according to - various dispensations of Divine grace: whether Christ did not taste death for every man, and purchase a day of initial redemption and salvation for all sinners, and a day of etemal redemption and salvation for all persevering believers: whether all the sins of real apostates, or foully fallen believers, shall so work for their good, that none of them shall ever be damned for any crime he shall commit: whether they shall all sing louder in heaven for their greatest falls on earth: whether our absolute, personal reprobation from eternal life is of God’s free wrath through the decreed, necessary sm of Adam; or of God’s just wrath through our own obstinate, avoidable perseverance in sin: whether our doctrines of non-necessitating grace and of just wrath do not exalt all the Divine perfections; and whether the Calvinian doctrines of necessitating grace and free wrath do not pour contempt upon all the attributes of God, his sovereignty not excepted. These are the important questions which I have principally debated with the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Shirley, Richard Hill, Esq., the Rev. Mr. Hill, the Rev. Mr. Berridge, and the Rev. Mr. Toplady. Some less essential collateral questions I have touched upon, such asy Whether Judas was an absolutely graceless hypocrite, when our Lord raised him to apostolic honours: whether some of the most judicious Calvinists have not, at times, done justice to the doctrine of free will and co-operation,* &c. These, and the like questions, I call collateral, because they are only occasionally brought nn; and because the walls which defend our doctrines of grace stand firm without them. We hope, therefore, that if Mr. Toplady, and the other divines who defend the ramparts of mys- tical Geneva, should ever attack the Checks, they will direct their main * The Rey. Mr. Whitefield, in his answer to the bishop of London’s Pastoral Letter, says, ‘“ That prayer is not the single work of the Spirit, without any co- _ operation of our own, I readily confess. Who ever affirmed that there was no co- operation of our own minds, together with the impulse of the Spirit of God?” Now, that many rest short of salvation, merely\by not co-operating with the Spirit’s impulse, is evident, if we may credit these words of the reverend author: “« There is a great difference between good desires and good habits. Many have the one who never attain to the other. Many (through the Spirit’s impulse) have good desires to-subdue sin; and yet restings(through want of co-operation) in ‘those good desires, sin has always the dominion over them.” (Whitefiel@’s Works, vol. iv, pages 7,11.) Mr. Whitefield grants, in these two passages, all that I con- 3 tend for in these pages respecting the doctrine of our concurrence or co-operation - with the Spirit of free grace, that is, respecting our doctrine of free will; and yet gis warmest admirers will probably be my warmest opposers. But why? Be. ‘cause I aim at (what Mr. Whitefield sometimes overlooked) consistency. 132 PREFACE TO THE THIRD PART batteries against our towers, and not against some insignificant part of the scaffolding, which we could entirely take down, without endangering our Jerusalem in the least. Should they refuse to grant our reasonable . request ; should they take up the pen to perplex, and not to solve the question ; to blacken our character, and not to illustrate the obscure parts of the truth ; they must give us leave to look upon their controversial attempt as an evasive show of defence, contrived to keep a defenceless, tottering error upon its legs, before an injudicious, bigoted populace. If you will do us and the public justice, come to close quarters, and put an end to the controversy by candidly receiving our Scripture Scales, or by plainly showing that they are false. Our doctrine entirely depends upon the two Gospel axioms, and their necessary consequences, which now hang out to public view in our Gospel balances. Nothing there- fore can be more easy than to point out our error, if our system be ~ erroneous. But if our Scales be just, if our doctrines of grace and justice—of free grace and free will be true; it is evident that the Soli- fidians and the moralists are both in the wrong, and that we are, upon the whole, in the right. I say upon the whole, because insignificant mis- takes can no more affect the strength of our cause, than a cracked slate or a broken pane can affect the solidity of a palace, which is firmly built upon a rock. Therefore if you are an admirer of Zelotes, and a Solifidian opposer of free will, of the law of liberty, and of the remunerative justification of a believer by the works of faith, raise no dust; candidly give up Antinomianism ; break the two pillars on which it stands,—necessitating free grace and forcible free wrath ; or prove, if you can, that our second Scale, which is directly contrary to your doctrines of grace, is irrational, and that we have forged or misquoted the passages which compose it. But if you are a follower of Honestus, and a neglecter of free grace and salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, be a candid and honest disputant. Come at once to the grand question; and terminate the controversy, either by receiving our first Scale, which is directly contrary to your scheme of doctrine; or by proving that this Scale is directly contrary to reason and Scripture, and that we have misquoted or mistaken most of the passages which enter into its composition. I say most, though I could say all; for if only two passages, properly taken in connection with the context, the avowed doctrine of a sacred writer, and the general drift of the Scriptures ;—if only two such passages, I say, fairly and truly support each section of our Scripture Scales, they hang firmly, and can no more, upon the whole, be invalidated than the Scripture itself, which, as our Lord informs us, “ cannot be broken,” John x, 35. I take the Searcher of hearts, and my judicious, unprejudiced readers to witness, that through the whole of this controversy, far from conceal- OF AN EQUAL CHECK. 13838 ing the most plausible objections, or avoiding the strongest arguments which are, or may be advanced against our reconciling doctrine, I have carefully searched them out, and endeavoured to encounter them as openly as David did Goliah. Had our opponents followed this method, I doubt not but the controversy would have ended long ago in the destruction of our prejudices, and in the rectifying of our mistakes. O, if we preferred the unspeakable pleasure of finding out the truth to the pitiful honour of pleasing a party, or of vindicating our own mistakes, how soon would the useful fan of Scriptural, logical, and brotherly con- troversy “ purge the floor” of the Church! How soon would the light of truth and the flame of love “burn the chaff” of error and the thorns of prejudice “with fire unquenchable!” May the past triumphs of bigotry suffice! and instead of sacrificing any more to that detestable ‘dol, may we all henceforth do whatever lies in us to hasten a general reconciliation, that we may all share together in the choicest blessings which God can bestow upon his peculiar people ;—the Spirit of pure, evangelical truth, and of fervent, brotherly love. Mapetey, March 30, 1775. AN EXPLANATION or : SOME TERMS USED IN THESE SHEETS. ——_ Tur word Solifidian is defined, and the characters of Zelotes, Hones. tus, and Lorenzo, are drawn in the advertisement prefixed to the first part of this work. It is proper to explain here a few more words or cha- racters. Puarisaism is the religion of a Pharisee. a, A Puarisex is a loose or strict professor of natural or revealed religion, who so depends upon the system of religion which he has adopted, or upon his attachment to the school or Church he belongs to ; (whether ° it be the school of Plato, Confucius, or Socinus; whether it be the Church of Jerusalem, Rome, England, or Scotland ;) who lays such a stress on his religious or moral duties, and has so good an opinion of his present harmlessness and obedience, or of his future reformation and good works, as to overlook his natural impotence and guilt, and to be in- sensible of the need and happiness of “ being justified freely [as a sinner] by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ,” Rom. iil, 24. You may know him: (1.) By his contempt of, or coldness for the Redeemer and his free grace. (2.) By the antichristian confidence which he reposes in his best endeavours, and in the self-righteous ex- ertions of his own free will. Or, (3.) By the jests he passes upon, or the indifference he betrays for the convincing, comforting, assisting, and sanctifying influences of God’s Holy Spirit. Awnrtnomiantism is the religion of an Antinomian. An ANTINOMIAN is a professor of Christianity, who is antinomos, against the law of Christ, as well as against the law of Moses. He allows Christ’s law to be a rule of life, but not a rule of judgment for. believers, and thus he destroys that law ata stroke, as a law; it being evident that a rule by the personal observance or non-observance of » which Christ’s subjects can never be acquitted or condemned, is not a law for them. Hence he asserts that Christians shall no more be jus- tified before God by their personal obedience to the law of Christ, than by their personal obedience to the ceremonial law of Moses. Nay, he believes that the best Christians perpetually break Christ’s law; that nobody ever kept it but Christ himself ; and that we shall be justified or condemned before God, in the great day; not as we shall personally be found to have finally kept or finally broken Christ’s law, but as God shall be found to have, before the foundation of the world, arbitrarily laid, or not laid to our account, the merit of Christ’s keeping his own law. Thus he hopes to stand in the great day, merely by what he calls “ Christ’s imputed righteousness ;” excluding with abhorrence, from our final justification, the evangelical worthmess of our own personal, AN EXPLANATION, ETC. 135 sincere obedience of repentance and faith ;—a precious obedience this, which he calls “dung, dross, and filthy rags:” just as if it were the insincere obedience of self-righteous pride, and Pharisaic hypocrisy. Nevertheless, though he thus excludes the evangelical, derived worthi- ness of the works of faith from our eternal justification and salvation, he does good works, if he is in other respects a good man. Nay, in this case, he piques himself on doing them; thinking he is peculiarly obliged to make people believe that, immoral as his sentiments are, they draw after them the greatest benevolence and the strictest morality. But Fulsome shows the contrary. Futsome represents a consistent Antinomian—that is, one who is such in practice as well as in theory. He warmly espouses Zelotes’ doctrine of fimshed salvation; believing that, before the foundation of the world, we were all Calvinistically, 1.e. personally ordained to eternal life in Christ, or eternal death in Adam, without the least respect to our own works, that is, to our own tempers and conduct. Hence he draws this just inference: “If Christ never died for me, and I am Calvinistically reprobated, my best endeavours to be finally justified, and eternally saved, will never alter the decree of reprobation, which Was made against me from all eternity. On the other hand, if I am Calvinistically elected, and if Christ absolutely secured, yea, finished “my eternal salvation on the cross, no sins can ever blot my name out of the book of life. God, in the day of his almighty power, will irresisti- bly convert or reconvert my soul; and then the greater my crimes shall have been, the more they will set off Divine mercy and power in for- giving and turning such a sinner as me: and I shall only sing in hea- ven louder than less sinners will have cause to do.” Thus reasons Fulsome ; and, like a wise man, he is determined, if he be an abso- lute REPROBATE, to have what pleasure he can before God pulls him down to hell in the day of his power; or, if he be an absolute nLxuct, he thinks it reasonable comfortably to wait for “the day of God’s power,” in which day he shall be irresistibly turned, and absolutely fitted to sing louder in heaven the praises of Calvinistically distinguishing love :—a love this, which (if the Antinomian Gospel of the day be true) eternally, _ justifies the chief of sinners, without any personal or inherent worthiness. IntrIAL SALVATION is a phrase which sometimes occurs in these sheets. The plain reader is desired to understand by it, salvation begun, or}; an inferior state of acceptance and present salvation. In this state sinners are actually saved from hell, admitted to a degree of favour, and graciously entrusted with one or more talents of grace, that is, of means, power, and ability “to work out their own [eternal] salvation,” in due subordination to God, who, consistently with our liberty, “ works in us both to will and to do,” according to the dispensation of the hea- thens, Jews, or Christians, “of his good pleasure.” By the Evecrion or crace, understand the free, and merely gratuitous choice which God (as a wise and sovereign benefactor) arbitrarily makes of this, that, or the other man, to bestow upon him one, two, or five talents of free grace. Opposed to this election, you have an ABSOLUTE REPROBATION which does not draw damnation after it, but only rejection from a superior number of talents. In this sense God reprobated Enoch and David ; 136 AN EXPLANATION, ETC. Enoch with respect to the peculiar blessings of Judaism; and David with regard to the still more peculiar blessings of Christianity. But although neither of them had a share in the election of God’s most peculiar grace; that is, although neither was chosen and called to the blessings of Christianity, their lot was never cast with those imaginary “poor creatures,” whom Calvin and his followers affirm to have been — from all eternity reprobated with a reprobation which infallibly draws eternal damnation after it. For Enoch and David made their election to the rewards oftheir dispensations sure by the timely and voluntary obedience of faith. And so might all those who obstinately bury their talent or talents to the last. By FUTURE CONTINGENCIES, understand those things which will or will not be done ; as the free, unnecessitated will of man shall choose to do them or not. : By sEMINAL EXISTENCE, understand the existence that we had in Adam’s loins before Eve had conceived; or the kind of being which the prince of Wales had in the loins of the king before the queen came to England. “EQUAL CHECK, PART THIRD. BEING THE SECOND PART OF THE SCRIPTURE SCALES. SECTION I. Containing the Scripture doctrine of the perseverance of the saunts. I promisreD the reader that Zelotes and Honestus should soon meet again, to fight their last battle ; and, that I may be as good as my word, I bring them a second time upon the stage of controversy. I have no pleasure in seeing them contend with each other; but I hope that when they shall have shot all their arrows, and spent all their strength, they will quietly sit down and listen to terms of reconciliation. They have hadsalready many engagements; but they seem determined that this shall be the sharpest. Their challenge is about the doctrine of perse- verance. Zelotes asserts that the perseverance of believers depends entirely upon God’s almighty grace, which nothing can frustrate ; and that, of consequence, no believer can finally fall. Honestus, on the other hand, maintains that continuing in the faith depends chiefly, if not entirely upon the believer’s free will; and that of consequence final perseverance is partly, if not altogether as uncertain as the fluctuations of the human heart. The reconciling truth lies between those two extremes, as appears from the following propositions, in which I sum up the Scripture doctrine of perseverance :— God makes us glorious promises to encourage us to persevere. God on his part gives us his gracious help. Free grace always does its part. Final perseverance depends, first, on the final, gractous concurrence of free grace with free will. As free grace has in all things the pre-eminence over free will, we must lay much more stress upon God’s faithfulness than upon our own. ‘The spouse comes out of the wilderness, leaning upon her Be- loved, and not upon herself. II. Those promises are neither com- pulsory nor absolute. We must on our part faithfully use the help of God. Free will does not always do its part. Final perseverance depends, se- condly, on the final, faithful con- currence of free will with free grace. But to infer from thence that the svouse is to be carried by her Be- joved every step of the way, is unscriptural. He gently draws her, and she runs. He gives her his arm, and she leans. But far from dragging her by main force, he bids her remember Lot’s wife. . 138 I. The believer stands upon two legs, (if I may so speak,) God’s faithfulness and his own. The one is always sound, nor can he rest too much upon it, if he does but walk straight, as a wise Christian; and does not foolishly hop as an Anti- nomian, who goes only upon his right leg; or as a Pharisee, who moves entirely upon the left. ‘When Gospel ministers speak of our faithfulness, they chiefly mean, (1.) Our faithfulness in repenting, that is, in renouncing our sins and Pharisaic righteousness; and in improving the talent of light, which shows us our natural depravity, daily imperfections, total helpless- ness, and constant need of an humble recourse to, and dependence on Divine grace. And, (2.) Our faithfulness in believing (even in hope against hope) God’s redeeming love to sinners in Christ ; in humbly apprehending, as returning prodi- gals, the gratuitous forgiveness of sins through the blood of the Lamb ; in cheerfully claiming, as impotent creatures, the help that is laid on the Saviour for us; and in con- stantly coming at his word, to “ take of the water of life freely.” And so far as Zelotes recommends this evangelical disposition of mind, without opening a back door to Antinomianism, by covertly pleading for sin, and dealing about his ima- ginary decrees of forcible grace and sovereign wrath, he Cannot be too highly commended. If Zelotes will do justice to the doctrine of perseverance, he must speak of the obedience of faith, that is, of genuine, sincere obedience, as the oracles of God do. He must not blush to display the glorious rewards with which God hath pro- mised to crown it. He must boldly EQUAL CHECK. Tl. ‘ The believer’s left leg, (I mean his own faithfulness,) is subject to many humours, sores, and bad accidents ; especially when he does not use it at all, or when he lays too much stress upon it, to save his other leg. If it is broken, he is already fallen ; and if he is out of hell, he must lean as much as he can upon his right leg, till the left begins to heal, and he can again run the way of God’s commandments. To aim chiefly at being faithful in external works, means of grace, and forms of godliness, is the high road to Pharisaism, and insincere obedience. I grant that he who is humbly faithful in little things, is faithful also in much; and that he who slothfully neglects little helps, will soon fall into great sins; but the professors of Christianity cannot be too frequently told that if they are not first faithful in maintaining true poverty of spirit, deep self humiliation before God, and thoughts of Christ’s blood and right- eousness ; they will soon slide into © Laodicean Pharisaism; and, Jehu like, they will make more of their own partial, external, selfish faith- fulness, than of Divine grace, and the Spirit’s power :—a most dan- gerous and common error this, into which the followers of Honestus are very prone to run, and so far as he leads them into it, or encou- rages them in it, he deserves to be highly blamed ; and Zelotes, in this respect, hath undoubtedly the ad. vantage over him. Would Honestus kindly meet Zelotes half way, he must speak of free grace, and of Christ’s obe- dience unto death, as the Scriptures do. He must glory in displaying Divine faithfulness, and placing it in the most conspicuous and en- gaging light. He must not be THIRD. | I. declare, that for want of it “the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience”—upon fallen believers, “who have no in- heritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God,” Eph. ¥, 5. In a word, instead of emasculating “ Serjeant Fr, who valiantly guards the doctrine of perseverance,” he should show ‘ him all the respect that Christ him- self does in the Gospel. SCRIPTURE SCALES. 139 II. ashamed to point out the great re- wards of the faith which inherits promises, gives glory to God, and out of weakness makes us strong to take up our cross, and to run the race of obedience. In a word, he must teach his willing hearers to depend every day more and more upon Christ; and to lay as much stress upon his promises, as they ever did upon his threatenings. To sum all up in two propositions :— I. The infallible perseverance of obedient believers is a most sweet and evangelical doctrine, which cannot be pressed with too much earnestness and constancy upon sincere Christians, for their com- fort, encouragement, and establish- oo | The infallible perseverance of disobedient believers is a most dan- gerous and unscriptural doctrine ; and this cannot be pressed with too much assiduity and tenderness upon Antinomian professors, for their re- awakening and sanctification. ment. _ ' T ‘o see the truth of these propositions, we need only throw with can- dour, into the Scripture Scales, the weights which Zelotes and Honestus unmercifully throw at each other; taking particular care not to break, as they do, the golden beam of evangelical harmony, by means of which the opposite scales and weights exactly balance each other. - The weights of free grace thrown by Zelotes. The Lord shall establish thee a holy people to himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, Deut. xxviii, 9. Know therefore the Lord thy God; he is God, the faithful God, who keepeth covenant, Deut. vu, 9. He hath made with me an ever- lasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure: for this is all my salvation and all my desire, 2 Sam. xxiii, 5. Il. The weights of free will thrown by Honestus. If thou shalt keep the command- ments of the Lord thy God, and walk in his ways. (Ibid.) But they, &c, have transgressed the covenant. They continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, Hos. vi, 7; Heb. viii, 9. They have broken the everlast- ing covenant: therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, Isa. xxiv, 5. They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law, &c, so a fire was kindled in Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel; because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation, &c. The wrath of God came upon them, é&c, and smote down the chosen of Israel, Psa. lxxviii, 10, 21, 22, 31. Hence it appears, that part of the “everlasting covenant ordered in all things and surg,” is that those who break it presumptuously, and do not repent (as David did) before it be too late, shall sureny be smitten down and destroyed. 140 EQUAL 3 With him [the Father of lights] 1s no variableness, neither shadow of turning, James i, 17. I am the Lord, I change not: [I still bear with sinners during the day; of their visitation ;] therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed, Mal. iii, 6. [Observe here, that although God’s essence, dnd the principles of his conduct toward man never change; yet, as “he loves right- eousness and hates iniquity,” and as he is the rewarder of the rght- eous and the punisher of the wicked, he must show himself pleased or displeased, a rewarder or a pun- isher, as moral agents turn from sin to righteousness, or from right- eousness to sin. Without this kind of change, ad extra, he could not be holy and just :—he coutu not be the Judge of all the earth ;—he could not be God.] CHECK I. unl a The angel of his presence saved them: in his love and pity he re- membered them. But they re- belled and vexed his Holy Spirit ; therefore he was turned to be their enemy, Isa. Ixiii, 9, 10. The Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house and the house of thy father should walk before me for ever ; but now be it far from me ; for, &e, they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed, 1 Sam. ii, 30. And the word of the Lord came to Jonah, saying, Preach unto Nineveh the preaching that I bid thee. And Jonah cried and said, Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown. So the people of Nineveh believed God, &c. For the king sat in ashes, and caused it to be proclaimed, &c. Cry might- ily to God, yea, let every one turn from his evil way, &c. Who can tell, if God will turn and repent, that we perish not. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way, and God repented of the evil which he had said that he would do unto them, and he did it not, Jonah iii, 1, &c. [From the preceding remarkable passages it is evident that, except in a few cases, the promises and the threatenings of God, so long as the day of grace and trial lasts, are conditional: and that, even when they wear the most absolute aspect, the condition is sey, implied. | : The gifts and calling of God are without vepentance, Rom, xi, 29. [The apostle evidently speaks these words of God’s gifts to, and calling of the Jewish nation. ‘The Lord is so far from repenting (pro- perly speaking) of his having once called the Jews to the Mosaic co- venant of peculiarity, that he is ready nationally to re-admit them to his peculiar favour, when they shall nationally repent, embrace the Gospel of Christ, and so make their sincere calling to the Christian co- ‘yenant sure by believing. But does this prove that God forces repent- ance upon every Jew, and that Il. I gave her time to repent and she repented not, Rev. ii, 21. Be- cause I have called and ye refused, &c, I also will mock—when your destruction cometh as a whirlwind, Prov. i, 24, &c. The Lord [to speak figuratively and after the manner of men] repented that he had made Saul king over Israel, 1 Sam. xv, 35, [that is, when Saul proved unfaithful, the Lord rejected him in as positive a manneras a king would reject a minister, or break a general, when he repen' of his having raised them to offices, of which they now Show themselves absolutely unworthy. ] . _ THIRD. ] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 141 when the Jews will nationally repent, God will absolutely and irresistibly work out their salvation for them? look into the scale of Honestus. BE We (who hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering) are not of them who draw back unto perdition ; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul, Heb. x,. 39. We believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, Acts xv, 11. If Zelotes thinks so, I desire him to Il. If that, which ye have heard from the beginning, shall remain in you, 1 John i, 24. If ye continue in the faith, Col. i, 23. If ye con- tinue in his goodness, Rom. xi, 22. If ye do these things, 2 Peter i, 19. If we hold fast the confidence firm unto the end, Heb. ii, 6. For he that shall endure unio the end, the same shall be saved, Matt. xxiv, 13. [Should Zelotes endeavour to set aside these, and the like scriptures, by saying that each contains a Christian rr and not a Jewish tr, that is, a description, and not a condi- tion; I refer him to the Equal Check, part i, vol. i, p. 496, where that trifling objection is answered. ] aS If his [David’s] children forsake my law, &c, then will I visit their transgression with the rod, &c; nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, [David, by utterly casting off his posterity] nor suffer my truth to fail, [as it would do if I appointed that the Messiah should come of another family,] Psa. lxxxix, 30, = Thus saith the -Lord, &c, O Israel, fear not; for I have re- deemed thee: I have called thee by thy name, thou art mine. When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee ; when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burnt, &c, Isa. xlni, 1, 2. Il. And thou Solomon, my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart, and a willing mind: for the Lord searcheth all hearts, and under- standeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: ,if thou seek him, he will* be found of thee; but 2f thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever. Take heed now, &c, 1 Chron. xxviil, 9. And the Spirit of God came upon Azariah, and he went out to meet Asa, and said unto him, Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah; the Lord is with you while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you, 2 Chron. xy, 1, 2. * When Isaiah saith, “‘ I was found of them that sought me not,” &c, Rom. x, 23, he does not contradict his own exhortation, to ‘‘ seek the Lord while he may be found.” That noble testimony to the doctrine of grace does not militate against the doctrine of liberty: but it proves, (1.) That free grace is always beforehand with free will: and (2.) That as God freely called the Jews to the Mosaic co- yenant of peculiarity; so he gratuitously calls the Gentiles to the Christian co- ‘venant of peculiarity; neither Jews nor Gentiles having previously sought that inestimable favour. But when God has so far revealed himself either to Jew or Gentile, as to say, ‘‘Seek ye my face,” wo to him who does not answer in truth and in time, ‘‘ Thy face, Lord, will I seek.” 142 i. All the promises of God in him [Christ] are Yea, and in him Amen, 2 Cor. i, 20. [And so are all the menaces, for he is “the faithful Witness,” and “the Mediator of the new covenant,” which has its threatenings, as well as its promises ; as appears from the opposite words spoken by Christ himself. ] God willing more abundantly to show to the heirs of promise [i. e. to obedient believers] the immuta- bility of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath; that by two immutable things [the word and oath of the Lord] in which it was dnpossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us, Heb. vi, 17, 18. And thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins, Matt. i, 21 I will take you to me for a peo- ple, and be to you a God, Exod. vi, 7. shall surely perish, Deut. xxx, 17, 18. EQUAL CHECK. pa II. Remember whence thou art rt fall. en, repent, and do thy first works, or else I will remove thy candle- stick. I will fight with the sword of my mouth against them that held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. I will kill her children with death, I will spue thee out of my mouth, [Awful threatenings these, which had their public and national, as well as private and personal accom- plishment,] Rey. i, 5, 15, 16, 23; lu, 16. As truly as I live, saith the Lord, &c, your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness; and all that, &c, have ‘murmured against me, doubiless ye shall not come into the land, con. cerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb and Josh- ua, &c. Ye shall bear your ini- quities, &c, and ye shall know my breach of promise, Numbers xiv, 28-34. My mother and ‘my brethren [that is, my people] are these, who hear the word of God, and keep it, Matt. xii, 50. I will destroy [my backsliding] people, since they re- turn not, Jer. xv, 7. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, &c, I de- nounce unto you this day, that ye Indeed, the hand of the Lord was against them [when they disobeyed] to destroy them, &c, until they vwere consumed, Deut. ii, 15. ‘for our admonition, 1 Cor. x, 11. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself. He brought forth his peo- ple with joy, and his chosen with gladness, Deut. xiv, 2; Psa. cv, 43. My [faithful] people shall never be ashamed, Joel ii, 27. The work of righteousness shall be peace, quietness, and assurance for ever ; and my people shall dwell am a peaceable habitation, and in Now all ee things, &c, are written Il. And the Lord spake to Moses, saying, Get you up from among this congregation [this special, chosen people] that I may consume them in a moment, Num. xvi, 45. Thou [my unfaithful people] hadst a whore’s forehead: thou re: fusedst to be ashamed, Jer. iii, 3. Every one of the house of Is. rael, that separateth himself from me, saith the Lord, I will cut him off from the midst of my people, —_— THIRD.] I. SCRIPTURE SCALES. 143 I sure dwellings, and in quiet resting Ezek. xiv, 7. There is no peace places, Isa. xxxii, 17, 18, The eternal God is thy refuge; and underneath are the everlasting arms, &c. Israel shall dwell in safety alone, &c. Happy art thou, O Israel! Who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help? Deut. xxxiii, 27, &e. The Lord will pity his people, Joel ii, 18., . Hath God [absolutely] cast away his people [the Jews?] God forbid! God has not cast away his people, whom he foreknew [as believing. The Jews being as welcome to be- heve in Christ as the Gentiles, ] Rom. xi, 1, 2. Zion said, The Lord hath for- saken me, and my Lord hath for- gotten me. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee, Isa. xlix, 14,15. Jesus having loved his own [ dis- ciples] he loved them unto the end [of his stay in this world, except him that was once “his own fami- liar friend, in whom he trusted,” Judas, whom our Lord himself ex- cepts, John xvii, 12 ;] John xii, 1. to the wicked, Isa. lvii, 21. That the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, &c, but that they may be my people, Ezek. xiv, 11. Obey my-voice, and ye shall be my people, Jer. vii, 23. Wo unto them [Israel and Ephraim] for they have fied from me; de- struction unto them, because they have transgressed against me. They return not to the Most High, Hos. vii, 13, 16. The Lord shall judge his people, Heb. x, 30. Judgment must begin at the house of God, 1 Pet. iv, 17. , Ye are a chosen [choice] gene- ration, &c, which in time past were not a people, but are now the peo- ple of God ; which had not obtain- ed mercy, but now have obtained mercy [by believing,] 1 Pet. ii, 9, 10. Therefore, the children of Israel could not stand before their ene- mies, &c, because they were ac- cursed; neither will I be with you any more [said the Lord] except ye destroy the accursed thing from among you, Josh. vii, 12. I will call her beloved, who was not beloved. Jesus loved him, [the young ruler, who went away sor- rowing.| I will love them no more, Rom. ix, 24; Mark x, 21; Hos. ix, 15. I have loved thee with an everlasting love, [or with the love with which ’ I loved thee of old, when I brought thee out of Egypt,] therefore, with loving kindness have I drawn thee, Jer. xxxi, 3. [Compare the word everlasting in the original, with these words, “ When Israel was a child, then I loyed him, and called my son out of Egypt,” Hos. xi, 1.] ; I Il Truly God is good to Israel, Psa. This God is our God for ever and ever ; he will be our guide _ even unto death, Psa. xlviii, 24. »* Even to such as are of a clean heart. (Jbid.) Depart from evil, do good, and dwell for evermore. Bind mercy and truth about thy neck, é&c, so shalt thou find favour, &c, in the sight of God and man, Psa. Xxxvill, 27; Proy. il, 3. 4. 144 I. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? [them that «are in Christ, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”] It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth them? Rom. viii, 1, 33°34, All things are yours [ye Corinth- ians] and ye are Christ’s and Christ is God’s. Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. iii, 21; i, 30. To them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called [to enjoy the blessings of his Gospel,| Jude 1. If we believe not, yet he abi- deth faithful; he cannot deny himself, 2 Tim. u, 13. ['There- fore | Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain, Psa. cxxvii, 1. He [the Lord] led him [Jacob] about, é&c, he kept him as the apple of his eye. As an eagle fluttereth over her young, taketh them, bear- eth them on her wings; so the Lord alone did lead him, Deut. xxx, 10-12. . Holy Father, keep through thy oun name those whom thou hast given me, [that I may impart unto them the peculiar blessings of my dispensation,| John xvii, 11. You who are kept by the power of God unto saivation, ready to be revealed in the last time, 1 Pet. i, 5. I am _ persuaded that neither death nor life, &c, nor angels, &c, nor any other creature [Note : he does not say, Nor any iniquity] shall be able to separate us from the EQUAL CHECK. [PART ' (ae Il. [No righteous judge will :] for to be spiritually minded is life and peace; but to be carnally minded is death, verse 6. Whosoever hath sinned against me, said the Lord, him will I blot out of my book, Exod. xxxii, 33. Examine yourselves [ye Connth- ians] whether ye be in the faith, &c. Know ye not, &c, that Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates ? 2 Cor. xiii, 5. To them, who by patient contin- uance in well doing, seek for glo- ry, honour, and immortality, [God will render] eternal life, Rom. ii, 7. _ If we deny him, he will also. “deny us: [for he abideth faithful to his threatenings, as well as to his promises,] ver. 12. I say unto all, Watch. Watch ° thou in all things. He that is begotten of God keepeth himself, Mark xiii, 37; 2 Tim. iv, 5; 1 John vy; 18. There was no strange god with him [Jacob.] But, &c, they for- sook God, &c, sacrificed to devils, &ec, and when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them; [and said] I will spend mine arrows upon them, verses 12, 15, 17, 19, 23. , Keep yourselves in the love of God. Little children, keep your- selves from idols. Fathers, &c, love not the world, &c. If any [of you] love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. [He is fallen from God in spirit,] Jude 21; 1 Johny, 21; ii, 15. Through faith [en your part.] (Ibid.) Holding faith, and a good conscience, which some having put away, concerning FaITH, have made shipwreck, 1 Tim. i, 19. Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, Isa. lix, 2. I so run (for an incor. — ruptible crown) not as uncertainly : so fight I, not as one that beateth a &e. THIRD.] nf, love of God, which is in Christ the air: Jesus our Lord, Rom. viii, 38. I know whom [J have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have commit- ted unto him against that day, 2 Tim. i, 12. SCRIPTURE SCALES. 145 Il. but I keep my body under, &c, lest that by any means I myself should be a castaway, o1 ‘a reprobate, 1 Cor. ix, 26, 27. There is no respect of persons with God. Thou partakest of the root of the olive tree, &c, some ot the branches are broken off, &c Boast not thyself against them By unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith, &c, fear, &c, lest he also spare not thee, Rom. u, 11; xi, 17, &c. Give all diligence to add to your faith virtue, &c, for 7f ye do these things, ye shall never fall, 2 Pet. i, 5, 10. I In all these things we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us, Rom. vii, 37. Moreover, whom he did predes- tinate [that is, appomt to be con- formed to the image of his Son, according to the Christian dispen- sation] them he also called [to believe in Christ ;] and whom he thus called [to believe in Christ, when they made their calling sure by actually believing, | them he also justified ; and whom he justified [as sinners by FaiTH, and as believers by THE works of faith] them he also glorified, Rom. vii, 30. By one offering he hath perfected for ever [in atoning merits] them that are sanctified, Heb. x,14. [Here we have a brief account of the method in which God brings obedient, persevering believers to glory. But what has this to do with Zelotes’ personal and unconditional predestination to eternal life, or to eternal death? To show therefore that the sense which he gives to these passages is erroneous, I need only prove that all those who are called are Il. I have kept the faith ;—for I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God, 2 Tim. iv, 7; Psa. Xviii, 21. Many are called [to believe | but few are chosen [to the rewards of faith,] Matt. xxii, 14. O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt [that is, I justified thee, ] because thou desiredst: me, &c, shouldst thou not also have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee? And his Lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, Matt. xviii, 32, &c. He that despised Moses’ law, died without mercy, &c, of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath count- ed the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing! Heb. x, 29. Ye [believers] shall be hated of all men, &c, but he fof you] that endureth to the end, shall be [eter- nally] saved, Matt. x, 22. (For God) will render eternal life to them, who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory, Rom. Hi, Be not justified ; and that all those who are justified, and sanctified, are not glorified ; but only those who make their calling, election, justification, sanctification, and glorification sure by the obedience of faith unto the end. And I prove it by the opposite scriptures. ] Vor. II. 10 146 EQUAL CHECK. ° [Parr Can any unprejudiced person read the preceding passages without seeing, (1.) That, according to the Scriptures, and the Gospel axioms, our perseverance is suspended on two grand causes, the jirst of which is merciful free grace, and the second faithful free will. (2.) That those two causes must finally act in conjunction. And (3.) That when free grace hath enabled free will to concur, and to work out its own salvation, if free will obstinately refuse to do it till the night comes when no man can work, free grace gives up free will to its own perverseness; and then perseverance fails, and final apostasy takes place. SECTION II. The important doctrine of perseverance is farther weighed in the Scrip- ture Scales. Tue scriptures produced in the preceding section might conyince an impartial reader that Zelotes and Honestus are both in the wrong with respect to the doctrine of perseverance. and that a Bible Christian holds together ‘the doctrines which they keep asunder. But considering that prejudice is not easily convinced ; and fearing lest Zelotes and Hones. tus should both think they have won the day, the one against free will, and the other against free grace, merely because they can quote, behind each other’s back, some passages which I have not yet balanced, and which each will think matchless ; I shall give them leave to fight it out before Candidus, reminding him that Zelotes produces No. I. against free will; that Honestus produces No. II. against free grace ; and that I produce both numbers to show that our free will must concur with God’s free grace, in order to our persevering in the faith and in the obedience of faith. I. II. _A vineyard of red wine. I the _ [ had planted thee a noble vine, Lord do keep i: I will water it wholly a right seed. How then every moment: lest any hurt it, I art thou turned into the degénerate will keep it night and day, Isa. plant of a strange vine unto me? XXVii, 2, 3. &c. Thou saidst, &c, I have loved é strangers, and after them I will go, Jer. ti, 21,25. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now I will tell you what I will de to my vineyard, &c; I will lay i waste, &c, and com- mand the clouds that they rain no rain upon it, Isa. y, 4, 5, 6. i A II. The Lord God of Israel saith, Backsliding Israel, &c, hath that he hateth putting away, Mal. played the harlot. And I said, &e, ii, 16. (And yet he allows it for ‘Turn thou unto me: but she return. © the cause of fornication, Matt. v, ed not; and her treacherous sister 32.) Judah saw it. And I saw, when, for—adultery, I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorcement ; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, Jer. iii, 6,7, &.. / - THIRD.] [a The righteous shall never be moved, Prov. x, 30. he mountains shall depart, &c, t my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord, Isa. liv, 10. SCRIPTURE SCALES. 147 Il. I marvel that ye are so soon re. moved from him that called you. Unto the wicked, God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take my covenant in thy mouth? Psa. 1,16. O Israel, if thou wilt put away thy ahominations out of my sight, thou shalt not remove, Jer. iv, 1. Jerusalem hath grievously sinned ; therefore she is removed, Lam. i, 8. My God will cast them away, be- cause they did not hearken unto him, Hos. ix, 17. K Vhey that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever. As the mountains are round about Je- rusalem, so the Lord is round about his people, from henceforth, even for ever, Psa. cxxv, 1, 2. I. Lord, who shall abide in thy ta- bernacle? He that walketh upright- ly, and worketh righteousness, &c. He that does these things shall never be moved, Psalm xv, 1, 2,5. Abide in me, and I [will abide] in you, John xv, 4. He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High, [thou, Lord, art my hiding place, Psa. xxxii, 7,] shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty, Psa. xci, 1. abideth for ever, 1 John ii, 17. He that does the will of God Draw out thy soul to the hungry, &c, and the Lord shall guide thee continually, and, &c, thou shalt be like a spring of water, whose waters fail not, Isa. lvii, 10, 11. I The Lord will speak peace unto his people, and to his saints, Psalm Ixxxy, 8. Peace shall be upon Is- rael, Psa. cxxv, 5. For Christ is our peace, Eph. ii, 14. O continue thy loving kindness unto them that know thee. his own eyes, &c, he hath left off to be wise, and to do good, &c. Il. Be diligent, that you may be found of him in peace. If the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it. As many as walk according to this rule, [i. e. as become new crea- tures, ] peace be on them, and mercy, 2 Pet. ii, 14; Matt. x, 13; Gal. vi, 15, 16. And thy righteousness to the up- right in heart, Psa. xxxvi, 10. He [the apostate] flattereth himself in He setteth himself in a way that is not good, he abhorreth not evil, &c. There are the workers of iniquity fallen, &c, and shall not be able to rise, verses 2, 3, 4, 12. Whoso continueth in the perfect law of liberty, he being a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed, James i, 25. They went out from us, but [in general] they were not of us [that con- tinue in the perfect law of liberty.] For had they been of us [that are still doers of the work] they would no doubt have continued with us : [the Gnostics, or Antinomians, would not have been able to draw so many over to their pernicious ways, or tenets, 2 Pet. ii, &c.] But they went out [they joined the Antinomians] that they might be made manifest, that they were not all of us, [i. e. that in general their heart had departed from the Lord, and from us ; they of late being of us, more by profession if 148 EQUAL CHECK. [PART than by possession of the faith which works by obedient love,] 1 John ii, 19. So tay St. John says they were not all of us, to leave room for some excep- tions. For as we are persuaded that many, who have gone over tothe Solifidians in our days, are still of us that are doers of the work, so St. John did not doubt but-some, who had been seduced by the primitive Antinomians, see verse 26, continued to obey the perfect law of liberty, which the Nicolaitans taught them to decry. May we, after his example, be always ready to make a proper distinction between the Solifidians that are of us, and those that are not of us! That is, between those who still keep Christ’s commandments, and those who break them-with as little ceremony as they break a ceremonious “rule of life,” or burden- some rule of civility. Let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit the keeping of their souls to God, &c, as unto a faithful Creator, 1 Pet. iv, 19. I will betroth thee unto me for ever, &c. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness. The Lord is faithful who shall establish you, and keep you from evil. To him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with ex- ceeding joy, Hos. ii, 19, 20; 2 Thess. iii, 3; Jude 24. The earth which beareth thorns, is rejected ; and, &c, its end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things which accompany salvation, though we thus speak, Heb. vi, 8, 9. II. In well domg. (Ibid.) Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat the fruit of their doings, Isa. ii, 10. If ye have not been faithful inthe unrighteous mammon, (that which is least,) who will commit unto you the true riches ? Luke xvi, 11. He made his own people to go forth like sheep, and guided them like a flock. And he led them on safely, so that they feared not, &c. Yet they kept not his testimonies ; but turned back and dealt unfaithfully. &c. When God heard this, he, &c, greatly abhorred Israel: so that he forsook the tabernacle, &c, which he had placed among men, &c, Psa. Ixxviil, 52, &c. ® For, &c, ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister : [so that, in the judgment of charity, which “hopeth all things,” especially where there are favourable appear- ances, it is right in me to hope the best of you, nor will I suspect you, till you give me cause so to do. However, remember that] if we sin wilfully, &c, there remaineth [for us,] &c, a fearful looking for of juds- ment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries [that is, apostates,] Heb. vi, 10; x, 26, 27. I ‘ I TI am confident of this very thing, that he who has begun a good work you all, because I have you in my in you, will perform it until the day heart [and charity hopeth all things] of Jesus Christ, Phil. i, 6. inasmuch as in my bonds, &c, ye are partakers of my grace,—ye have always obeyed, Phil. i, 7; ii, 12. [Thus spake the apostle to those It is meet for me to think this of | ee a THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 149 who continued to obey. But to his disobedient converts he wrote in a different strain :] O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you , Should not obey the truth?’ Have ye suffered so many things in vain? I desire now to change my voice, for I stand in doubt of you, Gal. iii, 1, e 4; iv, 20. & II. The Lord is my rock,and my My defence is of God, who fortress, and my deliverer; my saveth the upright in heart, Psa. vil, God, my strength, in whom I will 10. Do good, O Lord, to those trust, my buckler, and the horn of that are good and upright in their my salvation, and my high tower, hearts: as for such as turn aside Psa. xv, 2. unto their crooked ways, the Lord shall lead them forth with the work- ers of iniquity, Psa. exxv, 4, 5. I will put my Spirit within you, ‘Thus saith the Lord God, I will and cause you [so far as is con- yet forthis be inquired of by the sistent with your moral agency] house of Israel, to do it for them, to walk in my statutes, and ye Ezek. xxxvi, 37. Ye stiff necked, shall (or will) keep my judgments &c, ye do always resist the Holy and do them, Ezek. xxxvi, 27. Ghost, as your fathers did, Acts vil, ol. Israel shall be saved inthe Lord How shall we escape, if we with an everlasting salvation, Isa. neglect so great salvation? Heb. iver v= ii, 3. Remember Lot’s wife, Luke XV, 32. O Lord, save me, and I shall be Thy faith hath saved thee, Luke saved, for thou art my praise, Jer. vii, 50. Ye are saved, if ye keep xvii, 14. Salvation isof the Lord, {in memory and practice] what I Jonah ii, 9. have preached unto you, 1 Cor. Xv, 2. The foundation of God standeth And let every one that nameth sure, having this seal, The Lord the name of Christ, depart from in- knoweth them that are his, 2'Tim. iquity. (Ib¢d.) Now if any man ii, 19. have not the Spirit of God, he ts none of his, Rom. viii, 9. His pe- culiar people (being) a holy nation, zealous of good works, 1 Pet. i, 9; Tit. ii, 14. Be zealous, therefore, and repent ; (or) I will spue thee out of my mouth, Rey. iu, 19, 16. i I, : Thou wilt perform the truth to _I will perform the oath which I Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, sware unto Abraham thy father, which thou hast sworn to our fa- &c, because that Abraham obeyed thers from the days of old. To my voice, and kept my charge, my perform the mercy promised to our commandments, my statutes, and fathers, and to remember his holy my laws, Gen. xxvi, 3,5. Thus covenant and the oath which he says the Lord God of Israel, Cursed sware to our father Abraham, Mi- be the man that obeyeth not the words cah vii, 20; Luke i, 72. of this covenant, which I com- manded your fathers, (in the day that I brought them forth from the iron furnace,) saying, Obey my voice and do them, so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God; 150 EQUAL CHECK. im that I may perform the oath which I have sworn to your sie eae 3, 4, 5. ie Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, Psa. xxii, 6. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand: but it shall not come nigh thee, Psa. Xel,e My sheep [obedient believers] hear my voice, and I know [ap- prove] them, and they follow me: and J give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my Fa- ther’s hand, John x, 27, &c. Il. . 7 If thou continue in his goodness. Holding faith and a good con- science, which some having put away, concerning faith, have made shipwreck, Rom. xi, 22; 1 Tim. i, 18, 19. Because thou hast made the Most High thy habitation. Be- cause he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him, verses 9, 14. The Lord preserveth the faith- ful, &c. Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the Lord, Psa. xxxi, 23, 24. If ye will fear the Lord, and obey his voice, and not rebel against his commandment, then shall ye continue following the Lord your God. But if ye will not obey, &c, then shall the hand of the Lord be against you. Only serve him in truth, with all your heart: for con- sider how great things*he has done for you. But if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, 1 Sam. xii, 14, 15, 24, 25. [Lest Samuel’s testimony should be rejected as unevangelical, I produce that of Christ himself ; hoping that Zelotes will allow our Lord to understand his own Gospel.] Bear much fruit, so shall ye be my disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue in my leve. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; evenas I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love, John xy, 8, &c. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away—and they are burned, John xy, 2, 6. I II. There shall arise false christs, | They shalldeceivemany. Take and shall show great signs, inso- much that (if it were possible) they shall deceive rAavyco [lead into error] the very elect, Matt. xxiv, heed that ‘no man deceive you, ver. 4,5. They, (that cause divyi- sions,) by good words deceive the hearts of the simple, Rom. xvi, 18. [Query : are all the simple believers whom party men deceive, very re- probates?| I have espoused you to Christ, &c. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve, so your minds should be cor- rupted, 2 Cor. xi, 2, 8. They have been deceived, (or have erred) from the faith (anerravnSnde the very word used by our Lord, and strength- ened by a preposition,) 1 Tim. vi, 10. [When Zelotes supposes that the clause (if it were possible) necessarily implies an dmpossibility, does he not make himself ridiculous before those who know the Scrip- tures? That expression, if it were possible, is used only on four other occa- sions ; and in each of them it notes great difficulty, but by no means an —————— ee ee THIRD.|] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 151 impossibility. 'Take only two instances: “If it were possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me,” Gal. iv, 15. “Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem on the day of pentecost, if it were possible for him,” Acts xx, 16. Now is it not evident, either that Paul wanted common sense, if he hasted to do what could not absolutely be done ; or that the expression, ¢f it were possible, implies no impossi- bility? And is not this a proof that Calvinism can now deceive Zelotes, as easily as the tempter formerly deceived Aaron, David, Solomen, De- mas, and Judas in the matter of the golden calf, Uriah, Milcom, and mammon ? I. I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, Luke xxii, 49. That Peter’s faith failed for a time is evident from the following observations : (1.) “ Faith without works is dead ;” much more faith with lying, cursing, and the repeat- ed denial-of Christ. (2.) Our Sa- viour himself said to his disciples, after a far less grievous fall, “ How is it that you have no faith?” Mark iv, 40. (3.) His adding immedi- ately, “ When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren,’ shows that Peter would stand in need of conversion, and consequently of living, converting faith; for as by II. I know thy works, &c, thou hold- est fast my name, and hast not de- nied my faith [as Peter did.] Hay- ing damnation because they have cast off their first faith, Rev. ii, 13 ; 1 Tim. vy, 12. Which [a good conscience, the bcliever’s most pre- cious jewel, next to Christ] some having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck, 1 Tim. i, 19, Without faith it is impossible to please God. The just shall live by faith, but if he draw back [i. e. if he make shipwreck of faith] my soul shall have no pleasure in him, Heb. xi, 6; x, 38. If any [be- liever] provide not for his own, &c, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel, 1 Tim. v, 8. destructive unbelief we depart from God, so by living faith we are con- verted to him. Hence it is evident. that if Christ prayed that Peter’s faith might not fail at all, he prayed conditionally ; and that upon Peter’s refusing to watch and pray, which was the condition particularly mentioned by our Lord, Christ’s prayer was no more answered than that which he soon after put up, about his not drinking the bitter cup, and about the forgiveness of his revilers and murderers. But if our Lord prayed (as seems most likely) that Peter’s faith might not fail, or die like that of Judas, i. e. in such a manner as never to come to life again, then his prayer was perfectly answered : for the candle of Peter’s faith, which a sudden blast of temptation (and not the extinguisher of malicious, final obstinacy) had put out—Peter’s faith, I say, like the smoking flax, caught again the flame of truth and love, and shone to the enlightening of thousands on the day of pentecost, as well as to the conversion of his own soul that very night. However, from our Lord’s prayer, Zelotes concludes that true faith can never fail, in opposition to the scriptures which fill the opposite scale ; yea, and to reason, which pronounces that our Lord was too wise to spend his last moments in asking that a thing might not happen, which, if we believe Zelotes, could not possibly happen. : I II. God, even our F ather, who hath If ye will not believe, ye shall 152 I. loved us, and given us everlasting consolation, &c, stablish you in every good word and work, 2 Thess. ii, 16, 17. He who esta- blishes us with you in Christ, &c, is God, 2 Cor. i, 21. EQUAL CHECK. “ wicked, &c. [Part not be established, Isa. vii, 9. God preserveth not the life of the He withdraweth not his eyes from the righteous, &c. He showeth them their work, and their transgressions, &c. He open- eth also their ear to discipline, and commandeth that they return from iniquity. If they obey and serve him, they will spend their days in prosperity, &c. But if they obey not, they shall perish, &c, and die without knowledge, Job xxxvi, 6-12. I. Il. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? &c. If any [of you | defile the temple of God, him will God destroy, iii, 16,17. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell, Matt. v, 29. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. For meat destroy not the work of God [in] thy brother, who stumbleth, or is offended, Rom. xiv, 15, 20, 21. The Lord having saved the people, &c, afterward destroyed them that be- lieved not, Jude 5. They did all drink, &c, of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased; for they, &c, were destroyed of the destroyer, 1 Cor. x, 4,5, 10. They were broken off becatse of un- belief, and thou standest by faith, &c, continue in his goodness, other- wise thou also shalt be cut off, Rom. ix, 20,22. Through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish, for whom Christ died, &c. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to stumble [and so to perish} I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, 1 Cor. viii, 11, 13. There shall be false teachers among you, &c, who, denying the Lord that bought them, shall bring upon themselves swift destruction. These shall utterly perish in their own corruption, and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, Christ shall also confirm you un- to the end, that ye may be blame- less, &c. God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son, 1 Cor. i, 8, 9. &e. 12, 15. us He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee: so that [in the way of duty] we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, Heb. xiii, 5,6. (I add, in the way of duty, because God made that pro- mise originally to Joshua, who knew God’s breach of promise, when Achan stepped out of the way of duty. Compare Josh. i, 5, with Josh. vii, 12, and Num. xiv, 34.) Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him Cursed children, who have forsaken the right way, 2 Pet, ii, 1, See also the scriptures quoted in page 82. My people have committed two evils, they have forsaken me, &e. I will even forsake you, saith the Lord, Jer. ii, 13; xxii, 33. The destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shaii be together, and they that forsake the Lord shall be consumed, &e, and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench them, Isa. i, 28, 31. Jesus said, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy THIRD.] I on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, If thou be the Son [or child] of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, &c, [not only lest thou fall finally, but also] lest thou dash thy foot against a stone, Matt. iv, 5, 6 ; Psapsci,, 11, 12. How wisely does the tempter quote Scripture, when he wants to inculcate the absolute preservation SCRIPTURE SCALES. Il. God, Matt. iv, 7. Neitner let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents, 1 Cor. x, 9. Who can tell how many have been destroyed by dangerous er- rors, which after insinuating them- selves into the bosom of the simple, by means of their smoothness and fine colours, drop there a mortal poison, that too often breaks out in virulent expressions, or in practices of the saints! Can Zelotes find a fitter passage to support their un- conditional perseverance? It is true, however, that he never quotes it in favour of his doctrine: for who cares to plough with such a heifer? (Fenum habet in cornu.) Therefore, though she is as fit for the work as most of those which he does it with; he never puts her to his plough, no, not when he makes the most crooked furrows. Should it be asked why the devil did not encourage Christ to throw himself down, by giving him some hints that a grievous fall would humble him, would make him sympathize with the fallen, would drive him nearer to God, would give him an opportunity to shout louder the praisés of preserving grace, &c, I reply, that the tempter was too wise to show so openly the cloven foot of his doctrine ; too decent not to save appearances , too judicious to imitate Zelotes. worthy of Mr. Fulsome ? SECTION III. What thoughts our Lord, St. John, St. Paul, and St. James entertained of fallen believers—A parallel between the backsliders delineated by St. Peter, and those who are described by St. Jude—A horrible de- struction awaits them, for denying the Lord that bought them, and for turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. Ir is impossible to do the doctrine of perseverance justice, without considering what Christ and the apostles say of apostates. Even in their days the number of falling and fallen believers was so great, that a considerable part of the last epistles seems to be nothing but a charge against apostates, an attempt to reclaim Pharisaic and Antinomian backsliders, and a warning to those who yet stood, not to “ fall away after the same example of unbelief and conformity to this present world.” Begin we by an extract from Christ’s epistles to the Churches o: Asia. ‘Though the “ Ephesians hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans,” yet, after St. Paul’s death, they so far inclined to lukewarmness, that they brought upon themselves the following reproof:—*“I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember, there- fore, whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do thy first works, or else I will remove thy candlestick.” The Church at Pergamos was not in 154 EQUAL CHECK. | [parr a better condition; witness the severe charge that follows:—*“ Thou hast them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a ~ stumbling block before the children of Israel, &c, to commit fornica~ tion. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will fight against thee with the sword of my mouth.” The contagion reached the faithful Church of Thyatira, as appears from these words :—“ Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel to seduce my servants to commit fornication. But unto, &e, as many as have not this doctrine, and have not known the depths of Sa- tan, I will put upon you none other burden.” In Sardis “a few names only had not defiled their garments ;” the generality of Christians there had, it seems, ‘‘a name to live and were dead:” but the fall of the Laodiceans was universal. Before they suspected it, they had all, it seems, slidden back into the smooth, downward road that leads to hell. «| know thy works,” says Christ, “I would thou wert cold or hot. So then, because thou art lukewarm, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Like those who stand complete merely in notions of imputed righteous. | ness, “thou sayest, I am rich, d:c, and have need of nothing ; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and poor, and blind, and naked,” Rey. ii, 3. Can we read this sad account of the declension and falling away of the saints without asking the following questions: (1.) If backsliding and apostasy were the bane of the primitive Church, according to our Lord’s doctrine ; and if he did not promise to any of those backsliders that vic- torious, almighty grace would certainly bring them back; what can we think of Zelotes’ doctrine, which promises infallible perseverance, and insures finished salvation to every backsliding, apostatizing believer? (2.) If the primitive Church, newly collected by the Spirit, and sprinkled by the blood of Christ, guided by apostolic preachers, preseryed by the — salt of persecution, and guarded by miraculous powers, through which apostates could be “given to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,” (witness the case of -Ananias, Sapphira, and the incestuous Corinthian :) if the primitive Church, I say, with all these advantages, was in such danger by the falling away of the saints, as to require all those reproofs and threatenings from Christ himself; is it not astonishing that whole bodies of Protestant believers should rise in our degenerate days to such a pitch of unscriptural assurance, as to promise themselves, and one another, absolute, infallible perseverance in the Divine favour? And (3. If the apostate Nicolas, once “‘a man of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,” but afterward (it seems) the ringleader of the Nico- laitans ;—if Nicolas, I say, went about to “lay a stumbling block before” Christians, by teaching them that fornication would neyer endanger their finished saivation; does Zelotes mend the matter, when he insinuates withal, that fornication, yea, adultery, and, if need be, mur- der, will do Christians good, and even answer the most excellent ends for them ? Consider we next what were St. John’s thoughts of Antinomian apos- tates. He had such a sight of the mischief which their doctrine did, and would do in the Church, that he declares, “'This is Love, that we walk after his commandments. ‘This is the commandment, that ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not [practically] that Jesus EE —— ll oe hr YUIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 155- Christ is come in the flesh,” to destroy the works of the devil who deny Christ in his holy doctrine ; and among other dangerous absurdities will even give you broad hints that you may commit adultery and murder without ceasing to be God’s dear children. But believe them not. “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the [practical] doctrine of Christ, hath not God, &c. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed,” 2 John, 6-10. Again: “ He that saith, I know him, and keep- eth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not inhim. These things have I written unto you, concerning them that seduce you, 1 John i, 4, 26. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that does right- eousness is righteous, &c. He that committeth sin is of the devil, &c. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil,” 1 John iii, 7, &c. When, in the text quoted above, St. John says, “« They went out from us, but they were not all of us,” what a fine opportunity had he of add- ing, “If they are elect they will 1vraLirety come back to us.” But, as he believed not the modern “ doctrines of grace,” he says nothing either for Calvin’s reprobation, or Dr. Crisp’s election. Nor does he _ drop the least hint about a “day of God’s power,” in which changeless love was infallibly to bring back one of all those backsliders, to make him sing louder the praises of free, sovereign, victorious grace. Although I have frequently mentioned St. Paul’s thoughts concerning fallen believers, I am persuaded that the reader will not be sorry to see them balanced with St. James’ sentiments on the same subject. I. Il. St. Paul’s account of St. James’ account of BACKSLIDERS. UNFAITHFUL BELIEVERS. Alexander the coppersmith (who was once a zealous Christian, see Acts xix, 33,) did me much evil; the Lord reward him according to his works. No man [i. e. no be- lever] stood with me ; but all for- sook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge, 2 Tim. iv, 14,16. I fear lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would —lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whis- perings, swellings, tumults; and lest my God humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many who have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness which My brethren, &c, if there come unto-your assembly a man in goodly apparel, and also a poor man in vile raiment, and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay cloth- ing, &c, are ye not partial? We. But ye have despised the poor, &c. If ye have respect to persons ye commit sin, &c, for whosoever [of you] shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. From whence come wars among you? Come they not even of your lusts? &c. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that, é&c, whosoever will be a friend of the world, is the enemy of God? James ii, 1, &c; iv, 1, 4. they have committed, 2 Cor. xii, 20, 21. Not forsaking the assembling ~ of ourselves together as the manner of some is, &c. For if we sin wil- fully [as they do] there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour “eae the adversaries, &c, [especially him] who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the coyenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of grace, Heb. x, 25, &c. Many [fallen believers] walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you, even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ ; whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly —and who mind earthly things. For all [comparatively speaking] seek their own, and not the things which are Jesus Christ’s, Phil. ii, 18; nu, 21. The Epistle to the Hebrews is a treatise against apostasy, and of consequence against Calvinian perseverance. As a proof of it, I refer the reader to a convincing discourse on Heb. ii, 3, published by Mr. Olivers. The whole Epistle of St. Jude, and the second of St. Peter, were particularly written to prevent the falling away of the saints, and to stop the rapid progress of apostasy. The Epistle of St. Jude, and 2 Peter ii, agree so perfectly, that one would think the two apostles had 156 EQUAL CHECK. compared notes : witness the following parallel :— St. Peter’s description of sNTINo- MIAN APOSTATES. They have forsaken the right way ; following the way of Balaam, who loved the wages of unrighteous- ness, 2 Pet. ii, 15. Spots are they and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings, while they feast with you, ver. 13. They walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, ver. 10. They speak great swelling words of vanity, they promise them [whom they allure] liberty, while they them- selves are the servants of corrup- tion, verses 18, 19. As natural brute beasts, &c, they speak evil of the things that they understand not, [especially of the perfect law of liberty,| and shall utterly perish in their own corrup- tion, ver. 12. Wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest—beguil- ing unstable souls—to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever, verses 14,17. [How far was St. Peter from soothing any of those backsliders by the smooth doctrine of their necessary infallible return !} [St Peter indirectly compares them to] the angels that sinned [whom] God spared not, but cast Il. ‘ St. Jude’s description of aNTINO- MIAN BACKSLIDERS. These be they who separate them. selves. They ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, Jude, verses 19, 11. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you; feeding themselves without fear, verse 12, Filthy dreamers—walking after their own lusts, verses 8, 16. Their mouth speaketh great swell. ing words :—creeping in wnawares [i. e. insinuating themselves into rich widows’ houses] having men’s persons in admiration, verses 4, 16. These speak evil of those things which they know not [especially of Christ’s law. ] But what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves, ver. aCe ; Clouds they are without water, carried about of winds, trees whose a lt al fruit withereth, &c ; wandering stars, — to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever, verses 12, 13. | How far was St. Jude from rocking” any of those apostates in the cradle — of infallible perseverance !] ; [St. Jude compares them to] the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, &c, a4 THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 157 I. II. down to hell, and delivered into reserved in everlasting chains under chains of darkness, to be reserved darkness unto the judgment of the unto judgment, ver. 4. great day, ver. 6. From this remarkable parallel it is evident that the apostates described by St. Peter, and the backsliders painted by St. Jude, were one and the same kind of people: and by the following words it appears that all those backsliders really fell from the grace of God, and denied the Lord that bought them. Even denying the Lord that Ungodly men, turning the grace bought them, and bring upon them- of our God into lasciviousness, and selves swift destruction, &c, whose denying [in works at least] the only &c, damnation slumbereth not, 2 Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Pet. ii, 1. Christ, [as Lord, Lawgiver, or Judge,] Jude 4. St. Peter more or less directly describes these backsliders, in the same epistle, as people who have “forgotten that they WERE PURGED from their old sins’—-who do not “give all diligence to add to their faith virtue”—who do not “make their calling and election sure”—who, “after they have rscarep the poilutions of the world through the know- Ltepc¢e of our Lord Jesus Christ, [i. e. through a true and living faith, ] are again entangled therein, and overcome; whose latter end is worse than the beginning—who, after they have KNowNn THE way of righteous- ness, turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them,” and verify the proverb, «The sow that was wasHeD is turned to her wallowing in the mire.’ Here is not the least hint about the certain return of any of those backsliders, or about the good that their grievous falls will do either to others or to themselves, On the contrary, he represents them aii as people that were in the high road to destruction: and, far from giving us an Antinomian innuendo about the final perseverance of all blood- bought souls, i. e. of the whole number of the redeemed, he begins his epistle by declaring that those self-destroyed backsliders “denied the Lord that Boucur them,” and concludes it by this seasonable caution : «There are in our own beloved brother Paul’s epistles things [it seems, about the election of grace, and about justification without the works of the law] which they that are unlearned (auadeis, untaught in the Scrip- tures) and unstable, wrest, é&c, unto their own destruction. Ye, there- fore, beloved, seeing ye Imow these things before, [being thus fairly warmed] beware lest yz aso, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ ;” which is the best method not to fall from grace—the only way to inherit the blessing, with which God will crown the faithfulness and genuine perseverance of the saints. I read the heart of Zelotes; and seeing the objection he is going to start, | oppose to it this quotation from Baxter: “ To say that then their - faith (which works by faithful love) does more than Curis did, or Gon’s GRACE, is a putrid cavil. Their faith is no efficient cause at all of their pardon or justification ; it is but necessary, receptive qualification. He that shuts the ‘window, causeth darkness ; but it is sottish to say that he who opens it, does more than the sun to cause light, which he causeth 158 EQUAL CHECK. [Parr not at all; but removeth the impediment of reception; and faith itself is God’s gift,”—as all other talents are, whether we improve them or not. 1 should lose time, and offer an insult to the reader’s understandi were I to comment upon the preceding scriptures ; so great is their per- spicuity and number. But I hope I shall not insult his candour by pro- — posing to him the following queries: (1.) Can Zelotes and Honestus be judicious Protestants, I mean consistent defenders of Bible religion, if the one throw away the weights of the second scale, while the other overlooks those of the first? (2.) Is it not evident that, according to the Scriptures, the perseverance of the saints has two causes: Tue First free grace and Divine faithfulness ; and rue szconp free will and human faithfulness produced, excited, assisted, and nourished, but not necessitated by free grace? (3.) With respect to the capital doctrine of perseverance also, does not the truth lie exactly between the extremes into which Zelotes and Honestus perpetually run? And (dast/y) is it not clear that if Candidus will hold “the truth as it is in Jesus,” he must stand upon the line of moderation, call back Zelotes from the east, Hones‘us from the west, and make them cordially embrace each other under the Serip- ture meridian? There the kind Father falls upon the neck of the return- ing prodigal, and the heavenly bridegroom meets the wise virgins. There free grace mercifully embraces free will, while free will humbly stoops at the footstool of free grace. There “the sun goes down no more by day, nor the moon by night ;” that is, the two Gospel axioms, which are the great doctrinal lights of the Church, without eclipsing each other, shine in perpetual conjunction, and yet in continual opposition. ‘There their conjugal, mysterious, powerful influence gladdens the New Jerusa- lem, fertilizes the garden of the Lord, promotes the spiritual vegetation of all the trees of righteousness which line the river of God, and gives a Divine relish to the fruits of the Spirit which they constantly bear. There, as often as free grace smiles upon free will, it says, “ Be faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life ;” and as often as free will sees that crown glitter at the end of the race, it shouts, Grace! free grace unto it! a great part of our faithfulness consisting in ascribing to grace all the honour that becomes the rirsr cause of all good—the ORIGINAL of all visible and invisible excellence. Perseverance must close our race, if ever we receive the prize; let then the Scriptural account of it close my Scales. But before J lay them by, I must throw in two more grains of Scriptural truth ; lest the reader should think that I have not made good weight. If I thought Zelotes to be a gross Antinomian, and Honestus an immoral moralist; and that they maliciously tear the oracles of God in pieces; I would make them full weight by the two following scriptures :— II. The wrath of God is revealed I testify, dc, that if any man — from heaven against all ungodli- shall take away from the words ad ness, and unrighteousness of men, the book of this prophecy [mu chy who hold the truth [or a part of more if he take away from t it] in unrighteousness, Rom. i, 18. words of every book in the Old and New Testament] God shall take his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book, Rev. xxii, 18, 19. ‘THIRD. SCRIPTURE SCALES. 15S But considering Zelotes and Honestus as two good men, who sincerely fear and serve God in their way, and being persuaded that an injudicious fear of a Gospel axiom, and not a wilful aversion to the truth, makes : them cast a veil over one half of the body of Bible divinity; I dare not _ admit the thought that those severe strictures are adapted to their case. - I shall therefore only ask, whether they cannot find a suitable reproof in the following texts :— I. Il. I am against the prophets, saith Ye have have made the word of the Lord, that steal my word [con- God [contained No. 1.] of none tained No. 2.] every one from his effect by your tradition, Matt. xv, neighbour, Jer. xxii, 30. 6. [Equally dismembering Chris- tianity, ye still help the adversaries of the Gospel to put in practice their pernicious maxim, Divide and conquer. And who requires this at your hands? Who will give you thanks for such services as these ?] — SECTION IV. A Scriptural plan of reconciliation between Zelotes and Honestus ; being a double declaration to guard equally the two Gospel axioms, or the doctrines of free grace and free obedience—Bishop Beveridge saw the need of guarding them both—Gospel ministers ought equally io defend them—An answer to Zelotes’ objections against the declaration which guards the doctrine of free obedience—An important distinction between a primary and secondary trust in causes and means—Some observations upon the importance of the second Gospel axiom— Which extreme appeared greater to Mr. Baxter, that of Zeloies, or that of Honesitus—The author’s thoughts upon that delicate subject. I nave hitherto pointed out the opposite errors of Zelotes and Hones- tus, and shown that they consist in so maintaining one part of the truth as to reject the other; in so holding out the glory of one of the Gospel axioms as to eclipse the other. I now present the reader with what appears to me a fair, Scriptural, and guarded plan of reconciliation be- ‘tween themselves, and between all good men, who disagree about the doctrines of faith and works—of free grace and obedience. The declara- tion which the Rev. Mr. Shirley desired the Rev. Mr. Wesley to sign at the Bristol conference, (in 1770,) gives me the idea of this plan; nay, the first part of it is nothing but that declaration itself, guarded and strengthened by some additions in brackets. J ; IT IS PROPOSED: Fi I. Il. That the preacherswhoaresup- § That the preachers who are sup- ed to countenance the Pharisaic posed to countenance the Antino- ‘error of Honestus shall sign the mian error of Zelotes, shal] sign the _ following anti-Pharisaic declaration, following anti-Solifidian declaration, which guards the doctrine of faith which guards the doctrine of obe- and free grace without bearing hard dience and free will, without vear 160 I upon the doctrine of obedience and free will ; and asserts the free, gra- tuitous justification of a sinner in the day of conversion and afierward, without denying the gracious, re- munerative justification of a be- liever, who, in the day of trial, and afterward, keeps the faith that works by love. Whereas the doctrinal points in the Minutes of a conference, held in London, August 7, 1770, have been understood to favour [the Pharisaic] justification [of a sinner] by works ; now the Rev. John Wes- ley, and others assembled in con- ference, do declare that we had no such meaning; and that we abhor the doctrine of [a sinner’s] justifi- cation by works, as a most perilous and abominable doctrine: and as’ the said Minutes are not [or do not appear to some people] sufficiently guarded in the way they are ex- pressed, we hereby solemnly de- clare, in the sight of God, that [as sinners—before God’s throne—ac- cording to the doctrine of first causes—and with respect to the first covenant or the law of innocence, which sentences all sinners to de- struction] we have no trust or con- fidence but in the [mere mercy of God, through the sole righteousness and] alone merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for justifica- tion, or salvation, either in life, death, or the day of judgment: andthough no one is a real Christian—believer, (and consequently, though no one can be saved [as a believer] who does not good works where there is time and opportunity,) yet our *T beg the reader would pay a peculiar attention to what precedes and follow; I myself would condemn it, as subversive of the doctrine of grace, and Pharisaical, if I considered it as detached from the context, and not or explained by the words in Italics, upon which the gréatest stress is to be laid. If Zelotes has patience to read on he will soon see how the secondary trust in the obedience of faith, which I here contend for, is reconcilable with our primary this clause. trust in Christ. EQUAL CHECK. Il. ing hard upon the doctrine of faith — and free grace; and asserts the gracious, remunerative justification of a believer in the day of trial, an afterward, without denying the free, gratuitous justification of a@ sinner — in the day of conversion, and after- ward. Whereas the books published against the said Minutes have been understood to favour the present, inamissible, and eternal justifica- tion of all fallen believers before God, that is, of all those who, hav- ing made shipwreck of the faith’ that works by obedient love, live in Laodicean ease ; and, if they please, in adultery, murder, or incest ; now the Rev. Mr. **** and others do declare that we renounce such meaning, and that we abhor the doc- trine of the Solifidians or Antino- mians as a most perilous and abo- minable doctrine: and as the said — books are not [or do not appear to some people] sufficiently guarded, we hereby solemnly declare, in the sight of God, that [as penitent, obe- dient and persevering believers—be- fore the Mediator’s throne—accord- ing to the doctrine of second causes" —and with respect tothe second co. venant, or the law of Christ, which sentences all his impenitent, disobe- dient, apostatizing subjects to de- struction] we haye no trust or con- fidence,* but in the truth of our repentance toward God, and in the sincerity of our faith in Christ for justification or salvation in the day of conversion and afterward ;—no trust, or confidence, but in our fina guarde -THIRD.| I works have no part in [properly] meriting or purchasing our salva. tion from first to last, either in whole or part; [the best of men, when they are considered as sinners, being justified freely by God’s grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, Rom. iu, 24.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 161 II. perseverance in the obedience of faith, for justification, or salvation in death, and in the day of judg- ment ; because no one is a real be- liever under any dispensation of Gospel grace, and of consequence no one canbe saved who does not good works, i. e. who does not truly repent, believe, and obey, as there is time, light, and opportunity. Nevertheless, our works, that is, our repentance, faith, and obedience, have no part in properly meriting or pur- chasing our salvation from first to last, either in whole or in part; the properly meritorious cause of our eternal, as well as intermediate and initial salvation, beg only the merits, or the blood and righteousness of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The preceding declaration, which defends the doctrine of free grace, and the gratuitous justification and salvation of a sinner, is founded on such scriptures as these :— hy If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to boast. To him that worketh not, but be- lieveth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed, &c. God imputeth righteousness without works. Not by works of righteous- ness which we have done, but of his mercy he savedus. By grace are ye saved, through faith ; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God ; not of works, lest any man should boast. By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified, &c. The preceding declaration, which defends the doctrine of free obe- dience, and the remunerative justification and salvation of a believer, is founded on such scrip- tures as these :— . Il. Was not Abraham our father justified by works? Ye see how by works a man is justified and not by faith only. We are saved by hope. In doing this thou shalt save thyself. He that endureth unto the end, the same shall be saved. He became the author of eternal sal- vation to them that obey him. This shall turn to my salvation through your prayer. With the mouth con- fession is made to salvation. By thy words thou shalt be justified. The doers of the law [of Christ] shall be justified, &c. And let none say that this doctrine has not the sanction of good men. Of a hifndred, whom Zelotes himself considers as orthodox, I shall only mention the learned and pious Bishop. Beveridge, who, though a rigid Calvinist in his youth, came, in his riper years, to the line of moderation, which I recommend, and stood.upon it when he wrote what follows, in his “Thoughts upon our Call and Election.” (Third Edition, page 297.) “‘ What-then should be the reason that so many should be called and invited to the chiefest good, and the highest happiness their natures are capable of; yet so few of them should mind and prosecute it so as to be chosen or admitted to the participation of it? What shall we ascribe it to? The will and pleasure of almighty God, as if he delighted in the Tuin of his creatures, and therefore although he calls them, te would Vor. II. 11 162 EQUAL CHECK. Parr not have them come unto him? No: that cannot be: teem his revealed, will, which is the only rule that we are to walk by, he has told us the contrary in plain terms, and has confirmed it too with an oath, saying, “ As [ live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but. uvdantl should turn from his ways and live,” Ezek. xxxiii, 11. And elsewhere he assures us that he “would have all men to be saved, and come tothe — knowledge of the truth,” 1 Tim. ii, 4. And therefore if we believe — what God says, nay, if,we believe what he has sworn, we must needs — acknowledge that it is his will and pleasure that as many as are called should be allgchosen and saved : and indeed if he had no mind we should come when we are called to him, why should he call us all to come? Why has he given us his word, his ministers, his ordinances ; and all to” invite and oblige us to repent and turn to him; if after all he has resolved not to accept of us, nor would have us come at all? Farbeit — from us that we should have such hard and unworthy thoughts of the great — Creator and Governor of the world; especially considering that he has told us the contrary, as plainly as it was Poa to express his mind ; unto us.’ Then the bishop mentions five reasons why many are called but fw: are chosen: and he closes them by these words, (page 310 :) “ The last reason which our Saviour gives in this parable, is because, of those who — are called, and come too at the call, many come not aright, which he — signifies by the man that came without the wedding garment: where, : although he mentions but one man, yet under that one is comprehended all of the same kind, even all such persons as profess to believe in : Christ, and to expect salvation from him, yet will not come up to the terms which he propounds in the Gospel to them, even to “ walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called,’ Eph. iv, 1. And indeed — this is the great reason of all, why of so many, who are called, there — are go few chosen, because there are so few who do all things which — the Gospel requires of them. Many, like Herod, will do many things; — and are almost persuaded to be Christians, as Agrippa was, &c. Some are all for the duties of the first table without the second, others for the second without the first. Some [like heated Honestus] are altogether for obedience and good works without faith in Christ: others [like heated — Zelotes] are as much for faith in Christ, without obedience and works. Some [like mere moralists] would do all themselves, as if Christ had done nothing for them: others [like mere Solifidians] fancy — ‘that Christ has so done all for them, that there is nothing left for them .to do: and so between both sorts of people [between the followers of — Honestus, and those of Zelotes] which are the far greater parts of those — who are called, either the merits or else the laws of Christ are slighted and contemned. But is this the way to be saved? No, surely.” P Hence it is evident, that if Bishop Beveridge be right here, the saving — truth lies exactly between the mistake of Zelotes and the error of Honestus. _ Now if this be the true state of the question, is it possible to propose a plan of reconciliation more Scriptural than that which so secures the merits of — Christ as not indirectly to overthrow his laws, and,so enforces his laws as not indirectly to set aside his merits? And is not this effectually ‘done in the reconciling declarations? Do they not equally guard the two — ‘Gospel axioms? Do they not with impartiality defend free grace and — THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 163 free obedience? And might not peace be restored to the Church upon such a Scriptural, rational, and moderate plan of doctrine ? I fear that a /asting reconciliation upon any other plan is impossible : for the Gospel must stand upon its legs, (the two Gospel axioms,) or it must fall. And if Satan, by transforming himself into an angel of light, prevail upon good, mistaken men to cut off one of these legs, as if it were useless or mortified; some good men, who are not yet deceived, will rise up im its defence. So sure, therefore, as “the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church of the living God—the pillar and ground of the truth,” there shall always be a succession of judicious, zealous men, disposed to hazard their life and reputation in the cause of Gospel truth, and ready to prevent the mystical ark from being overset on the right hand or on the left. If a pious Crisp, for example, push it into the Antinomian ditch, for fear of the Pharisaic delusion ; a pious Baxter will enter his protest against him: and if a Taylor throw it into the Pharisaic ditch, for fear of the Antinomian error; God will raise up a Wesley to counterwork his design. Nay, a Wesley is a match for a benevolent Taylor, and a seraphic Hervey ; and I hope, that should Mr. Shirley ever desire him to sign an anti-Pharisaic declaration, he will not forget to desire Mr. Shirley to sign also an anti-Solifidian protest : every Gospel minister being an equal debtor to both axioms. Nor can I con- ceive why Mr. Shirley should have more right* solemnly to secure the first axiom, than Mr. Wesley has solemnly to guard the second. But leaving those two divines, I return to Zelotes, who seems very much offended at my saying, “ We have no trust nor confidence that any thing will stand us instead of repentance, faith, and obedience.” An assertion this which implies, that (with respect to the second causes and secondary means) we place a secondary trust and confidence in the graces which compose the Christian character. But I ask, Wherein does the heresy of this doctrine consist? Do I renounce orthodoxy when I say * Mr. Wesley is too judicious a divine to sign a paper that leaves the second axiom quite unguarded. Accordingly we find that axiom guarded in these words of Mr. Shirley’s declaration: ‘‘ No one is a believer, (and consequently cannot be saved,) who doth not good works where there is time and opportunity.” Never- theless, this clause does not by far form so solemn a guard as might have been demanded upon so remarkable an occasion. Mr. Shirley, and the clergy that - accompanied him, might with propriety have been desired to remove the fears of those who signed the declaration which he had drawn up, by signing at least the following memorandum: ‘‘Forasmuch as Aaron, David, Solomon, Peter, and the incestuous Corinthian did not do good works when they, or any of them wor- shipped a golden calf, Milcom, and the abomination of the Zidonians,—denied Christ, or committed adultery, murder, or incest, we hereby solemnly declare, in the sight of God, that we abhor the doctrine of the Solifidians, who say that the above-mentioned backsliders had justifying, saving faith, while they committed the above-mentioned crimes; such a doctrine being perilous and abominable; be- cause it absolutely overturns the twelfth article of our Church, and encourages all Christians to make Christ the minister of sin, and to believe that they may - commit the most atrocious crimes, without losing their faith, their justification, and their title to a throne of glory.” If Mr. Shirley and his friends had refused to sign such a memorandum as this, the world would have had a public demonstration that Calvinism is the doctrine of Protestant indulgences ; and that it establishes speculative, and consequently makes way for practical Antinomianism in all its most flagrant immoralities, as well as in its most winning refinements. ‘ 164 EQUAL CHECK. t Pa that with respect to some second means, and some second causes, have no trust nor confidence but in my EyEs to see, in my EaRs to hear, and in my THROAT to swallow? Should I not be fit for Bedlam, if I trusted to see without eyes, to hear without ears, and to swallow without a throat? If I had not a trust that my shoes will answer the end of shoes, and my hat the end of a hat; may I not wisely put my shoes upon my head, and my hat on my feet? And if I have not a confidence that my horse will carry me better than a broomstick, may I not as well get upon a broomstick as on horseback? What would Zelotes think of me, if I did not trust that bread will nourish me sooner than poison, and that fire will warm me better than ice? Is it not a branch of wisdom to trust every, thing, just so far as it deserves to be trusted; and a piece of madness to do otherwise ? O ye admirers of Zelotes’ gospel, come and I will explain to you all my supposed error. I trust only and solely in God as the first and cap- ital cause, and in Christ as the first and capital means of my present - and eternal salvation. But beside this primary trust, I have a thousand inferior trusts. Take a few instances: I have a sure trust and confi- dence that the Bible will farther me in the way to eternal salvation, more than the Koran: baptism more than circumcision: the Lord’s Supper more than the Jewish passover: the house of God more than the play house : praying more than cursing : repentance, faith, hope, charity, and perseverance more, far more than impenitency, unbelief, despair, uncha- ritableness, and apostasy. If I am a heretic for saying that something beside Christ is condu. cive to salvation, and of consequence may, in its place and degree, be trusted in for salvation; is St. Paul orthodox when he exhorts the Philippians to “ work out their own salvation,” assures them that his afflic- tions shall “turn to his salvation through their prayers,” and writes to Titus, that “in porne the work of an evangelist he shall save himself and them that hear him ?” ?’ Again: will Christ stand to me instead of repentance? Has he not said himself, “ Except ve repent, ye shall perish?” Will he be to me instead of faith? Did he not assert the contrary when he declared, that “he who believeth not shall be damned?” Will he be instead of an evangelical obedience? Does he not maintain the opposite doctrine, where he declares that he will bid them “depart from him, who call him Lord, Lord, and vo nor the things which he saith?” Will he stand me instead of perseverance ? Has he not said himself that he will “deny them that deny him ;” that he will finally own us as his “ disci- ples, if we continue in his words ;” and that “he who endureth to the end, the same shall be saved?” Zelotes finds it easier to raise difficul. ties than to remove those which are thrown in his way. He comes, | therefore, with his mouth full of objections, against my second declara- tion. Let us lend him an ear, and give him an answer. Oxzszcrion I. «If, with respect to the doctrine of second causes, and second means of eternal salvation, you have no trust or confidence to be saved as a penitent, obedient, and persevering believer, but by true repentance, faith, obedience, and perseverance, you cannot repose your whole trust upon God alone ; nor can you give Christ all the glory of | your salvation.” . mum, ] SCRIPTURE SCALES. , 165 fs To make God a second cause, and Christ a second means of salvation, 1s not to give them the glory: it is to pull them out of their throne, and make them stoop to an office unworthy of their matchless dignity. Ifthe king gave you a purse of gold, could you not give him all the glory of his generosity, without supposing that he was the labori- ous digger of the golden ore, the ingenious coiner of the gold, and the diligent knitter of the purse? If you complimented him in all these respects, lest he should not have all the glory, would you not pour con- tempt upon his greatness? And do you not see, that by a parity of rea- son, what you call “robbing God and Christ of their glory” is only refusing to dishonour them, by ascribing to them a dishonourable office ; I mean the office of a second cause, or of a secondary means of salvation ? Can you not conceive, that to give a general the honour of a sergeant, under pretence of giving him ail the honour, is to set him below an ensign, and rank him with a halberd bearer? Again: when you say, that in general, upon a journey, with respect to second causes and means, you have no trust or confidence but in your money, in the goodness of your horses and carriage, in the passable state of the roads, in the skill of your driver, &c, do you betray any mistrust of Divine Providence? On the contrary, does not your distinction of second causes and second means show that you reserve your primary trust or confidence for God, who is the first cause of your blessings; and for his providential care over you, which is the first means of your preservation? And if a pretender to orthodoxy charged you with Atheism or heresy for your assertion, would you not give him your vote to be an officer of the Pro- testant inquisition,—if the black tribunal, which totters in Spain, should ever be set up in England? Osxsection II. “Your first declaration indeed exalts Christ ; but the second uncrowns him, to crown our graces—yea, to crown ourselves as possessed of such and such graces; which is the rankest popery, and the very quintessence of Pharisaism.” Answer. How can my crowning repentance, faith, and obedience, with a Scriptural coronet, rob Christ of his peculiar crown? Are we not indebted to him both for our graces and for the coronet with which he rewards our acceptance and improvement of his favours? Would it be right in you to represent me as an enemy to the crown and king of England, for asserting that barons, earls, and dukes have received from him, or his predecessors, the right of wearing coronets, or secondary crowns? Is it not the glory of our sovereign to be at the head of a crowned peerage? And would you really honour him, if, on a coronation day, you secured the glory of his imperial crown, by kicking the coro- nets off the heads of all the peers who come to pay him homage ? Would he thank you for that ill-judged proof of your loyalty? Would he not reprove you for your unparalleled rashness? And think you that Christ will commend the Antinomian zeal, with which you set up the great image of finished salvation in the plain of mystical Geneva, upon a heap of the coronets, wherewith he and his apostles have crowned the graces of believers? Can you search the sacred records without finding there the doctrine which you represent as treasonable or here- ‘tical? Did you never read, “O woman, great is thy faith! Tuy rarra hath saved thee?” And what is this but allowing believers to wear * 166 | EQUAL CHECK. salvation coronei—a coronet this, which they will justly “c the throne” of the grace that gave it them, and offered it all the long to those who obstinately “ put it from them?’ Did you never read, “We are saved by hope: be faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life: he is the author of eternal salvation to them that obey — him: he will give the crown of life to them that love him,” &c? Is not this a salvation coronet to the hopeful, faithful, obedient, loving believer? And if you throw my Scales away, and cry out, “ Arminian* Method. ism turned out rank popery at last!” think you there are no Bibles left in the kingdom? No people able to read such scriptures as these? “ Let no man beguile you of your reward through voluntary humility— fair speeches—and deceivableness of unrighteousness. Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown,” on any pretext whatever, no, not on the most plausible of all pretexts, “ Pray, give me thy crown,™ . for it is not consistent with that of the Redeemer.” Who could suggest _ to good men so artful and dangerous a doctrine ? Who but the deceitful adversary that can as easily “ transform himself into an angel of light,” to rob us of our “ crown of righteousness,” as he formerly could trans- form himself into a serpent, to rob our first parents of their crown of innocence ? Ossecrion III. “ You may turn and wind as long as you please, but you will never be able to reconcile your doctrine with the doctrine of grace ; for if you have the least trust and confidence in your graces, you do not trust wholly in the Lord; you trust parily in ‘an arm of flesh,’ in direct opposition to the scripture, ‘Cursed is the man who truste in man, and maketh flesh his arm,’ Jer. xvii, 5.” : Answer. I grant that our doctrine can never be reconciled to what you call “the doctrines of grace,” because your partial doctrines of grace are irreconcilable with the holy, free, and equitable Gospel of Christ. But we can as easily reconcile the primary trust mentioned in our first declaration, with the secondary trust mentioned in the second, as you can reconcile my second Scale with the first. Our secondary confidence, which arises from the testimony of a good conscience, no more militates in our breasts against our primary confidence, which arises from the love of Christ, than our regard for the queen excludes our respect for the king. In mystic Geneva indeed they teach, to .the honour of the king, that the royal spouse is all filthy; but im our Jeru- salem we assert that “she is all glorious,” ‘and that “the king greatly desires her beauty.” To uncrown her, therefore, and load her with infamy, can never be the way of honouring and pleasing our Melchisedec. — With respect to the passage which you produce from Jeremiah, the sense of it is fixed by what immediately follows :—* And whose heart departeth from the Lord.” These words show that the trust forbidden in that scripture is only such a trist in man and things as makes our — hearts depart from the Lord. Now this can never be the trust and confidence mentioned in our second declaration: for in both declarations ; we secure to God, as the first cause, and to Christ, as the first means, all the glory which is worthy of the first cause, and of the first means: and, I repeat it, if you ascribe to the Lord any other glory, you insult him as much as you would do a prince, if you gave him the glory which * The title of a Calvinistic pamphlet published against the Fourth Check. ED § children, and of making good sauces. Again: there is no medium between some degree of trust, and the is ] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 167 ins belongs to his consort or his cock ;—I mean the glory of bearing fine | uimost degree of distrust. Now if the scripture which you preduce : absolutely forbids every degree of inferior trust in man or things, it follows that the more full we are of distrust and diabolical suspicions, : __ the more godly we are. And thus, for fear of putting any degree of secondary trust in man or in things, we must mistrust all our wives as _ _adulteresses, all our friends as traitors, all our neighbours as incendiaries, all our servants as murderers, and all our food as poison. But if thie fair consequence of your doctrine stand, what becomes of charity, whick *thinketh no evil, but hopeth all things?” And if the words of Jeremiah are to be understood in your narrow sense, what becomes of Christ » himself, who reposed a degree of trust in man—yea, in Judas, while he counted him faithful? That expression of Job, therefore, “He [the Lord] putteth no trust [that is, no absolute trust] in his saints,” is to be understood so as not to contradict the words of St. Paul, “ He [the Lord] counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry ;” or the propheti- words of David concerning Christ and Judas, “ Yea, mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who did eat of my [multiplied] bread, hath ‘lifted up his heel against me.” To conclude: if England smiles yet at the imbecility of the king, who durst not venture over London bridge, and wondered at those who trusted that fabric as a solid bridge; shall we admire Zelotes’ wisdom, who wonders at our having a Scriptural, inferior trust in the graces which form the Christian character? And shall we not count it an honour to be suspected of heresy, for “having a sure trust and confidence,” that true repentance, and nothing else, will answer for us the end of repent- ance? 'That true faith, and nothing else, will answer for us the end of faith? That evangelical obedience, and not an imputed righteousness, will answer for us the end of evangelical obedience? And that final per- severance, and not whims about “finished salvation,” will answer for us the end of final perseverance ? Having thus answered Zelotes’ objections against the declaration which guards the second Gospel axiom, I shall now present him with some observations upon the importance of that axiom :— (1.) The first axiom, or the doctrine of grace, holds forth chiefly what Christ has done; and the second axiom, or the doctrine of obedience, holds forth chiefly what we are to do. Now any unprejudiced person must own that it is as important for us to know our own work, as to know the work of another. (2.) In the day of judgment we shall not be judged according to Christ’s works and experiences, but according to our own. (3.) Thousands of righteous heathens, it is to be hoped, have been saved without knowing any thing of Christ’s external work ; but none of them were ever saved without knowing and doing their own work, that is, without working out their salvation with fear and trembling, according to their light. (4.) Most of the Jews that have been saved have gone to heaven without any explicit, particular acquaintance with Christ’s merits; (see Equal Check, vol. i, p. 456 ;) but none of them was ever saved without “fearing God and working righteousness.” (5.) To this day, those that are saved, three parts of the world over, 168 ‘ EQUAL CHECK. are in general saved by the gracious light that directly flows from the second Gospel axiom, through Christ’s merits ; although they ever heard of his name. (6.) England and Scotland, where the redeeming work of Christ is gloriously preached, swarm nevertheless with practical | Antinom‘ans ; that is, with men who practically separate works from _ faith, and the decalogue from the creed. Now all these Gnostics follow the foolish virgins, and the unprofitable servant into hell, erying, Lord! Lord! and forgetting to do what Christ commands. (7.) We can never be too thankful for the light of both axioms; but, were I obliged to separate them, I had much rather obey with Obadiah, Plato, and Cor- nelius, than believe with Simon Magus, Nicolas, and “ Mr. Fulsome.” These, and the like observations appeared so weighty to judicious Mr. Baxter, that, in the preface to his Confession of Faith, p. 29, he says, “ The great objection is, that I ascribe too much to works. I shall af | now only say, &c, that I see many well-meaning, zealous men dividing fi our religion, [which is made up of the two Gospel axioms, ] and running into two desperate extremes. One sort [at the head of whom is Zelotes by the heat of opposition to popery do seem to have forgotten that faith and Christ himself are but means, and a way for the revolting soul to. come home to God by; and thereupon place all the essence of their religion in bare believing ; so making that rHz wHox1x, which is but the door, or mEANs to better, even to a conformity of the soul to the image and will of God. Others [at the head of whom is Honestus] observing this error, flee so far from it as to make faith itself, and Christ, to be scarce necessary. So a man have God’s image, say they, upon his soul, what matter is it which way he comes by it? Whether by Christ, or by other means! And so they take all the history of Christ to be a mere accident to our necessary belief; and the precepts only of holiness to be of absolute necessity. The former contemn God under pretence of extolling Christ. The latter contemn Christ under pretence of extolling God alone. He that pretending to extol Christ or faith, degrades god- liness, thereby so far rejects God; and he that on pretence of extolling godliness, degrades faith, so far rejects Christ, &c. I therefore detest both these extremes—[that of Zelotes and that of Honestus.] But yet it being the former which I take to be the greater, and which too many ~ men of better repute give too much countenance to, in their inconsiderate disputes against works in justification, I thought I had a call to speak in so great a cause.” It appears, from this excellent quotation, that judicious Mr. Baxter gave the preference to the second Gospel axiom, and thought the doc- trine of Honestus less dangerous than that of Zelotes. For my part, though Zelotes thinks me partial, I kéep my Scales even: and according to the weights of the sanctuary which I have produced, I find that Zelotes and Honestus are equally wanting. I thank them both for em- bracing one axiom; I check them both for neglecting the other ; and if Zelotes deserves superior praise for maintaining the first axiom, I will cheerfully give him the first place’i in my esteem. I confess, however, that I am still in doubt about it, for two reasons: (1.) Zelotes preaches indeed the first Gospel axiom, for he preaches Christ and free grace : ” out, after all, for whom does he preach them? For every creature,ac- cording to the Gospel charter? No: but only for the little flock of the ‘THIRD. | SCRIPTURE SCALES. 169 “" rewardable elect. If you believe his gospel, there never was a single dram of free, saving grace in the heart of God; or one single drop of precious, atoning blood in the veins of Christ, for the immense herd of the reprobates. Before the beginning of the world they were all per- sonally appointed necessarily to sm and be damned. Thus, according to Zelotes’ doctrine, free grace and the first Gospel axiom are not only mere chimeras, with respect to a majority of mankind, but free wrath lords it with sovereign caprice over countless myriads of men, to whom Christ may, with the greatest propriety, be preached as a reprobating damner, rather than as a gracious Redeemer. (2.) I could better bear with Zelotes’ inconsistencies, if he only diminished the genuine cordial of free grace, and adulterated it with his bitter tincture of free wrath. But alas! he openly or secretly attacks the doctrine of sincere obe- » dience: he calls them “ poor creatures,” who zealously plead for it: he unguardedly intimates that they are out of the way of salvation: and (O! tell it not among the heathens!) he sometimes gives you deadly hints about the excellence of discbedience ; sin, he intimates, “ works for our good: it keeps us humble: it makes Christ more precious: it endears the doctrines of sovereign, rich, distinguishing grace: it will make us sing louder in heaven.” _ “You wrong me,” says Zelotes, “ you are a slanderer of God’s people, and a calumniator of Gospel ministers. I, for one, frequently enforce the ten commandments upon believers.” True, sir; but how do you do this? Is it not by insinuating more or less, sooner or later, as your moral audience and your pious heart can bear it, that the decalogue is not now a rule to be judged by, but only “a rule of life,” the breach of which will answer all the above-mentioned excellent ends in believers? And what is this but preaching Protestant indulgences, as I said before? When you do this, do you not exceed the popish distinction between yenial and mortal sins? Yea, do you not make all the crimes of fallen believers venial? Nay, more, do you not indirectly represent their grievous falls as profitable? And to seal up the delusion, do you not persuade the simple, wherever you go, that our works have nothing to do with our eternal justification before God? That our everlasting sal- vation is finished by Christ alone ; and that whoever believes fallen be- lievers will be condemned by their bad works, is an enemy to the Gospel, an Arminian, a Pelagian, a Papist, a heretic ? If this character of Zelotes be just, and if Honestus be a conscientious’ good man, who preaches Christ every sacrament day, and who enforees spiritual, sincere obedience, (i. e. true repentance, true faith, true hope, and true love to God and man, in all their branches ;) and who does it with sincerity, assiduity, and warmth, I cannot but think as favourably of him as I do of his antagonist. I must however do Zelotes the justice to say, that an appearance of truth betrays him into his favourite error. If he do not lay a Scriptural stress upon the indispensableness of obedience, it is chiefly for fear of “legalizing the Gospel,” and robbing God’s children of their comforts. See that fond mother, who prides herself in the tenderness she has for her children. She will not suffer the wind to blow upon them; the sun must never shine on their delicate faces ; no downy bed is soft enough no sweetmeats are sweet enough for them; lest they should know wean 170 EQUAL CHECK. ness, they must always ride in the easiest of carriages; their tu be turned out of doors, if he venture to give them proper correctior all the day long they must be told what an immense estate they are soem, to, and how their father has put it out of his own power to cut off the entail. Above all, nobody must mention to them the duty they owe to him. Duty—that bad word duty must not abridge their privileges, and — stamp their obedience with legal and servile meanness. In a word, by her injudicious, though well-meant kindness, she unnerves their constitu- tions, spoils their tender minds, and brings deadly disorders upon them. Her fondness for her children is the very picture of Zelotes’ tender re- gard for believers. No duty must be pressed upon them as duty: no command insisted upon, no self denial ordered, lest the dear people should lose the sweetness of their Gospel liberty. And if at any time « Mr. Fulsome’s” humours call aloud for physic, it is given with so much ~ honey, that the remedy sometimes feeds the mortal disease. Honestus sees, and justly dreads the error of Zelotes: and to avoid it, he is so sparing of Gospel encouragements, that he deals chiefly (if not wholly) in severe precepts and hard duties. You may compare him to a stern father, who, under pretence of making his children hardy, and keeping them in proper subjection, makes them carry as heavy burdens as if they were drudging slaves, and threatens to disown them for every impropriety of behaviour. Not so a Gospel minister, who reconciles both extremes. He knows how to use sweets and bitters, promises and threatenings, indulgence and severity. He is like a wise and kind father, who does not spare the rod when his children want it; but nevertheless wins them by love as much as possible ;—who does not disinherit them for every fault, and yet does not put it out of his power to do it, if they take to a vicious course of life, and obstinately trample his paternal love under foot. Reader, who of the three is in the right, Zelotes, Honestus, or the Te- conciler ? SECTION V. The doctrines of free grace and free will are farther maintained agamst Honestus and Zelotes by a variety of Scripture arguments. I rtarrer myself that the harmonious opposition of the seriptures, produced in the preceding sections, demonstrates the truth of the Gos. pel axioms. But lest prejudice hinder Honestus and Zelotes from yield ing to conviction, I present them with some Scriptural arguments, which, like so many buttresses, will, I hope, support the doctrines of free grace and free will, and render them as firm as their solid basis,—rEason and REVELATION. I begin with the doctrine of free grace. 1. How gladly would Honestus stoop to, and triumph in free ny if he considered the force of such scriptures! ‘“ Without me you can do nothing. What hast thou which thou hast not received,” in a remote or immediate manner? “ We are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. Who hath first given him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? - of him, &c, are all things.” 4 - THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 171 2. We cannot do an action that is truly good without faith and love ; and the least degree of true faith and genuine Jove springs first from free grace; for “faith is the gift of God, love is the fruit of his Spirit:” and when the apostle wishes charity to his converts, he wishes it to them “ from God the Father, who is the author of every good and perfect gift.” Now if our every good thought, word, and work, spring from faith and love ; and if faith and love spring from God; is it not evident that he is the first cause of our genuine righteousness, as well as of our existence ? 3. When God says, ‘“ Ask and you shall have,” does he not show himself the original of all that we want for body and soul, for time and eternity ? And if God owes us nothing, if “the help, that is done, upon earth, the Lord originally does it himself,” is it not the height of ingra- titude and pride to restrain from God, and arrogate to ourselves, the glory due to him.and his infinite perfections 2 4. We are commanded “in every thing to give thanks.” But if grace be not the source of all the good we do or receive, does it not fol- low, that in some things the original glory belongs to us, and therefore we deserve thanks before God himself? And is not this the horrid sin of antichrist, who “sitteth as God in the temple of God,” and there receives Divine honours “ as if he were God ?” 5. Does not reason dictate that God will not give his glory to another, and that even “the man who is his fellow,” must pay him homage? Is it not the Almighty’s incommunicable glory to be the first cause of all good, agreeably to those words of our Lord, “ There is none good [i. e..self good, and truly self righteous] but God,” from whom goodness and righteousness flow, as light and heat do from the sun? How dangerous then, how dreadful is the error of the self righteous, who are above stooping to Divine goodness, and giving it its due! Ifrebbing a Church of its ornaments is sacrilege, how sacrilegious is the pride of a Pharisee, who, by claiming original goodness, robs God’s grace of its indisputable honours, and God himself of his incommunicable glory ! 6. To show Christians how ridiculous and satanic the pride of the self righteous is, I need only remind them that Christ himself— Christ the righteous” (as the Son of David) declined all self righteousness. Did he not call his works “the works that I do in my Father’s name,” or by my Father’s grace? And did he not, as it were, annihilate him- self, when he said, “ Why callest thou me Goon,” without any refer. ence to the Godhead, of which I am the living temple? “I can do nothing of myself. a speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he does the works. Learn of me to be lowly in heart ?” What real Christian can read such scriptures without learning to dis- claim all self righteousness, and to abhor Pharisaic dotages? If Hon- estus be a reasonable Christian I need say no more to reconcile him to free grace. I know not which of the two extremes is the most abominable, that of the Pharisee, who, by slighting free grace, will not allow God to be the first cause of all our good works; or that of the Antinomian, who, by exploding free will, indirectly represents the Parent of good as the first cause of all our wickedness. This last error is that of Zelotes, to whom I recommend the following arguments :— 172 * EQUAL CHECK. | ie? z & ily 1, All rationals (as such) are necessarily endued with free will, “a . * : Mal [A wise reason and conscience would be powers as absurdly bestowed upon them, as persuasiveness upon a carp, and a taste for music upon an ~ oyster. What are reason and conecience but powers, by which we dis- tinguish right from wrong, that we may choose the one and refuse the other? And how do they reflect upon God’s wisdom, who suppose that he gave and restored to man these powers, without giving him a capacity to use them? And what can this capacity be, if it be not free will? As surely then as wings and legs prove that eagles have a power to fly, and hares to run; whether they fly or run foward the sports. man’s destructive weapon, or from it; so surely do reason and con- science demonstrate that men are endued with liberty, i. e. have a power to choose, whether they make a right or a wrong choice. Again: 2. What is a human soul? You justly answer, “It is a thinking, willing, accountable creature.” And | reply, from the very nature of our soul, then, it is evident that we are, and ever shall be, free-willing beings. For the moment souls have lost their power of thinking and willing freely, they are no longer accountable ; moral laws are as improper for them as for raging billows. None but fools would attempt to rule deli- rious persons, and mad men by penal laws. ‘The reason is plain : peo- ple stark mad, thinking freely no longer, are no longer free willers ; and being no longer free willers, they are no more considered as moral agents. So certain then as man is a reasonable, accountable creature, he is endued with free will: for all rationals under God are accountable, and all accountable beings have more or less power over themselves and iheir actions. “He [the Lord] himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. If thou wilt keep the commandments, and perform acceptable faithfulness. He hath set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt. Before man is life and death, and whether him liketh shall be given him,” Ecclus. xv, 14, &c. The tempter therefore may allure, but cannot force us to do evil; and God himself so wisely invites, and so gently draws us to obedience, as not to turn the scale for us in an irresistible manner. 3. O the absurdity of supposing that “God has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness,” if the world be not capable of making a right and wrong choice ; and if Christ, Adam or the devil absolutely turn the seale of our morals for us! O the blot upon God’s wisdom, when he is represented as rewarding men with heavenly thrones, for having done the good which they could no more ayoid domg than rivers can prevent their flowing! O the dishonour done to his jus- tice, when he is represented as sentencing men to everlasting burnings, for committing sin as necessarily as a leaden ball tends to the centre! 4. If free grace do all in believers without free will, why does David say, “ The Lord is my helper?” Why does our Church pray, after the psalmist, “ Make haste to help me?” Why does St. Paul declare that “the Spirit itself* helpeth our infirmities?” Why did he not say, J can * The word in the original has a peculiar force: (cvvavriAap6averat.) Et ex- presses at once how God’s Spirit does his part (cvv) ‘‘with us,” and (avr) “over against us ;” like two persons that take up a burden together and carry it, the one at one end, and the other at the other end; or like a minister and a congregation, who join in prayer by alternately taking up the responses of the Church. THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 173 do absolutely nothing, instead of saying, “I can do all things through the Lord who strengtheneth me ?” And when Christ had said, “ Without me ‘ye can do nothing,” why did he not correct himself, and declare that we can do nothing with him, and that he alone must do all? Nay, why does St. Paul apply to himself and others, when they work with God, the very same word that St. Mark applies to God, when he works with men? “ We are cuvepyoi, workers together with God,” 1 Cor. ii, 9. “The Lord cuvepysvros, working together with them,” Mark xvi, 20. . 5. Do not all the promtszs, the performance of which is suspended upon some terms to be performed by us through Divine assistance, prove the concurrence of free grace with free will? When God says, “Seek, and you shall find. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven. Come unto me, and I will give you rest. Return to me, and I will return to you,” &c ; when God, I say, speaks this language, who does not see free grace courting and alluring free will? Free grace says, ‘Seek ye my face ;” and free will answers, “Thy face, Lord, will I seek.” On the other hand, unbelievers know that so long as their free will refuses to submit to the terms fixed by free grace, the promise miscarries, and God himself declares, ‘ Ye shall know my breach of promise,” Num. xiv, 34. 6. As the promises, which free grace makes,to submissive free will, prove the doctrine of the Gospel axioms; so do the THREATENINGS, which anxious free grace denounces, lest it should be rejected by free will. ‘Take also two or three examples :—“I will cast them that com- mit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. He that believeth not shall be damned. If we sin wilfully, [1. e. obstinately, and to the last moment of our day of grace,] after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth [for us,] &c, a fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries,” &c. Who does not see here that free grace, provoked by inflexible free will, can, and will act the part of inflexible justice ? ; 7. There is not one reproof, encomium, or exhortation in the Old or New Testament that does not support the capital doctrines of free grace or free will. When Christ says with a frown, “ How is it that you have no faith? O perverse generation, how long shall I suffer you? O generation of vipers, bring forth fruit meet for repentance. Have ye your heart yet hardened?” When he smiles and says, “‘ Well done, good and faithful servant.” When he marvels and cries out, “ Great is thy faith.” Or when he gives such gracious exhortations, “ Be not faith- less, but believing: come to the marriage: be faithful unto death: only believe.” When Christ, I say, speaks in this manner, is it not as if he expressed himself in such words as these: ‘“‘ My free grace tries every rational means to win your free will. I reprove you'for your sins, I commend you for your faith, I exhort you to repentance, I shame you into obedience, I leave no stone unturned to show myself the rational Saviour of my rational, free creatures ?” 8. I may proceed one step farther, and say, There is not one com- mandment in the law, nor one direction in the Gospel that does not demonstrate the truth of this doctrine. For all God’s precepts and directions are for our good; therefore free grace gave them. Now -since God is wise as well as gracious, it follows that he gave his pre 174, EQUAL CHECK. [part cepts and directions to free agents, that is, to frée-willing ‘creatures. Let a king, who has lost his reason, make a code of moral laws for ae or horses; let him send preachers into every mill in the kingdom to~ give proper directions to cog wheels, and to assure them that if they turn’ fast and right, they shall grind for the royal family; and, if they stop or turn wrong, they shall be cut to pieces and ground to saw dust. But let not the absurdity of a similar conduct be chatged upon God. 9. Every humble confession of sin shows the various workings of free grace and free will: “I have sinned—I have done wickedly,” &e, is the language of free will sofiened by free grace. To suppose that these acknowledgments .are the language of free grace alone, is to suppose that free grace sins and does wickedly. And when we heartily join in such petitions as these, “Turn us, and we shall be turned: draw me, and [ will run after thee : bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise thy name: save, or I perish,” &c, do we not feel our free will endea- vouring to apprehend free grace? Is this heresy? Did not St. Paul maintain this doctrine in the face of the Church, and seal it with the account of his own experience, when he said, “I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of God ?” 10. To conclude: there is not a damned spirit in hell that may not be produced as a living witness of the double doctrine which I defend. Why is Lucifer loaded with chains of darkness? Is it because there never was any free grace for him, and because free wrath marked him out for destruction, before he had personally deserved it? No: but because his free will “kept not the first estate” of holiness, in which God’s free grace had placed him. Why is Judas gone to his own place? Is it because the Holy Ghost spake an untruth when he said that (till the day of retribution comes) “God’s mercy is over all his works?” No: but because Judas’ free will was so obstinately bent upon “gaining the world,” that, according to our Lord’s declaration, ‘he lost his own soul,” became a “son of perdition,” and, by “ denying in works the Lord that bought him, brought upon himself swift destruc. tion.” Now, if Judas himself cannot say, “ God’s free wrath sent me to hell, and not my free will; I am here in Adam’s place, and not in my own; I never rejected against myself the counsel of a gracious God; for, with respect to mr, the Father of mercies was always unmerciful— ‘the God of all grace’ had never any saving grace :”—if Judas, I say, cannot justly utter these blasphemies, surely none can: and if none can, then every sinner in hell demonstrates the truth of the Gospel axioms, and is a tremendous monument of the vengeance justly taken on free will, for doing obstinately despite to the Spirit of free grace. 11. But leaving Judas to experience the truth of this awful scripture, “«‘ The backslider in heart shall be filled with u1s own ways,” let your soul soar upon the wings of faith and reason to the happy regions where the spirits of just men made perfect shine like stars or suns in their Father’s kingdom. Ask them, “To whom and to what do you ascribe your salvation,?” and you hear them all reply, “Salvation is of the Lord. Not unto us, but to his name we ascribe glory. Of his own mercy he saved us, to the praise of the glory of his grace.” What a noble testimony is this to the doctrine of free grace! . 12. Nor does the Lord stand less for their free will than they do for THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES 175 his free grace. Prostrate yourselves before his everlasting throne ; and, with all becoming reverence, ask the following question, that you may be able to vindicate God’s righteous ways before unrighteous man. “Tet not the Lord be angry, and I will take upon me to speak unto the Lord. Didst thou admit those happy spirits into thy kingdom entirely out of partiality to their persons? If they are raised to glorious thrones, while damned spirits are cast into yonder burning lake, is it merely because absolute grace and absolute wrath made origina/ly all the differ- ence? In a word, is their salvation so of thy free grace that their free will had absolutely no hand in the matter ?” Methinks I hear “the Judge of all the earth” giving you the follow- ing answer, which appears to me perfectly agreeable to his sacred oracles :— * Wuute Honestus says that he has no great objection to the doctrine of free grace, when it is stated in a rational and Seriptural manner, Ze- lotes intimates that he is still averse to the doctrine of free will; and declares that capifal objections are in his way, and that, till they are answered, he thinks it his duty equally to oppose Honestus and the re- conciler. Hear we then his objections, and let us see if they are as unanswerable as he supposes them to be. Oxsecrion I. “You want to frighten me from the doctrines of grace, and to drive into the heresy of the free willers, by perpetually urging that the personal, unconditional, and eternal rejection of the non- - elect is inconsistent with Divine mercy, goodness, and justice: but you either deny, or grant God’s foreknowledge. If you deny it, you are an Atheist : it being evident that an ignorant God is no God at all. If you allow it, you must allow that when God made such men as Cain and Judas he foreknew that they would certainly deserve to be damned; and that when he made them upon that foreknowledge, he made them that they might necessarily deserve to be damned. And is not this granting all that we contend for, namely, that God does make, and of consequence has an indisputable right of making ‘vessels of wrath,’ without any respect to works and free will? Is it not far better to say that we have no free will, than to rob God of his prescience ?” Answer. We need neither rob God of his prescience, nor man of »his free will. I grant, God made angels and men, that if they would not be eternally saved, they might be damned. But what has this doc- trine to do with yours, which supposes that he made some angels and men that they might absolutely and necessarily be damned? Is not our doctrine highly consistent with God’s goodness and justice; while yours — is the reverse of these Divine perfections?’ Again :— Your argument, though ingenious, is inconclusive, because it is found. THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 177 ed upon the common mistake of shifting the words upon which it chiefly turns. ‘The flaw of it consists in substituting the clause “necessarily deserve to be damned,” instead of the clause “certainly deserve to be damned,” just “as if there was no difference between certainty and ne- cessity! But a little attention will convince you of your error. It is certain that I write this moment, but am I necessitated to it? May I not drop my pen, and meditate, read, or walk? The chasm which, in many Cases, separates absolute certainty from absolute necessity, is as immense as that which stands between a pot and infinity. Take notice of the insect that buzzes about your ears: does it not exist as certainly as God himself? But would it not be a kind of blasphemy to say that it exists as mecessarily? Would it not at least be paying to a fly an honour which is due to none but God, the only supreme and absolutely necessary being ? And when you support your doctrines of grace by confounding certainty with necessity, do you not support them by confounding two things, which, _ ina thousand cases, and especially in the present one, have no more con- nection than the two poles? Have not judicious Calvinists granted that although the prescience of God concerning Judas’ destruction could not stand (cwm eventu contrario) “ with his salvation ;” yet it stood perfectly well (cum possibilitate ad eventum contrarium) “with the possibility of his salvation?” And is not this granting that although God clearly saw that Judas would not repent, he clearly saw also that Judas might have repented “in the accepted time,” which is all that I contend for? (See Davenani’s Animad. Cambridge edition, 1641, p. 38.) To be a little more explicit: let me again intreat you to fall with me before the throne of grace, where the Redeemer teaches mortals to be “meek, lowly, and wise in the heart.” Spread your doubts before him in such humble language as this: “'Thou light of the world, let not thy creature remain in darkness with respect to the most important question - in the world. Am I appointed necessarily to continue in sin and be damned? Is my damnation finished? Hast thou absolutely ordained me to be a vessel of wrath, and irrevocably appointed my eternal rejec- tion without any respect to my personal free will? Does thy foreknow- ledge necessitate my actions? Or may I choose life or death, and, through thy mercy or justice, have either the one or the other, becord ing to my free, unnecessitated choice—my choice equally opposed to unwillingness and to necessity? Speak, gracious Lord, that if I ama necessary agent, I may, without any farther perplexity, yield myself to be carried by the irresistible stream of thy free grace, or of thy free wrath, to the throne in heaven, or to the dungeon in hell, which thou hast appointed for me from all eternity, according to the doctrine of the heathen poet :— ‘Solvite mortales animos, curisque levate : Fata regunt orbem, certa stant omnia lege.’”* If Christ is the Logos; if he is reason and the Word—the eine” wisdom, and the uncreated Word of the Father ; may we not get a satis- factory answer to the preceding question by considering, with humble prayer, his unerring word, and by diligently listening to the reason which * **O ye mortals, dismiss your cares, and unbend your minds. Predestination. ules the world: all things happen according to a fixed decree.” (Manilius.) Vou. II. * 178 EQUAL CHECK. : [part : * he has given us? And shall I take an unbecoming liberty, if I suppose that he himself expostulates with Zelotes in such words as these? __ “ Son of man, if thou chargest the reprobation of the damned, or their predestination to eternal death upon my free wrath, my sovereignty, or Adam’s sin, thou insultest my goodness and justice. That reprebation has no properly original cause, but their own personal free will. Iwould a thousand times haye crushed thy primitive parents into atoms, when they forfeited my favour, rather than I would have spared them to propagate arace of creatures, most of whom, according to thy doctrines, are under an absolute necessity to sin and be damned. Thou hast a wrong idea of my word and attributes. With the wisdom and equity of a tender- hearted judge I condemn the victims of my justice, and I do it merely for their personal and obstinate contempt of my free grace. Be then no longer mistaken: my decree of reprobation is nothing but a fixed reso- lution of giving sinners over to the perverseness of their free will, if they resist the drawings of my free grace to the end of their day of initial salvation. And what can be more equitable than such a resolution? Is it not right that free agents, who to the last despise my goodness, should become monuments of my despised goodness, which is but another name for my vindictive justice ? “IT foresaw, indeed, that, by such a final contempt of my grace, many would bring destruction upon themselves ; but having wisely decreed to make a world of probationers and free agents, I could not necessarily — incline their will to obedience, without robbing them of free agency : nor could I rob them of free agency without foolishly defeating the counsel of my own mind, and absurdly spoiling the work of my own hands. Be- side, from the beginning my intention was not only to show my power and goodness in creating, but also to display my wisdom and justice in governing accountable creatures, to whom ‘ without respect of persons, I should render according to their works—eternal life to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory; but tribulation and anguish to them that are contentious and disobedient.’ “‘T abhor extorted, forced, necessary submission in rationals: it suits the dastardly children of the devil, and not the free-born sons of God. ZI could not then in wisdom send upon this world such overpowering streams of light; or permit the tempter to spread such thick darkness ‘upon it, as might invincibly or necessarily turn the scale of man’s will ‘for loyalty or rebellion. So unadvised a step would immediately have” vtaken them out of the probation in which I had placed them. _ “Again: had I directly or indirectly thrown into the scale a weight ‘sufficient to turn it irresistibly, I should have acted a most unreasonable and detestable part: (1.) A most unreasonable part : for if I alone com- pletely ‘work out the salvation’ of believers, according to what thou — callest finished salvation, nothing can be more absurd than my appoint- ing a day of judgment and rewards, to bestow upon the elect an eternal life of glory according to their works. (2.) A most detestable part: for — if I earnestly invited all the wicked to choose life, after having absolutely chosen death for most of them, should I not show myself the most hypo. » critical of all tyrants ? “ But thou stumblest at my foreknowledge, and askest why I bestow .the blessings of initial salvation upon those whose free agency will cer. THIRD.| SCRIPTURE SCALES. 179 tainly abuse my goodness, and do despite to the Spirit of my saving grace. Thou thinkest it is wrong in me to give them that well perish the cup of initial salvation, when I know they will not accept the cup of eternal salvation. Thou supposest it would be better to reprobate them at once, than to expose them to a greater damnation, by putting it in their power to reject the terms of eternal salvation, and by that mean to fall from initial salvation. But I shall silence thy objections by proposing some plain questions to thee, as I once did to my servant Job. 1. “Is it reasonable to suppose that I should pervert my nature, and act in a manner contrary to my perfections, to prevent free agents from perverting their nature, and acting in a manner contrary to their happi- ness? What wouldest thou have thought of my wisdom if I had appointed Lucifer to hell, and Adam to the grave, from eternity, for fear they should deserve those punishments by wilfully falling from heaven and from paradise? [Is it not absurd to fancy that the Creator must bring himself in guilty of misconduct, lest his rational creatures should render themselves so ? 2. “If thou thinkest it right in me to command the Gospel of my free grace to be preached to ‘ every creature,’ although thou knowest that the neglecters of it will, like the people of Capernaum, fall into a deeper hell for their final contempt of that favour; why shouldest thou think it wrong in me to extend the virtue of my blood, and the strivings of my Spirit to those who will finally reject my free grace? When thou ap- provest the extensive tenor of my Gospel commission, dost thou well to be angry, or to fret, like Jonah, at the extensiveness of my mercy? Dost thou not see that if I were absolutely merciless toward some men, my commission to preach the Gospel to every man would be utterly inconsistent with my veracity ? 3. “Have I not a right to create free agents, and to place them in a state of probation, that I may wisely reward their obedience, or justly punish their rebellion? ‘ Who art thou, that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,’ Why hast thou made me a free agent? a probationer for heavenly rewards, or infernal punishments ? May not I appoint that free-willing unbelievers, who do final despite to the Spinit of my free grace, shall be ‘ vessels of wrath, self fitted for destruc- tion ;’ and that free-willing, obedient believers shall be ‘ vessels of mercy, afore prepared unto glory’ by my me grace, with which their free will has happily concurred ? 4. “Jn the nature of things must not free agents, in a state of proba- tion, be free to fall, as well as free to stand? When thou weighest gold, if thou hinderest one scale from turning, dost thou not effectually hinder the free motion of the other scale ? 5. “ Does it not become me to show myself good and gracious, though my creatures prove wicked and ungrateful? Should I extinguish or restrain my light, because some people love darkness rather than light? If they will not do their duty by me, as obedient creatures, ought I not to behave to them as a gracious Creator, and to hold out the golden sceptre of my mercy, before I strike them with the iron rod of my vengeance? And should not the honour of my Divine attributes be considered more — than the additional degrees of misery, which ungrateful free agents will obstinately bring upon themselves ? 180 EQUAL CHECK. Kes Uo JF 6. “ When Ihad decreed to create a world of free agents, and to try their loyalty, in order to reward the obedient and punish the rebellious, could I execute my wise, just, and gracious plan without suffering sin to enter into the world, if free agents would commit it? Is permitting the possibility of sin, any more than permitting that free will might, or might not concur with my free grace? And could I ever have judged the world in righteousness, if I had not permitted such a possibility ? 7. “If I had given the casting vote for Peter’s obedience, and for Judas’ disobedience, should I not have fixed an eternal blot upon my impartiality? Thinkest thou that I could be so unwise and unjust as to hold a universal judgment, to judge angels and men according to what they have done through mere necessity? Shall irresistible free grace, and omnipotent free wrath, force the human will? and shall I reward or punish overpowered mankind according to such constraint? Far be the thought from thee! Far be the iniquity from me! I judge the world in righteousness, and not in madness ; according to their own works, and not according to mine. 8. “ When I foresaw that sin would enter into the world, could I have been just if [had not decreed to punish sinners? Could I, with justice, sentence moral agents either to non-ewistence, or to a wretched existence, BEFORE they had done wickedly 7—arrer they had sinned, and { had — graciously promised them a Saviour, could I, without showing myself full of dissimulation, partiality, and falsehood, condemn those that per- ish, serore | had afforded them the means of recovery, by which many of their fellow sinners, under the same circumstances, attain eternal sal- vation? Must not, in the nature of things, those who work out their damnation be doubly guilty, or I be notoriously partial? Must they not appear without excuse before all ; or I without mercy, long suffering, and truth toward them ? 9. “ Dost thou not see that although the ministration of righteousness and rewards ‘exceeds in glory,’ yet the ministration of condemnation and punishments ‘is glorious?’ Beside, are they not closely connected together? Has not the fear of hell, as well as the hope of heaven, kept thousands of martyrs from drawing back to perdition, when the snares of death compassed them about? Nay, is not ‘ the spirit of bondage unto fear’ the beginning of wisdom, and, generally, of the conversion of the heart of man tome? And shall I act a deceitful part for thousands of _years together, working upon my people by a lie, and making them be- lieve that they have damnation if they disbelieve, or if they cast off their first faith, when yet (upon thy scheme) there is nothing but finished salvation for them ? 10. “ Will not the damnation of obstinate sinners answer as important ends in the world of rationals, as prisons and places of execution do in the kingdoms of this world? If incorrigible, free-willing rebels sin to all eternity, will it not be just in me to make the line of their punish- ment run parallel with the line of their wickedness? Does not thy rea- son dictate that an unceasing contempt of my holy law, and a perpetual ‘rebellion against creating, redeeming, and sanctifying grace, will call ~ _ aloud for a perpetual outpouring of my righteous indignation? And does it not follow that the eternal damnation of rebels eternally obstinate—of rebels who have wantonly trampled under foot the blessings of initial sal- THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 181 vation, is as consistent with my despised goodness, as with my provoked justice ? 11. “As I could not justly condemn necessary agents to infernal misery ; so I could not delight in, and reward the obedience of such agents. And as thou hast more pleasure in the free, loving motions of one of thy friends, than in the necessary motions of ten thousand pieces of clock work, let them move ever so regularly, so do I put more value upon the free, voluntary obedience of one of my people, than upon all the necessary revolutions of all the planetary worlds. Why then wilt thou, by thy doctrine of bound will, rob me of what I value most in the universe—the free obedience of my faithful servants—the unforced, spontaneous love of my mystical body, my spouse, my Church? 12. “ With respect to my foreknowledge of sin, it had absolutely no influence on the commission of it. Thou thinkest the contrary, because thou canst not, in general, certainly foresee what thy neighbours will do, unless they are absolutely directed and influenced by thee: but the con- sequence does not hold. Short sighted as thou art, dost thou not some- times with a degree of certainty foresee things which thou art so far from appointing, that thou wouldest gladly prevent them, if thou didst not consider that such a step would be inconsistent with thy wisdom, and the liberty of others? 13. “Again: may not my foreknowledge of a future event imply the certainty of that event with respect tome, without implying its necessity with respect to the free agent who spontaneously causes it? Suppose thou wert perfectly acquainted with the art of navigation, the force of every wind, the situation of every rock and sand bank, the strength and burden of every ship, the disposition and design of every mariner, &c: suppose again thou sawest a ship going full sail just against a dangerous rock, notwithstanding thy repeated signals and loud warnings to the pilot ; mightest thou not foresee the certain loss of the ship, without laying the least necessity upon the pilot to steer her upon the fatal spot where she goes to pieces? And shall not I, from whom no secrets are hid, and before whom things past and to come meet in one immovable, everlasting now :—shall not I, ‘ who inhabit eternity,’ where he ‘that was, and is, and is to come,’ shows himself the unchangeable I am,—shall not I, I say, foresee the motions and actions of all my free-acting creatures, as certainly as a wise artist foresees the motions of the watch which he has made? Imperfect as the illustration is, it is adapted to thy imperfect understanding. For though thou canst not comprehend how I know future contingencies, thou canst easily conceive, that as no one but a watch maker can perfectly foresee what may accelerate, stop, or alter the motion of a watch, so none but the Creator of a free agent can perfectly foresee the future motions of a free agent. If ‘hell is naked, and destruc- tion hath no covering before me,’ is it not absurd to suppose that the human heart can be hid from my all-piercing eye? And if thou, who livest but in a point of time, and in a point of space ;—if thou, whose faculties are so shallow, and whose powers are so circumscribed ;—if thou, I say, in that point of time and space which thou fillest, canst see what is before thee, why should not I, an all-wise and superlatively per- fect Spirit, who fill all times, and all places, through an infinite now and a boundless HERE, see also what is before me? Perceivest thou not the ° 182 EQUAL CHECK. [PART absurdity of measuring me with thy span? Try to weigh the mountains” in a balance, and to measure the seas in the hollow of thy hand; and if thou findest thyself confounded at the bare thought of a task so easy to my omnipotence, fall in the dust, and confess that thou hast acted an unbecoming part, in attempting to put the very same bounds to my omni- science, which I have put to thy foreknowledge. To conclude :— 14, “Thou art ready to think hardly of my wisdom, goodness, or foresight, for giving a talent of saving grace to a man, who, by burying it to the last, enhances his own destruction. To solve this imaginary difficulty, thou ascribest to me a dreadful sovereignty—a horrible right of making vessels to dishonour, and filling them with wrath, merely to show my absolute power. But let me expostulate a moment with thee. I foresaw, indeed, that the slothful, unfaithful man, to whom I gave one talent, would bury it to the last: but if I had kept it from him; if I had afforded him no opportunity of showing his faithfulness, or his unfaith- fulness; what could I have done with him? Had I sent him to hell upon foreseen disobedience, I should have acted the absurd and cruel part of a judge who hangs an honest man to-day, ugder pretence that he foresees the honest man will turn thief to-morrow ;—had I taken him to heaven, I should have rewarded foreseen unfaithfulness with heavenly glory. And, had I refused to let him come into existence, my refusal would have been attended with a glaring absurdity, and with two great inconveniences. (1.) With a glaring absurdity ; for if I foresee that a man will certainly bury his talent ; and if, upon this foresight, I refuse that man existence, it follows I foresaw that a thing which shall never come to pass, shall certainly come to pass. And what can be more unworthy of me, and more absurd, than such a foresight? (2.) The notion that my foreknowledge of the man’s burying his talent should have made me suppress his existence, is big with two great inconye- niences. For, first, 1 should have defeated my own purpose, which was to show my distributive justice by rewarding him, if he would be faith- ful; or by punishing him, tf he would continue in his wunfaithfulness. And, secondly, I should have broken, almost without interruption, the laws of the natural world, and nipped the man’s righteous posterity in the bud. Had I, for instance, prevented the wickedness of all the ancestors of the Virgin Mary, by forbidding their existence, ten times oyer I might have suppressed her useful being, and my own important humanity. Nay, at this rate, I might have destroyed all mankind twenty times over. Drop then thy prejudices; be not wise above what is written for thy instruction. Under pretence of exalting free grace, do not pour con- tempt upon free will, which is my masterpiece in man, as man himself is my masterpiece in this world. Remember that hell is the just wages which abused free grace gives to free-willing, incorrigible sinners; and that heaven is the gracious reward with which my free grace, when it © is submitted to, crowns the obedience of corrigible persevering believers. Nor forget that, if thou oppose the doctrine of free grace, thou wilt undermine my cross, and insult me as a Saviour: and if thou decry the doctrine of free will, thou wilt sap the foundation of my tribunal, and affront me as a judge.” To the arguments contained in the preceding plea, I add an extract . THIRD.) — SCRIPTURE SCALES. 183 trom a discourse written, I think, by Archbishop King, with a design to reconcile the Predestinarians and the free willers. « Foreknowledge and decrees,” says that judicious writer, “are only assigned to God, to give us a notion of the steadiness and certainty of the Divine actions; and if so, for us to conclude that what is represented by them is inconsistent with the contingency of events or free will, &c, is the same absurdity as to conclude that China is no bigger than a sheet of paper, because the map that represents it is contained in that compass.” The same ingenious author proposes the argument that has so puzzled mankind, and done so much mischief in the world. It runs thus :—* If God foresee, &c, that I shall be saved, I shall infallibly be so; and if he foresee, &c, that I shall be damned, it is unavoidable. And there- fore it is no matter what I do, or how I behave myself in this life.” “If God’s foreknowledge were exactly conformable to ours, the consequence would seem just; but, &c, it does not follow, because our foresight of events, if we suppose it infallible, must presuppose a necessity in them, that therefore the Divine prescience must require the same necessity in order to its being certain. It is-true we call God’s foreknowledge and our own by the same name ; but this is not from any real likeness in the nature of the faculties, but from some proportion observable in the effects of them; both having this advantage, that they prevent any surprise on the person endowed with them. Now as it is true that no contingency or freedom in the creatures can any way deceive or surprise God, put him to a loss, or oblige him to alter his measures ; so on the other hand it is likewise true that the Divine prescience does not hinder freedom: and a thing may either be, or not be, notwithstanding that foresight of it which we ascribe to God. When therefore it is alleged that if God foresees I shall be saved, my salvation is infallible ; this does not fol- low: because the foreknow: ledge-of God i is not like man’s, which requires necessity in the event, in order to its being certain ; but of another na- ture consistent with contingency: and our inability to comprehend this arises from our ignorance of the true nature of what we call foreknow- ledge in God, &c. Only of this we are sure, that it so differs fromsours that it may consist either with the being, or not being of what is said to be foreseen, &c. Thus St. Paul was a chosen vessel, and he reckons himself in the number of the predestinated, Eph. i, 5. And yet he sup- poses it possible for him to miss of salvation: and therefore he looked upon himself as obliged to use mortification, and exercise all other graces, in order to make his calling and election sure ; ‘lest,’ he says, ‘that, by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway,’ or a reprobate, as the word is translated in other places.” This author’s important observation, concerning the difference be- “tween God’s foreknowledge and ours, may be illustrated by the following remarks :—Hearing and sight are attributed to God, as well as fore- knowledge and foresight. “He that planted the ear,” says David, “shall he not hear? And he that formed the eye, shall he not see ?” Now is it not as absurd to measure God’s perfect manner of foreseeing and foreknowing, by our imperfect foresight and knowledge, as to mea- _ sure his perfect manner of seeing and hearing by our imperfect manner _ of doing them? If Zelotes said, “I cannot see the inhabitants of the 184 EQUAL CHECK. [PART planets: I cannot see the antipodes: I cannot see through that wall: I can see nothing of solids but their surface, &c, therefore Gop cannot see the inhabitants of the planets, the antipodes,” &c, would not his argument appear to you inconclusive? Nevertheless, it is full as strong as the following, on which Zelotes’ objection is founded :-—*I cannot certainly foresee the free thoughts and contingent intentions of the hu- man heart, therefore God cannot do it: I am not omniscient, therefore God is not so.” If I argued in this manner, would you not say, “ O injudicious man, how long wilt thou measure God’s powers by thine? See, if thou canst, what now passes in my breast? Nay, see thy own back ; see the fibres which compose the flesh of thy hands, or the vapour that exhales out of all thy pores. And if these near—these present— these material objects are out of the reach of thy sight, what wonder is it if future contingencies are out of the reach of thy foresight? Cease then to confine God’s foreknowledge within the narrow limits of thine, and own that an omnipresent, omniscient, and everlasting Spirit, who ‘is over all, through all, and in all,’ and whose permanent existence and boundless immensity comprehend all times and places, as the atmos- phere contains all clouds and vapours ;—own, I say, that such a Spirit ~ can, at one glance, see from his eternity all the revolutions of time far more clearly than thou canst see the characters which thine eyes are now fixed upon. And confess that it is the highest absurdity to sup- — pose that an omnipresent, omnipotent, spiritual, and eternal eye, which is before, behind, and in all things, times, and places, can ever be at a loss to know or foreknow any thing. And what is God but such an eye? And what are Divine knowledge and foreknowledge, but the sight of such a spiritual, eternal, and omnipresent eye ?” Z I do not know whether this vindication of our free agency, of God’s foreknowledge, and of the consistency of both will please my readers : but I flatter myself that it will satisfy Candidus. Should it soften the prejudices of Zelotes, without hardening those of Honestus, it will pro- mote the reconciliation which I endeavour to bring about, and answer the end which I proposed when I took up the pen to throw some light upon this deep and awful part of my subject. SECTION VII. Zelotes’ second objection to a reconciliation—T hat objection is taken from President Edwards’ and Voltaire’s doctrine about necessity— The danger of that doctrine—The truth lies between the extremes of rigid bound willers and rigid free willers—We have liberty, but it is ancomplete, and much confined—The doctrines of power, liberty, and, necessity, are cleared up by plain descriptions, and important dis- tinctions—The ground of Mr. Edwards’ mistake about necessity is discovered ; and his capital objection against free will is answered. Zexortes has another specious objection to a reconciliation with Ho- nestus. It runs thus :— Ossection II. “ Honestus is for free will, and I am against it. How “can you expect to reconcile us?’ Can you find a medium between free > THIRD. ] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 185 will and necessity? Now, that we are not free-willing creatures may be demonstrated from reason and experience: (1.) From reason. Does not every attentive mind see that a man cannot help following the last dictate of his understanding ; that such a dictate is the necessary result of the light in which he sees things; that this light likewise is the ne- cessary result of the circumstances in which he is placed, and of the objects which he is surrounded with ;—and, of consequence, that all is necessary; one event being as necessarily linked to, and brought on by another, as the second link of a chain in motion is necessarily connected with, and drawn on by the first lnk? Thus, for example, the accidental, not to say the providential sight of Bathsheba, necessarily raised un- chaste desires in David’s mind: these desires necessarily produced adultery: and adultery, by a chain of necessary consequences, neces- sarily brought on murder. All these events were decreed, and depended as much upon each other as the loss of a ship depends upon a storm, and a storm upon a strong rarefaction or condensation of the air. (2.) EXPERIENCE shows that we are not at liberty to act otherwise than we do. Did you never hear passionate people complain that they could not moderate their anger? How often have persons in love declared that their affections were irresistibly drawn to, and fixed upon such and such objects? You may as soon bid an impetuous river to stop, as bid a drunkard to be sober, and a thief to be honest, till sovereign, almighty, victorious grace makes them so. **The way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps,’ Jer. x, 23.” Answer. I grant that “the way of man is not in himself” to make his escape, when the hour of vengeance is come, and when God sur- rounds him with his judgments: and that this was Jeremiah’s meaning, in the verse which you quote to rob man of his moral agency; is evident from the words that immediately precede: “The pastors are become brutish: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered; behold the noise of the bruit [the hour of vengeance] is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of | Judah desolate, and a den of dragons.” Then come the misapplied words, “O Lord, I know that the. way of a man [to make his escape] is not in himself, &c. Correct me, but with judgment, &c, lest thou bring me to nothing :” see verses 21, 22,24. With respect to David, he had probably resisted as strong temptations to impurity, as that by which he fell; and he might, no doubt, have stood, if he had not been wanting to * This very passage was urged to a friend of mine by the obdurate highway- man who was hanged last year at Shrewsbury! He cited it on the morning of his execution, to excuse his crimes, and to comfort himself. He had drunk so deeply into the doctrine of necessity, bound will, and fatalism, that he was en- tirely inaccessible to repentance. What pity is it that Zelotes should counte- nance so horrid a misapplication of the Scriptures! Heated Austin is my Ze- otes in this respect. Bishop Davenant saith of him, that ‘“‘he did not abhor fate 7’ and to prove his assertion he quotes the following words of that father :— “If any one attributes human affairs [which take in all the bad thoughts, words, and actions of men,] to fate, because he calls the will and the power of God by the name of fate, let him hold his sentiment and alter his language. Sententiam teneat, linguam corrigat.” (Aug. De Grat. lib.5,c.1.) Is not tais granting Mr. Voltaire as much fatalism as he contends for? and gilding the fatal pill so piously as to make it go down glib with all the rigid bound willers in Christen dom? . 186 EQUAL CHECK. . _ [Part himself, both before, and at the time of his temptation. With regard to what you say about a storm; two ships of equal strength may be tossed by the same tempest, and without necessity one of them may be lost by the negligence, and the other saved by the skill of the. pilot. And if we may believe St. Paul, the lives which God had given him would have been lost, if the sailor had not stayed in the ship to manage her to the last, Acts xxvii, 31,34. You appeal to experience : but it is as much against you as against Honestus. Experience shows that we have liberty, and thus experience is against you. Again: experience convinces us that our liberty has many bounds, and thus experience is against Honestus. As to your scheme of the concatenation of forcible circumstances and events, it bears hard upon all the Divine perfections. God is too wise, too good, and holy, to give us a conscience and a law - which forbids us to sin; and to place us in the midst of such forcible circumstances as lay a majority of mankind under an absolute necessity of sinning to the last, and being damned for ever. We are therefore endued with a degrce of free will. Through Him who “tasteth death for every man,” and through “the free gift which came upon all men,” we may “choose life” in the day of initial salvation ; we may, by grace, (by ‘‘the saving grace which has appeared to all ig pursue the things that make for our peace; or we may, by nature, (by our own natural powers,) follow after the things that make for our misery, just as we have a mind. “ We cannot do all,” says one, “therefore we can do nothing.” We can do something,” says another, “therefore we can do all.” Both consequences are equally false. The truth stands be- tween two extremes. Beside :— The doctrine of bound will draws after it a variety of bad conse- quences. It is subversive of the moral difference which subsists between virtue and vice. It takes away all the demerit of unbelief. It leaves no room for the rewardableness of works. It strikes at the propriety of a day of judgment. It represents truth and error like two almighty charms, which irresistibly work upon the elect and the reprobates, to execute God’s absolute decrees about our good or bad works, our finished salvation or finished damnation. In a word, it fastens upon us the gross- est errors of Pharisaic fatalists, and the wildest delusions of Antino- mian gospellers, Having thus given a general answer to the objection proposed, I re- mind the reader that Mr. Edwards, president of New Jersey college, is exactly of Zelotes’ sentiments with respect to necessity or bound will. They agree to maintain that necessary circumstances necessarily turn the scale of our judgment, that our judgment necessarily turns the scale of our will, and that the freedom of our will consists merely in choosing with willingness what we choose by necessity. Mr. Voltaire also at she head of the fatalists abroad, and one of my opponents at the head of the Calvinists in England, give us, after Mr. Edwards, this false idea of liberty. To show their mistake, I need only to produce the words of Mr. Locke :—“ Liberty cannot be where thére is no thought, no volition, no will, &c. So a man striking himself, or his‘ friend, by a convulsive mo- tion of his arm, which it is not in his power by volition, or the direction of his mind, to stop or forbear; nobody thinks he has liberty in this; q _ ‘THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 187 > every one pities him, as acting by necessity and constraint. Again: there may be thought, there may be will, there may be volition, where there is no liberty. Suppose a man be carried, while fast asleep, into a room, where is a person he longs to see, and there be locked fast in beyond his power to get out; he awakes, and is glad to see himself in so desirable company, in which he stays so willingly; that is, he prefers his staying to going away. Is not this stay voluntary? I think nobody will doubt it ; and yet being locked fast in, he is not at liberty to stay, he has not freedom to be gone. So that liberty is not an idea be- longing to volition, or preferring ; but to the person having the power of doing, or forbearing to do, according as the mind shall se or direct.” (Essay on Hum. Und. chap. 21.) This excellent quotation encourages me to make a fuller inquiry into the mistakes of the rigid Predestinarians and rigid free willers, who equally start from the truth that lies between them both. It is greatly to be wished that the bounds of necessity and liberty were drawn con- sistently with reason, Scripture, and experience. I shall attempt to do it: and if I am so happy as to succeed, I shall reach the centre of the difficulty, and point out the very spring of “the waters of strife :’ Honestus will be convinced that he has too high thoughts of our liberty : Zelotes will see that his views of it are too much contracted: and Can- didus will learn to avoid their contrary mistakes. I begin by a definition of necessity and of liberty. Moral philosophers observe that necessity is that constraint upon, or confinement of the soul, whereby we cannot do a thing otherwise than we do it. Hence it appears that, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as moral necessity. For could we be constrained to do unavord- able good or evil, that good were not moral good, that evil were not moral evil. Could we be necessarily confined in the channel of virtue or of vice, as a river is confined in its bed, without any power to retard or accelerate our virtuous or vicious motions as we see fit ; our tempers’ and actions would lose their morality and their immorality. To speak with propriety, necessity has no place but in the natural world. Strictly speaking, it is excluded from the moral world; for what we may and must regulate or alter, cannot possibly be necessary or unalterable. Nevertheless I shall, by and by, venture upon the improper expression of moral necessity, to convey the idea of a strong, moral propensity or habit, and to point out with greater ease Mr. Edwards’ mistake. This ingenious author asserts that, by the law of our nature, we choose what we swppose to be, upon the whole, most eligible. I grant it is so i most cases: nevertheless, I deny necessity, because there is no necessity imposed upon us to suppose that, upon the whole, a thing is most eligible which at first sight appears to be so to the eye of preju- dice or passion; our liberty being chiefly a limited power to attend either to the dictates of reason and conscience, or to those of prejudice and passion ;—to follow either the motions of the tempter or those of Divine grace. I say a limited power, because our power is incomplete, as will appear by considering the particulars of which our liberty does and does not consist. And, , 1. It does not consist, in general,* in a power to choose evil and * T use these limited expressions because, upon second thoughts, I do not abso- 188 EQUAL CHECK. Tes misery as such. Seldom do men, who are yet in a state of probation men, who are not degenerated into mere fiends, choose evil’ only as evil. When we pursue some evil, it is then generally under the appearance of some good; or, as leading to some good, which will sooner or later make us ample amends for the present evil. For God having made us for the supreme good, which is the knowledge and enjoyment of him- self, he has placed in our souls an unquenchable thirst after happiness, that we may ardently seek him, the fountain of true happiness. It can hardly be said, therefore, that probationers are at liberty with respect to the capital inquiry, “ Who will show us any good?” We naturally desire good, just as a hungry man desires food: although he may say, “I do not choose to be hungry,” yet he is so, whether he will or not. 2. But although a hungry man is necessarily hungry, yet he does not eat necessarily ; for he may fast, if he please: and when he chooses to eat, he may prefer bad to wholesome food; he may take more or less of either; he may take it now, or by and by; with deliberation, or with greediness, as he pleases. Apply this observation to our necessary hunger or thirst after happiness. All probationers necessarily ask, “Who will show us any good?” But.although they necessarily aim at happiness, yet they are not necessitated to aim at it in this or that way; although they cannot but choose that end, yet they are not irresistibly obliged to choose any one particular mean to attain it. Here then room is left for free will or liberty. We may choose to go to happiness, our mark, by saying, “ What shall we eat? What shall we drink? Wherewith shall we be clothed?” Who will give us corn and wine, silver and gold, worldly honours and sensual gratifica- tions ? or we may say, Who will give us pardon and peace, grace and glory? “Lord! lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us!” In a word, though we are not properly at liberty, whether we will choose happiness in general, that choice being morally necessary to us; yet in the day of initial salvation we may choose to seek happiness in our- selves, in our fellow creatures, or in our Creator; we may choose a. way that will lead us to imaginary and fading bliss, or to real and eternal happiness: or, to speak as the oracles of God, we may choose death or life. This being premised, I observe that our liberty consists, 1. In our lutely assent to Mr. Edwards’ doctrine, that the will always necessarily follows the last dictate of the understanding. I now think that in this respect Calvin’s judgment deserves our close attention :— Sic interdum flagitié turpitudo con- scientiam urget, ut non sibi imponens sub falsa boni imagine, sed sciens et volens, in malum ruat. Ex quo affectu prodeunt iste voces, ‘ Video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor?” (Inst. lib. 2, cap. 2, section 23.) Sometimes the horrid na~ ture of vice so urges the conscience, that the sinner, no longer imposing upon himself by the false appearance of good, knowingly and willingly rushes upon evil. Hence flow these words, I see and approve what is good, but follow what is bad. Since these sheets went to the press, I have seen Mr. Wesley’s Thoughts upon Necessity. He strongly sides with Calvin against Edwards. For after asserting that sometimes our first, sometimes our last judgment is according to the impres- sions we have received; that in some cases we may or may not receive those im- pressions; and that in most we may vary them greatly ; he denies that the will necessarily obeys the last judgment, and affirms that ‘the mind has an intrinsic power of cutting off the connection between the judgment and the will.” i a THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. : 189 being under no natural necessity with regard to our choice of the means by which we pursue happiness ; and, of consequence, with regard to our schemes and actions. I repeat it; by natural necessity I mean an abso- lute want of power to do the reverse of what is done. Thus by natural necessity an ounce is outweighed by a pound ; it can no ways help it: and a man, whose eyes are quite put out, cannot absolutely see the light, should he desire and endeavour it ever so much. Hence it appears, that when Peter denied his Master, he was under no natural necessity so to do; for he might have confessed him if he had pleased. When the martyrs confessed Christ, they might have denied him with oaths, if they had been so minded: and when David went to Uriah’s bed, he might have gone to his own. There was no shadow of natural necessity in the case. We may then, or we may not admit the truth or the lie, that is laid before us as a principle of action. Thus the eunuch, without necessity, admitted the truth delivered to him by Philip ; and Eve, without necessity, entertained the lie which was told her by the serpent. 2. Our liberty consists in a power carefully to consider whether what is presented to us as a principle of action is a truth or a lie; lest we should judge according to deceitful appearances. Our blessed Lord, by steadily using this power, steadily baffled the tempter: and Adam, by not making a proper use of it, was shamefully overcome. 3. It consists in a power, natural to all moral agents, to do acts of sin if they please, and in a supernatural or gracious power (bestowed for Christ’s sake upon fallen man) to forbear, with some degree of ease, doing sinful acts,* at least when we have not yet fully thrown ourselves down the declivity of temptation and passion; and when we have not yet contracted such strong habits as make virtue or vice morally neces- sary to us. 4, It consists in a gracious power to make diligent inquiry, and to apply in doubtful cases to “the Father of lights” for wisdom, before we practi- cally decide that such a doctrine is true, or that such an action is right. 'Had Eve and David used that power, the one would not have been deceived by a flattering serpent ; nor the other by an impure desire. But, 5. The highest degree of our liberty consists in a power to sus- pend a course of life entered upon ; to re-examine our principle, and to admit a new one, if it appear more suitable ; especially when we are particularly assisted by Divine grace, or strongly assaulted by tempta- tions adapted to our weakness. ‘Thus, by their gracious free agency, Manasses and the prodigal son suspended their bad course of life, * I make these exceptions for two reasons: (1.) Because I am sensible of the justness of Ovid’s advice to persons in love :— Principiis obsta, sero medicina paratur, &c. © For if love, and indeed any other violent passion, is not resisted at its first ap- pearance, it soon gets to such a height that it can hardly be mastered, till it has had its course. (2.) Because a habit strongly rooted is a second nature. Itis far easier to refrain from the first acts than to break off inveterate habits of virtue or of vice. In such cases, powerful, uncommon impulses of grace or of temptation are peculiarly necessary to throw us out of our beaten track. Hence the strong comparison of the prophet, “‘ Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also, that are accustomed to do evil, do good,”—without @ more than common assistance of Divine grace. + 190 EQUAL CHECK. : [parr weighed the case a second time for the better, admitted the nt Seah they once rejected, and from that new principle wrought righteousness : while, on the other hand, Solomon, Judas, and Demas, by their natural free agency suspended their good course of life, weighed the case a second time for the worse, admitted the lie which they once detested, and from that new principle wrought damnable iniquity. Is not this aecount of our real, though limited liberty, more agreeable to Scripture, reason, conscience, and experience, than the necessity maintained by Calvin- istic bound willers and Deistical fatalists ? I have already observed, (Equal Check, vol. i, p. 444,) that the seem- ingly contrary systems of those’ gentlemen, like the two opposite half diameters of a circle, meet in natural necessity, a central point which is common to both; Mr. Voltaire, who is the apostle of the Deistical world, and Mr. Edwards, who is the oracle of Calvinistic metaphy sicians, exactly agreeing to represent man as a mere, though willing | slave, to the circumstances in which he finds himself, and to load him from head to foot, and from the cradle to the grave, with the chains of absolute necessity, one link of which he can no more break, than he can make a world. Their error, if I mistake not, springs chiefly from their overlooking the important difference there is between natural necessity, and what the barrenness of language obliges me to call moral necessity. Hence it is that they perpetually confound real liberty, which is always of an active nature, with that kind of necessity in disguise, which I beg leave to call passive liberty. Clear definitions, illustrated by plain ex- amples, will make this intelligible ; will unravel the mystery of fatalism, and rescue the capital doctrine of liberty from its confinement in mysti- cal Babel. 1. A thing is done by natural- necessity, when it unavoidably takes place, according to the fixed laws of nature. Thus, by natural necessity, a serpent begets a serpent, and not a dove; a fallen man begets a fallen child, and not an angel ; a deaf man cannot hear, and a cripple cannot be a swift racer. 2. A thing is done by moral necessity, (if I may use that i improper expression,) when it is done by a free agent with a peculiar degree of readiness, resolution, and determination ; from strong motives, powerful arguments, confirmed habits ; and when it might nevertheless be done just the reverse, if the free agent pleased. Thus, by a low degree of moral necessity, chaste, conscientious Joseph struggled out of the arms -of his master’s wife, and cried out, “ How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” And, by a high degree of it, Satan hates holiness, God abhors sin, and Christ refused to fall down and worship the devil. 3. [have observed in the Second Check that Mr. Edwards’ celebra- ted Treatise upon Free Will turns in a great degree upon a comparison between balances and the will. 'To show more clearly the flaw of his performance, I beg leave to venture upon the zmproper, and, in one sense, contradictory expression of “ passive liberty.” By passive liberty (which might also be called mechanical liberty) I mean the readiness with which just scales turn upon the least weight thrown into either of them. Now it is certain that this /iberty (so called) is mere necessity ; for two even scales necessarily balance each other, and the heavier scale neces. sarily outweighs the lighter. According to the fixed laws of nature . * THIRD.] ’ SCRIPTURE SCALES. 191 -1t cannot be otherwise. It is evident, therefore, that when Mr. Ed- wards avails himself of such popular, improper expressions as these, * “Good scales are free to turn either way; just balances are at liberty to rise or fall by the least weight,” he absurdly imposes upon the moral world a mechanical freedom or liberty, which is mere necessity. His mistake is set in a still clearer light by the following definition :— 4. Active liberty is that of living creatures endued with a degree of power to use their fe aculties in various manners ; their prerogative is to have in general the weight that turns them, in a great degree, at their own disposal. Experience confirms this observation : how many stub- born beasts, for example, have died under the repeated strokes of their drivers, rather than move at their command! And how many thousand Jews chose to be destroyed rather than to be saved by Him who said, “How often would I have gathered you, &c, and ye would not! p? Hence it appears that active liberty subdivides itself into brutal liberty, and rational or moral liberty. 5. Brutal liberty belongs to beasts, and rational or moral liberty be- longs to men, angels, and God. By brutal liberty understand the power that beasts have to use their animal powers various ways, according to their instinct and at their pleasure. By rational liberty understand the power that God, angels, and men have to use their Divine, angelic, or human powers in various manners, according to their wisdom, and at their pleasure. Thus, while,an oak is tied fast by the root to the spot where it feeds and grows, a horse carries his own root along with him, ranging without necessity, and feeding as he pleases, all over his pas- ture. While a horse is thus employed, a man may either make a sad- dle for his back, a spur for his side, a collar for his shoulder, a stable for his conyeniency, or a carriage for him to draw: or, leaving these me- chanical businesses to others, he may think of the scourge that tore his Saviour’s back ; call to mind the spear that pierced his side; reflect upon the cross that galled his shoulder ; the stable where he was born ; and the bright carriage in which he went to heaven: or he may, by degrees, so inure himself to infidelity as to call the Gospel a fable, and Christ an impostor. According to these definitions it appears that our sphere of liberty increases with our powers. The more powers animals/have, and the more ways they can use those powers, the more brutal liberty they have also: thus those creatures that can, when they please, walk upon the earth, fly through the air, or swim in the water, as some sorts of fowls, have a more extensive liberty than a worm, which has the free- dom of one of those elements only, and that too in a very imper- fect degree. As by the help of a good horse a rider increases his power to move swiftly, and to go far: so by the help of science and application a phi- losopher can penetrate into the secrets of nature, and an Archytas or a Newton can Aerias tentare domos, animoque rotundum Transmigrare polum.* ‘ Such genses have undoubtedly more liberty of thought than those sots, * Soar to the stars, and with his mind travel round the universe. — 192 EQUAL CHECK. whose minds are fettered by ignorance and excess, and whose imag tion can just make shift to flutter from the tavern to the play ‘house:and back again. By a parity of reason, they who enjoy “ the glorious libe of the children of God,” who can in a moment collect their thoughts, fix them upon the noblest objects, and raise them not only to the stars, like Archytas, but to the throne of God, like St. Paul ;—they who can “become all things to all men, be content” in every station, and even “sing at midnight” in a dungeon, regardless of their empty stomachs, their : scourged ‘backs, and their “feet made fast in the stocks ;” they who can command their passions and appetites, who “are free from sin,” and find “ God’s service perfect freedom ;” these happy people, I say, enjoy far more liberty of heart, than the brutish men who are so enslaved to their appetites and passions, that they have just liberty enough left them, not to ravish the women they set their eyes upon, and not to murder the men they are angry with. But although the liberty of God’s children is “glorious” now, it will be far more glorious when their regenerate souls shall be matched in the great.day with bodies ~ blooming as youth, beautiful as angels, radiant as the sun, powerful as lightning, immortal as God, and capable of keeping pace with the Lamb, when he shall lead them to new fountains of bliss, and run with them the endless round of celestial delights. To return: innumerable are the degrees of liberty peculiar to various orders of creatures; but no animals are accountable to their owners for the use of their powers, but they which have a peculiar degree of knowledge. Nor are they accountable, but in proportion to the degree of their knowledge and liberty. Your horse, for instance, has power to walk, trot, and gallop : you want him to do it alternately ; and, if he does not obey you, when you have intimated your will to him in a manner suit- able to his capacity, you may, without folly and cruelty, spur or whip him ito a reasonable use of his liberty and powers; for inferior creatures are in subjection to their possessors in the Lord. But if his feet were tied, or his legs broken, and you spurred him to make him gallop; or if you whipped a hen to make her swim, or an ox to make him fly, you would exercise a foolish and tyrannical dominion over them. This cruel absurdity, however, or one tantamount, is charged upon Christ by those who pretend to “exalt him” most. They thus dishonour him, as often as they insinuate that the children of men have no more power to be- lieve, than hens to swim, or oxen to fly; and that the Father of mercies will damn a majority of them, for not using a power which he determined they should never have. Some people assert that man has a little liberty in nanattel but none in spiritual things. I dissent from them for the following reasons: (1.) All men (monsters not excepted) having a degree of the human form, they probably have also a degree of human capacity, a measure of those mental powers by which we receive the knowledge of God; a knowledge this, which no horse can have, and which is certainly of a spiritual nature. (2.) The same apostle, who informs us that “the natural man” (so called) the man who quenches the Spirit of grace under his dispen- — sations, “cannot know the things of the Spirit of God, because they are discerned” only by the light of the Spirit, which he quenches or resists,—the same apostle, I say, declares, that “ what may be known of THIRD.| SCRIPTURE SCALES. ~ 193 God, is manifest in them, [the most abandoned heathens ;] for God hath showed it unto them; so that they are without excuse ; because when they knew God, [in some degree,] they glorified him not as God,” according to the degree of that knowledge ; but became brutish, besotted persons ; or, to speak St. Paul’s language, “ they became vain in their imaginations ; they became fools; their foolish heart was darkened ; wherefore God gave them up to a reprobate mind,” and they were left in the deplorable condition of the Christian apostates described by St. Jude, “sensual, having not the Spirit :” in a word, they became Yuyixo1,*, mere animal men, the full reverse of spiritual men, 1 Cor. ii, 14. Far from being the wiser for “the light that [graciously] enlightens every man that cometh into the world,” they became “ inexcusable, by changing the truth _of God into a lie,” and turning their light to darkness, through the wrong use which they made of their liberty. When the advocates for necessity deny man the talent of spiritual liberty, which Divine wisdom and grace have bestowed upon him, they fondly exculpate themselves, and rashly charge God with Calvinistic reprobation. For who can think that an oyster is culpable for not flying as an eagle? And who can help shuddering at the cruelty of a tyrant, who, to show his sovereignty, bids all the idiots in his kingdom solve Euclid’s problems, if they will not be cast into a fiery furnace? Nor will it avail to say, as Elisha Coles and his admirers do, that though man has lost his power to obey, God has not lost his power to command upon pain of eternal death : for this is pouring poison into the wound, which the doctrine of natural necessity gives to the Divine attributes. Your slave runs a sportive race, falls, dislocates both his arms, and by that accident loses his power or liberty to serve you: in such circum- stances you may indeed find fault with him, for bringing this misfortune upon himself; but you show a great degree of folly and injustice if you blame him for not digging with his arms out of joint; and when you refuse him a surgeon, and insist upon his thrashing, unless he choose doubly to feel the weight of your vindictive hand, you betray an uncom- mon Want of good nature. But in how much more unfavourable a light would your conduct appear if his misfortune had been entailed upon him by one of his ancestors, who lost a race near six thousand years ago; and if you had given him a bond stamped with your own blood, to assure him that “your ways are equal,” and that you are “not an austere man,” that “ your mercy is over all your household,” and that punishing is your “strange work ?” : God is not such a master as the Calvinian doctrines of grace make him. For Christ’s sake he is always well pleased with the right use we make of our present degree of liberty, be that degree ever so little. For uncon- verted sinners themselves have some liberty. Fast tied and bound as they are with the chain of their sins, like chained dogs, they may move a little. If they have a mind they may, to a certain degree, come out * Yuyn is sometimes taken only for the principle of animal life. Thus, Rev. viii, 9, “‘ The third part of the sea became biood, and the third part of the crea- tures which wer? in the sea, and had ¥vyas [not natural but] animal life, died.” Hence Calvin himself renders the word ¥vyixos, animal man, though our trans- lators render it ‘‘ natural man,” as if the Greek word were ¢vo:xos. And upon their mistakes a vast majority of mankind are rashly represented as being abso lately destitute of all capacity to receive the saving truths of religion. Vou. II. 194 — EQUAL CHECK [PART of Satan’s kennel. When they are pinched with hunger or trouble, like the prodigal son, they may go a little way toward the bread and the cor- dial that came down from heaven; and when their chains gall their minds, they may give the Father of mercies to understand that they want “the pitifulness of his great mercy to loose them.” Happy the souls who thus meet God with their little degree of power! ‘Thrice happy they who go to him so far as their chain allows, and then groan with David, “ My belly cleaveth to the dust. Bring my soul out of pri- son, that 1 may praise thy name !” When this is the case, “the captive exile hasteneth that he may be loosed ;” they that are thus “ faithful over a few things,” will soon be “set over many things ;” they will soon experience an enlargement, and say with the psalmist, “ Thou hast en- larged my steps under me :” my liberty is increased. ‘TI will run the way of thy commandments.” | The defenders of necessity are chiefly led into their error by con- sidering the imperfection of our liberty, and the narrow limits of our — powers : hut they reason inconclusively who say, “ Our liberty is imper- fect: therefore we have none. ‘ Without Christ we can do nothing :’ therefore we have absolutely no power to do any thing.” As some ob- servations upon this part of my subject may reconcile the judicious and candid on both sides of the question, I venture upon making the follow- ing remarks :— All power, and therefore all liberty, has its bounds. The king of England can make war or peace when he pleases, and with whom he pleases ; and yet he cannot lay the most trifling tax without his parlia- ment. The power of Satan is circumscribed by God’s power. God’s own power is circumscribed by his other perfections: he cannot sin, because he is holy ; he cannot cause two and two to make six, because he is true; nor can he create and annihilate a thmg m the same instant, because he is wise. Our Lord’s power is circumscribed also: « Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.” If a degree of confinement is consistent with the liberty of omnipotence itself, how much more can a degree of restraint be consistent with our natural, civil, moral, and spiritual liberty! ‘Take an instance of it: (1.) With regard to natural liberty. Although you cannot fly, you may walk, but not upon the sea, as Peter did; nor thirty miles at once, as some people do; nor one mile when you are quite spent ; nor five yards when you have a broken leg. (2.) With respect to ezvil liberty. You are a free-born Englishman: nevertheless, you are not free from taxes ; and probably you have not the freedom of two cities in all the kingdom, On the other hand, St. Paul is Nero’s “ prisoner, bound with a chain,” and yet he swims te shore, he gathers sticks, makes a fire, and preaches “two years in his own hired house, nobody forbidding him.” (3.) With respect to moral liberty. When Nabal is in company with his fellow sots, has good wine before him, and is already heated by drinking, he cannot refrain himself, he must get drunk: but might he not have done violence to his inclination before his blood was inflamed? Conscious of his weakness, might he not at least have avoided the dangerous com- pany he is in, and the sight of the sparkling liquor, in which all his good resolutions are drowned? THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. * 195 Take one instance more of the imperfect liberty I plead for. Is not what I have said of civil, applicable to devotional liberty? You have not the power to Love God with all your heart; but may you not FEAR him a little? You cannot wrap yourself for one hour in the sublime contemplation of his glory; but may you not meditate for two minutes on death and judgment? St. Paul’s burning zeal is far above your sphere ; but is not the timorous inquistiveness of Nicodemus within your reach? You cannot attain the elevations of him who has ten talents of piety ; but may you not so use your one talent of consideration, as to gain two, four, eight, and so on, till the unsearchable riches of Christ are all yours? And, if I may allude to the emblematic pictures of the four evangelists, may you not ruminate upon earth with the ow of St. Luke, till you can look up to heaven with St. Matthew’s human face, fight against sin, with the courage of St. Mark’s lion, and soar up to- ward the Sun of righteousness, with the strong wings of St. John’s eagle ? Did not our Lord expect as much from the Pharisees, when he said to them, “ Ye hypocrites, how is it that you do not discern this [accepted ] time? Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right ?” Alas! how frequently do we complain of the want of power, when we have ten times more than we make use of! How many slothfully bury their talent, and peevishly charge God with giving them none! And how common is it to hear people, who are sincerely invited to the Gos- pel feast, say, “I cannot come,” who might roundly say, if they had Thomas’ honesty, “I will not believe!” The former of these pleas is indeed more decent than the latter: but is it not shamefully evasive ? And does it not amount to the following excuse :—“TI cannot come with- out taking up my cross; and as I wiil not do that, my coming is morally impossible?” A lame excuse this, which will pull down aggravated vengeance upon those who, by making it, trifle with truth, and their own souls, and with God himself. From the whole I conclude that our liberty, or free agency, consists in a limited ability to use our bodily and spiritual powers right or wrong at our option; and that: to deny mankind such an ability is as absurd as to say that a man cannot work, or beg, or steal, as he pleases ; bend the knee to God, or to Ashtaroth ; go to the house of prayer, or to the play house; turn a careless, or an attentive ear to a Divine message ; disbelieve, or give credit to an awful report ; slight, or consider a matter of fact; and act in a reasonable, or unreasonable manner, at his option. Is not this doctrine agreeable to the dictates of conscience, as well as to plain passages of Scripture? And when we maintain that, as often as our free will inclines to vital godliness\since the fall, it is touched, though not necessarily impelled by free grace: when we assert, in the words of our tenth article, that “‘ we have no power to do good works acceptable to God, without the grace of God, by Christ preventing [not forcing] us that we may have a coop will;” do we not sufficiently se- cure the honour of free grace? Say we not as much as David does in this passage: “Thy people [obedient believers] shall [or will] be willing [to execute thy judgments upon* thine enemies] in the day of thy power,” * That this is the true meaning of Psalm cx, 3, is evident from the context. Read the whole Psalm; compare it with Psalm ecxlix, 6; Mal. iv, 1, 2,3; and Rey. xix, 19; and you will see that ‘“‘the day of God’s power,” or ‘“‘the day of 196 EQUAL CHECK. [PART i. e. in the day of thy powerful wrath? Or, as we have it in the Common Prayer, “In the day of thy power shall the people offer free will [not bound will] offermgs?’ Do we not grant all that St. Paul affirms, when he says to the Philippians, ““ Work out your own salvation with fear, &c, for it is God that worketh in you both to wiz and to po?” i. e. God of his own good pleasure gives you a gracious talent of will and power: bury it not: use it “with fear:” lay it out “with trembling ;” lest God take it from you, and “give you up to a reprobate mind.” And is it not evident that these two passages, on which the rigid bound willers chiefly rest their mistake, are perfectly agreeable to the doctrine of the moderate free willers which runs through all the Scriptures, as the preceding pages demonstrate ? Tuirp Ossecrion or Zetores. Rational and Scriptural as the doc- trine of liberty is, President Edwards will root it up: and to succeed in his attempt, he fetches ingenious arguments from heaven and hell. . Superos, Acheronta movendo, he musters up all the subtleties of logic and metaphysics, with all the refinements of Calvinism, to defend his favourite doctrine of necessity. To the best of my remembrance, a considerable part of his book may be summed up in the following paragraph, which contains the most in- genious objections of the Calvinists :— The Arminians say that if we act necessarily we are neither punishable nor rewardable ; because we are neither worthy of blame, nor of praise. But the devil, who is punished, and who therefore is blameworthy, is necessarily wicked; he has no liberty to be good. And God, who de- serves ten thousand times more praises than we can give, is necessarily good; he has no liberty to be wicked. Hence it appears that the re- probates may be necessarily wicked like the devil, and yet may be justly punishable like him; and that the elect may be necessarily good like God and his angels, and yet that they may be, in their degree, praise- worthy like God, and rewardable like his angels. Therefore, the doctrine of the Calvinists is rational, as only supposing what is undeniable, namely, that necessary sins may jusily be punished in the reprobates ; and that necessary obedience may wisely be rewarded in the elect. And, on the other hand, the doctrine of the Arminians, who make so much ado about reason and piety, is both absurd and impious: absurd, as it supposes that the devil is not worthy of blame, because he sins neces- sarily ; and impious, as it msinuates that God does not deserve praise, because his goodness is necessary. This argument is plausible, and an answer to it shall conclude this dissertation, God is enthroned in goodness far above the region of evil; neither “can he be tempted of evil;” the excellence, unchange- ableness, and self sufficiency of his nature being every way infinite. He does not then exercise his liberty in choosing moral good or evil ; but, (1.) In choosing the various manners of enjoying himself accord- ing to al} the combinations that may result from his unity in trinity, and from his trinity in unity, (2.) In regulating the infinite variety of his external productions. (3.) In appointing the boundless diversity of God’s army,” is the day of his wrath against his enemies: a day this which is expressly mentioned two verses after, and described in the rest of the Psalm. eS —— —————— s ee ee ee THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 197 rewards and punishments, with which he crowns the obedience or dis- obedience of his rational creatures. (4.) In finding out different me- thods of overruling the free agency of men and angels; and of sus pending the laws by which he governs the material world. And, (5.) In stamping different classes of beings with different signatures of his eternal power and Godhead; and in indulging, with multifarious dis- coveries of himself, the innumerable inhabitants of the worlds which he has created, or may yet condescend to create. On the other hand, the devil is sunk far beldw the region of virtue and bliss ; neither can he be tempted of good, on account of his cohsum- mate wickedness, and fixed aversion to all holiness. His liberty of choice is not then exercised about moral good and evil; but about va- rious ways of doing mischief, procuring himself some ease, and trying to avoid the natural evils which he feels or fears. This is not the case of man, who inhabits, if I may use the expres. - sion, a@ middle region between heaven and hell; a region where light and darkness, virtue and vice, good and evil, blessing and cursing, are yet before him, and where he is in a state of probation, that he may be rewarded with heaven, or punished with hell, “ according to his good or bad works.” It is then as absurd in President Edwards to. confound our liberty with that of God and of the devil, as it would be in a geographer to confound the equinoctial line with the two poles. A comparison may illustrate this conclusion. As the mechanical liberty of a pair of just scales consists in a power gradually to ascend as high, or to descend as low as the play of the beam permits; so the moral liberty of rationals 2m a state of probation, consists in a gracious power gradually to ascend in goodness quite to their zenith in heaven, and in a natural power to descend in wickedness quite to their nadir in hell ; so immensely great is the play of the moral scales! God’s will, by the perfection of his nature, being immovably fixed in the height of all goodness, cannot stoop to an inferior good, much less to evil: and the devil, being sunk in the depth of all wickedness, and daily confirm- ing himself in his iniquity, can no more rise in pursuit of goodness. Thus the presence of all wickedness keeps the scale of the prince of darkness fixedly sunk to the nethermost hell; while the absence of all unrighteousness keeps the scale of the Father of lights fixedly raised to the highest pitch of heavenly excellence. God is then quite above, and Satan quite below a state of probation. The one is good, and the other evil, in the highest degree of moral necessity. Not so man, who hovers yet between the world of light and the world of darkness—man, who has life and death, salvation and damnation placed within his reach, and who is called to “stretch forth his hand” to that which he will have, that “the reward of his hands may be given him.” Nor does it follow from this doctrine that God’s goodness is not praise- worthy, and that Satan’s wickedness is not worthy of blame: for although God is fixedly good, and Satan fixedly wicked, yet the goodness of God, and the wickedness of the devil are still of a moral nature ; and there- fore commendable or discommendable. I mean, (1.) That God’s good- hess consists in the perfect rectitude of his eternal will, and not in a want of power to do an act of injustice. And, (2.) That the devil’s wickedness consists in the complete perverseness of his obstinate will, 198 EQUAL CHECK. [part and not in a complete want of power to do what is right. Examples will explain this :— A rock cannot do an act of justice or an act of injustice, because reason and free agency do not belong to a stone; therefore,*the praise of justice and the dispraise of injustice, can never be wisely bestowed upon arock. Ifa rock fall upon the man who is going to murder you, and crushes him to death, you cannot seriously return it thanks ; because it fell without any good intention toward you ; nor could it possibly help falling just then.* Not so’ the “ Rock of ages,” the parent of rationals and free agents: he does justice with the highest certainty, and yet with the highest liberty: I say with the highest liberty ; because, if he would, he coup, with the greatest ease, do what to me appears inconsistent with the Scriptural description of his attributes. Could he not, for ex- ample, to please Zelotes, make “efficacious decrees” of absolute repro- bation, that he might secure the sin and damnation of his unborn crea- tures? Could he not protest again and again that “he willeth not primarily the death of sinners, but rather that they should turn and live ;” when, nevertheless, he has primarily, yea absolutely appointed that most of them shall never turn and live? Could he not openly “command all men every where to repent,” upon pain of eternal death, and yet keep most men every where from repenting, by giving them up to a reprobate mind from their mother’s womb, as he is supposed to have done by the myriads of “ poor creatures” for whom, if we believe the advocates of Calvinistic grace, Christ never procured one single grain of penitential grace? Could he not invite “all the ends of the earth to look unto him, and be saved,” and call himself the Saviour o the world, and the Saviour of all men, though especially of them that be- lieve, (of all men by initial salvation ; and of them that believe and obey by eternal salvation,) when yet he determined from all eternity that there should be neither Saviour nor initial salvation, but only a damner and finished damnation for the majority of mankind? Could he not have caused his only begotten Son to assume a human form, and to weep, yea, bleed over obstinate sinners ; protesting that he “ came to save the world, and to gather them as a hen gathers her brood under her wings ;” when yet from all eternity he had absolutely ordained* their wicked- ness and damnation to illustrate his glory? In a word, could he not prevaricate from morning till night, like the God extolled by Zelotes,— a God this, who is represented as sending his ministers to preach the * When Calvin speaks of the absolute destruction of ‘‘so many nations, which, (una cum liberis eorum infantibus,) together with their little children, are involved without remedy in eternal death by the fall,” he says that ‘* God foreknew their end before he made man;” and he accounts for his foreknowledge thus: “* He foreknew it, because he had ordained it by his decree :” a decree this, which three lines above he calls “ horribly awful.” ‘‘Et ideo prescivit, quia decreto suo sic ordinarat. Decretum quidem horribile, fateor.’ And in the next chapter he ob- serves, that, ‘‘ Forasmuch as the reprobates do not obey the word of God, we may well charge their disobedience upon the wickedness of their hearts; provided we add at the same time that they were devoted to this wickedness, because, by the just and unsearchable judgment of God, they were raised up to illustrate his glory by their damnation.” ‘‘ Modo simul adjicilur, ideo in hanc pravitatem addictos, quia justo, et inscrutabili Dei judicio suscitati sunt, ad gloriam ejus sua damna- lione illustrandam.” This Calvinism unmasked may be seen in Calvin’s Insti. tutes, third book, chap. 23, sec. 7, and chap. 24, sec. 14, THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 199 Gospel [i. e. to offer “finished and eternal salvation” ] to every creature, when his unconditional, efficacious decree of reprobation, and the par- tiality of Christ’s atonement, leave to multiplied millions no other pros- pect, but that of finished and eternal damnation? Could not God, I say, do all this if he would? Do not even some good men indirectly represent him as having acted, and as continuing to act in that manner Now if he does it not, when he has full power to do it; if he is de- termined not to sully his veracity by such shuffling, his goodness by such barbarity, his justice by such unrighteousness ; or, to use Abra- ham’s bold expression, if “the Judge of all the earth does right,” when, if he would, he could do wrong, to set off his “sovereignty” before a Calyinistic world; is not his goodness praiseworthy? Is it not of the moral kind ? The same might be said of the devil’s wickedness. Though he is confirmed in it, is it not still of a moral nature? Is there any other restraint laid upon his repenting, but that which he first lays himself? Could he not confess his rebellion, and suspend some acts of it, if he would? Could he not of two sins, which he has an opportunity to com- mit, choose the least, ¢f he were so minded? But, granting that he has lost all moral free agency, granting that he sins necessarily, or that he could do nothing better 2f he would ; I ask, Who brought this absolute necessity of sinning upon him? Was it another devil who rebelled five thousand years before him? You say, No; he brought it upon himself by his wilful, personal, unnecessary sin: and I reply, Then he is blame- worthy for wilfully, personally, and unnecessarily bringing that horrible misfortune upon himself: and therefore his case has nothing to do with the case of the children of men, who have the depravity of another entailed upon them, without any personal choice of their own. ‘Thus, if I mistake not, the doctrine of liberty, like the bespattered swan of the fable, by diving a moment in the limpid streams of truth, emerges fairer, and appears purer, for the aspersions cast upon it by rigid bound willers and fatalists, headed by Mr. Edwards and Mr. Voltaire. SECTION VIII. The fourth objection of Zelotes to a reconciliation with Honestus—in answer to it the reconciler proves, by a variety of quotations from the writings of the fathers, and of some eminent divines, and by the tenth article of our Church, that the doctrines of free grace and free will, as they are laid down in the Scripture Scales, are the very doctrines of the primitive Church, and of the Church of England—These doc- trines widely differ from the tenets of the Pelagians and ancient semi- Pelagians. Oxsection IV. “You have done your best to vindicate the doctrine of moderate free willers, and to point out a middle way between the sentiments of Honestus and mine, or to speak your own language, between rigid free willers and rigid bound willers: but vou have not yet gained your end: for, if you have Pelagius and Mr. Wesley on your 200 EQUAL CHECK. [Parr side, the primitive Church and the Church of England are for us: nor are we afraid to err in so good company.” Answer. Ihave already observed that, like true Protestants, we rest our cause upon right reason and plain scriptures : and that both are for us, the preceding sections, [ hope, abundantly prove. Nevertheless, to show you that the two Gospel axioms can be defended upon any ground, I shall, first, call in the Greek and Latin fathers, that you may hear from their own mouths how greatly they dissent from you. Secondly, to cdr- roborate their testimony I shall show that St. Augustine himself, and judicious Calvinists have granted all that we contend for concerning free will and the conditionality of efernal salvation. And, thirdly, I shall confirm the sentiment of the fathers by our articles of religion, one of which particularly guards the doctrine of free will evangelically connected with and subordinated to free grace. I. I grant that when St. Augustine was heated by his controversy with Pelagius, he leaned too much toward the doctrine of fate ; meaning by it the overruling, efficacious will and power of the Deity, whereby he sometimes rashly hinted that all things happen: (see the note, page 185:) but in his best moments he happily dissented from himself, and agreed with the other fathers. ‘Take some proofs of their aversion to fatalism and bound will, and of their attachment to our supposed “heresy.” 1. Jusrry Marryr, who flourished in the second century, says :— Si fato fieret ut esset aut improbus aut bonus ; nec alii quidem probi essent, nec alix mali. (Apol. 2.) That is, “If it happen by fate (or necessity) that men are either good or wicked ; the good were not good, nor should the wicked be wicked.” 2. TeRTULLIAN, his contemporary, is of the same sentiment: Ceterum nec boni nec mali merces jure pensaretur e2, qui aut bonus aut malus neces- sitate fuit inventus, non voluntate. (Trrr. lib. 2, contra Mare.) “No reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment justly inflicted upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice.” In the fifth chapter of the same book he asserts that God has granted man liberty of choice, ué sui dominus constanter occurreret, et bono sponte ser- vando, et malo sponte vitando: quoniam et alias positum homineti ie judicio Det, oportebat justum illud efficere de arbitrii sui meritis: “that he might constantly be master of his own conduct by voluntarily doing good, and by voluntarily avoiding evil: because, man being appointed for God’s judgment, it was necessary to the justice of God’s sentence that man should be judged according to [meritis] the deserts of his free will.” 3. Irenzxus, bishop of Lyons, who flourished also in the second cen- tury, bears thus his testimony against bound will :—Homo vero ration- abilis, et secundum hoc similis Deo, liber arbitrio factus, et sue potestatis, ipse sibi causa est ut aliquando quidem frumentum, aliquando autem palea fiat ; quapropter et juste condemnabitur. (Lib. iv, adv. Heret. cap. 9.) That is, “Man, a reasonable being, and in that respect like God, is made free in his will; and being endued with power to conduct himself, he is a cause of his becoming sometimes wheat and sometimes chaff ;* * According to the doctrine maintained in these pages, God is the first cause PHIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 201 therefore will he be justly condemned.” Again: Dedit ergo Deus bonum, &c, et qui operantur quidum illud, gloriam et honorem percipient, quonium operati sunt bonum, cum possent non operari illud. Hi autem qui illud non operantur, judicium Dei nostri recipient, quoniam non sunt operati bonum cum possent operari illud : “ God gives goodness, and they who do good shall obtain honour and glory; because they have done good, when they could forbear doing it. . And they who do it not, shall receive the just judgment of our God ; because they have not done good, when they could have done it.” Once more: Non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum, et sue potestatis, arbitrium servavit homini Deus. (ibid. lib. 4, cap. 62.) “God has left man’s will free, and at his own disposal, not only with regard to works, but also with regard to faith.” Nor did Irenzeus say here more than St. Augustine does in this well-known sentence: Posse credere est omnium, credere vero fidelium : “To have a power to believe is the prerogative of all men; but actually to believe is the prerogative of the faithful.” 4. Ortcen nobly contends for liberty: he grants rather too much than too little of it: he continually recommends xaryv wpooupetw, “a good choice,” which he frequently calls cyy porny rsx auregsciz, “the inclination of the powerful principle whereby we are masters of our own conduct.” He observes that we are not at liberty to see, but (ro xpivoi— To xpncaddo ryv pomnv, ryv svdoxyndw) “to judge; to use our power of choice and our approbation.” And int the solution of some scriptures, which seem to contradict one another, he refutes the sentiment of those who reject the doctrine of our co-operating with Divine grace, and who think zx yusrepov epyov sivou ro xat’ apsrny Eisv, aAAM wavra Seiov Yopiv, “That it is not our own work to lead a virtuous life, but that it is entirely the work of Divine grace.” 5. Sr. Cyprian and Lacranrius speak the same language, as the learned reader may see by turning to the seventh book of Vossius’ His- tory of Pelagianism. Nor did St. Basil dissent from them, if we may judge of his sentiments by the following passage, which is extracted from his thirty-seventh homily, where he proves that God is not the author of evil:—“ What is forced is not pleasing to God, but what is fone from a truly virtuous motive: and virtue comes from the will, not . from necessity.” Hence it appears that, in this father’s account, neces- sity 1s a kind of compulsion contrary to the freedom of the will. “ For,” adds he, “the will depends on what is within us; and within us is free will.” 6. Grecorius Nyssenus is of one mind with his brother Sr. Basix. For speaking of faith, he says, that it is placed “within the reach of our free election.” And again: “We say of faith what the Gospel contains, namely, that he who is begotten by spiritual regeneraticn, knows of whom he is begotten, and what kind of a living creature he becomes. For spiritual regeneration is the only kind of regeneration _ which puts it in our power to become what we choose to be.” (Greg. Catech. Disc. chap. 36, and chap. 6.) 7. Sr. Curysosrom is so noted an advocate for free will, that Canvin complains first of him. Part of Calvin’s complaint runs thus :—Habet of our conversion, or of our ‘‘ becoming wheat.” But man is the first cause of his own perversion, or his ‘“‘becoming chaff.” 202 4 EQUAL CHECK. [part Chrysostomus alicubi, &c. (Inst. lib, 2, cap. 2, sec. 4.) That is, “St. Chrysostom says somewhere, ‘Forasmuch as God has put good and evil in our own power, (electionis liberwn donavit arbitrium,) he has given us a free power to choose the one or the other; and as he does not retain us against our will, so he embraces us when we are willing.’ ” Again: “Often a wicked man, if he will, is changed into a good man; and a good man, through sloth, falls away* and becomes wicked ; because God has endued us with free agency: nor does he make us do things necessarily, but he places proper remedies before us, and suffers all to be done according to the will of the patient,” é&e. From these words of St. Chrysostom, Calvin draws this conclusion :—Porro Greer pre aliis, atque inter eos singulariter Chrysostomus, in eatollenda humane voluntatis facultate modu excesserunt. 'That is, “* The Greek fathers above others, and among them especially Chrysostom, have exceeded the bounds in extolling the power of the human will.” Hence it appears that, Calvin himself being judge, the fathers, but more parti- cularly the Greek fathers, and among them St. Chrysostom, strongly opposed bound will and necessity. 8. Sr. AmBrosz, a Latin father, was also a strenuous defender of the second Gospel axiom, which stands or falls with the doctrine of free will. Take two proofs of it :—Jdeo omnibus opera sanitatis detulit, ut quicunque periret mortis sue causas sibi adscribat ; qui curari noluit cum remedium haberet quo posset evadere. (Amb. lib. 2, de Cain et Abel, cap. 12.) That is, “ God affords to all the means of recovery, that whoever perishes may impute his own destruction to himself; for- asmuch as he would not be cured when he had a remedy whereby he might have escaped.” Again, commenting upon these words of Christ, “Jt is not mine to give,” &c, he says, Non est meum qui Justitiam servo, non Gratiam. Denique ad Patrem referens addidit, * Quibus paratum est,” ut ostendat Patrem quoque non petitionibus deferre solere, sed mE- RITIs; quia Deus personarum acceptor non est. Unde et apostolus ait, “ Quos prescivit predestinavit.” Non enim ante predestinavit. (Amb. . de fide. cap. 4.) That is, “It is not mine [to give the next seat to my person] in point of justice, for I do not speak in point of favour; referring the matter to his Father, he adds, To them for whom it is pre- pared, to show that the Father also [in point of reward] is not wont to - yield to prayer, but (meritis) to worthiness ; because God [when he aets * T have advanced several arguments to prove that Judas was sincere, when Christ chose him to the apostleship. I beg leave to confirm them by the judgment of two of the fathers. St.Chrysostom, in his fifty-second discourse, says, O Iovda; Baowewas vios Towrov nv, &c. That is, ‘“‘ Judas was at first a child of the kingdom, and heard it said to him with the disciples, ‘ You shall sit upon twelve thrones ? but at last he became a child of hell.” And St. Ambrose, upon Rom. ix, 13, nas these remarkable words, Non est personarum acceptio in prescientia Dei, &c, That is, ‘‘ There is no respect of persons in God’s foreknowledge ; for prescience is that whereby he knows assuredly how the will of every man will be, in which he will continue, and by which he shall be damned or crowned, &c. They who, as God knows also, will persevere in goodness, are frequently bad before ; and they who, as he knows also, will be found evil at last, are sometimes good before, &c. For both Saul and Judas were once good.” Hence it is, that he says, in another place, ‘‘Sometimes they are at first good, who afterward become and continue evil ane in this respect they are said to be written in the book of life, and blotted out of it.” a : THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 203 as judge and rewarder] is no respecter of persons. Hence it is that the apostle says, Those whom God foreknew he predestinated. For he did not predestinate to reward them before he foreknew them” [as persons fit to be rewarded.] From this excellent quotation it appears that St. Ambrose maintained the two Gospel axioms, or the doctrines of grace and justice, of favour and worthiness, on which hang the election of dis- tinguishing grace, and the election of remunerative justice, which the Calvinists perpetually confound, and which I have explained, section twelfth. 9. Sr. JrRome, warm as he was against Pelagius, is‘evidently of the same mind with the other fathers, where he says:—Liberi arbitrii nos condidit Deus. Nec ad virtutes nec ad vitia necessitate trahimur, Alio- quin ubt necessitas est, nec damnatio nec corona est. That is, “God hath endued us with free will. We are not necessarily drawn either to virtue or to vice. For where necessity rules, there is no room left either for damnation or for the crown.” Again, in his third book against the Pelagians, he says :—Etiam his qui mali futuri sunt, dari protestatem conversionis et penitentie. ‘That is, “‘ Even to those who shall be wicked, God gives power to repent and turn to him.” Again, upon Isaiah i, Liberum servat arbitrium, ut in utramque pariem, non ex prejudicio Dei, sed ex meritis singulorum, vel pena vel premium sit. “Our willis kept free to turn either way, that God may dispense his rewards and punish- ments, not according to his own prejudice, but according to the merits [that is, according to the works] of every one.” Once more: he says to Ctesi- phon, Frustra blasphemas, et ignorantium auribus ingeris, nos Liberium Arbitrium condemnare. Damnetur ille qui damnat. 'That is, “« You speak evil 6f us without ground ; you tell the ignorant that we condemn free will; but let the man who condemns it, be condemned.” When I read these explicit testimonies of Sr. Jerome, in favour of free will, I no longer wonder that Calvin should find fault with him, as well as with Sr. Curysosrom. Take Calvin’s own words: (Inst. lib. 2, cap. 2, sec. 4.) Ait Hieronymus (Dial. 3, contra Pelag. &c.) Nostrum [est] offerre quod possumus ; Iilius [Dea] ‘implere quod non possumus. « Jerome. says, (in his third dialogue against Pelagianism,) at is our part ‘to offer what we can. It is God’s part to fill up what we cannot. You see clearly by these quotations,” adds Calvin, “ that they [these fathers, upon the Calvinian plan,] attributed to man too much power to be virtu- ous.” Such a conclusion naturally becomes Calvin. But what I cannot help wondering at is, that Zelotes should indifferently call all the advo- cates for free will, Pelagians, when St. Jerome, who, next to St. Augus-. tine, distinguished himszlIf by his opposition to Pelagianism, is so strenu- ous a defender of the doctrine of free will, in the books which he wrote against Pelagius. 10. Evipwantus confirms this doctrine where he says, Sane quidem justius a stellis, que necessitatem pariunt, pene repetantur, quam ab eo qui quod agit necessitate aductus aggreditur. (Epiph. advers. Her. |. 1.) “Tt would be more just to punish the stars, which make a wicked action necessary, than to punish the poor man, who does that wicked action by necessity.” He expresses hymself still more strongly in the same book. Speaking of the Pharisees, who were rigid Predestinarians, he says, Est illud vero extreme cujusdam imperitie, ne dicam amentie, cum resurrec- 204 EQUAL CHECK. [PART tionem mortuorum esse fateare, ac justissimum cujusque facti judicium constitutum, fatum nihilominus esse ullum asserere. Qui enim duo ista convenire possunt, JuDIcIUM atque FaTuM! That is, “It is extreme ignorance, not to say madness, to allow the resurrection of the dead, and a day of most righteous judgment for every action; and at the same time to assert that there is a destiny; for how can these two agree together, a JUDGMENT AND A DesTINy?” (or necessity ?) 11. Sr. Bernarp grants rather more liberty than I contend for, where he says, Sola voluntas, quoniam pro ingentta libertate aut dissentire sibi, aut preter se in aliquo consentire nulla vi nulla cogitur necessitate, non immerito justum vel injustum, beatitudine seu miseria dignam ac capacem creaturam constituit, prout scilicet justitie, injustitieve consenserit. (Bern. De Grat. et lib. Arb.) That is, “The will alone can make a man deservedly just or unjust, and can deservedly render him fit for bliss or misery, as it consents either to righteousness or to iniquity ; forasmuch as the will, according to its innate liberty, cannot be forced to will or nill any thing against its own dictates.” 12. Cyrittus ALExaNnprivs upon John, (book vi,.chap. 21,) vindica- ting God’s goodness against the horrid hints of those who make him the author of sin, as all rigid Predestinarians do, says with great truth :— The visible sun rises above our horizon, that it may communicate the gift of its brightness to all, and make its light shine upon all; but if any one shut his eyes or willingly turn himself from the sun, refusing the bene- fit of its light, he wants its illumination, and remains in darkness: not through the fault of the sun, but through his own fault. ‘Thus the true Sun who came.to enlighten those that sit in darkness, visited the earth, that in different manners and degrees he might impart to all the gift of knowledge and grace, and illuminate the inward eyes of all, &c. But many reject the gift of this heavenly light freely given to them, and have closed the eyes of their minds, lest so excellent an irradiation of the eternal light should shine unto them. It is not then through the defect of the true Sun, but only through their own iniquity,” i. e. through their own perverse free will. And, (book i, chap. 11,) the same father, speaking on the same subject, says, “ Let not the world accuse the word — of God and his eternal light; but its own weakness: for the Sun en- lightens, but man rejects the grace that is given him, blunts the edge of the understanding granted him, &c, and, as a prodigal, turns his sight to the creatures, neglecting to go forward, and through laziness and negligence [not through necessity and predestination] buries the illumination, and despises this grace.’ 13. Cremens ALEXANDRINUs is exactly of the same sentiment for, calling “the Divine word” what St. Cyril calls “ Divine light,” he says, «The Divine word has cried ; calling all, knowing well those that will not obey; and yet, because it is 7n our power, either to obey or not to obey, that none may plead ignorance, it has made a righteous call, and requireth but that which is according to the ability and strength of every one.” (Crem. Arex. Strom. book ii.) 14, The father who wrote the book De Vocatione Gentium, says, Si- cut qui crediderunt juvantur ut in fide maneant ; ita qui nondum credide- runt, juvantur ut credant: et quemadmodum illi in sua potestate habent, ut exeant ; ita et istt in sua habent potestate ut veniant. ‘That is, “ As they - THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. . 205 that have believed are helped to abide in the faith; so they that have not yet believed are helped to believe ; and as the former have it in their power to go out, so the latter have it in their power to come in.” _ 15. Arnostus produces this objection of a heathen: “If the Saviour of mankind be come, as you say, why does he not save all?” and he answers it thus :—Patet omnibus fons vite, &c. That is,‘ The fountain of life is open to all, nor is any one deprived of the right of drinking : but if thy pride be so great that thou refusest the offered gift and bene- fits, &c, why dost thou blame him [Christ] who invites thee,” cujus sole sunt he partes, ut sub tui juris arbitrio fructum sue benignitatis exponat ? (Arn. Contra Gentes, lib. 2,) ‘whose full part it is to submit the frui of his bounty to a choice that depends upon thyself?” , 16. Prosper, although he was St. Augustine’s disciple, does justice to the truth which I maintain. For speaking of some that fell away from holiness to uncleanness, he says, Non ex eo necessilatem pereundi habuerunt quia predestinati non sunt; sed ideo predestinati non sunt ; quia tales futuri ex voluitaria prevaricatione presciti sunt. (Prosp. Ad. Ob. iii, Gall.) That is, “ They did not lie under a necessity of perish- ing because they were not elected [to a crown of life ;] but they were not elected [to that reward] because they were foreknown to be such as they are by their voluntary iniquity.” The same father allows that it is absurd to believe a day of judgment, and to deny free will. Judicium futurum, says he, omnino non esset si homines Dei voluntate peccarent. (Pros. ad. 0bj. 10, Vince.) That is, “By no means would there be a day of judgment, if men sinned by the «will or decree of God.” The rea- son is plain, if we sinned through any necessity laid on us by “the will of God,” or by predestinating fate, we might say, like the heathen poet, Fati ista culpa est ; nemo fit fato nocens: “It is the fault of fate: neces- sity excuses any one.” 17. Fuiernrivs, although he was also St. Augustine’s disciple, cuts up the docirine of bound will by the root, where he says :—Nec justiiia justia dicetur, si puniendum reum non invenisse, sed fecisse dicatur. Ma- jor vero injustitia, si lapso Deus retribuat penam, quem stantem dicitur predestinasse ad ruinam.” (Fute. |. 1, ad Mon. cap. 22.) That is, “Justice could not be said to be just if it did not find, but made man an offender. And the injustice would be still greater, if God, after having predestinated a man to ruin when he stood, inflicted punishment upon him after his fall.” 18. If any of the fathers is a rigid bound willer, it is heated Aveus- TINE : nevertheless, in his cool moments, he grants as much free will as I contend for. Hear him: Nos quidem sub fato stellarum nullius homi. nis genesim ponimus, ut liberum arbitrium voluniatis, quo bene vel male viviiur, propter justum Dei judicium ab omni necessitalis vinculo vindt- cemus. (Auc. 1, 2, conir. Faust. c. 5.) That is, “ We place no man’s nativity under the fatal power of the stars, that we may assert the liberty of the will, whereby our actions are rendered either moral or immoral, and keep it free from every bond of necessity, on account of the mghteous judgment of God.” Again: Nemo habet in potestate quid veniat in men- tem ; sed conseniire vel dissentire proprie voluntatis est. (Auc. De Litera et Spiritu, cap. 34.) That is, “ Nobody can help what comes into his mind ; but to consent or to dissent from involuntary suggestions, is the pre- 206 EQUAL CHECK. _ [Parr rogative of our own will.”* Once more: Jnitium salutis nostre a Deo miserante habemus ; ut acquiescamus salutifere inspirationi, nostre est potestatis. (De Dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, cap. 21.) That is, “The — beginning of our salvation flows from the merciful God; but it is in our power to consent to his saving inspiration.” And what he means by “having a thing in our power,” he explains in these words, Hoe quis- que in sua potestate habere dicitur, quod si vult facit, si non vult non fa- cit. (Auc. De Spir. et lit. c. 31.) That is, “ Every one has that in his own power which he does if he will, and which he ean forbear doing if he will not do it.” Agreeable to this is that rational observation, which, I think, is St. Augustine’s, also :—Si non est liberum arbitrium, non est quod salvetur. Si non est gratia, non est unde salvetur: “If there be no free will, there is nothing to be saved: if there be no free grace, there is nothing whereby we may be saved :” a golden saying this, which is as weighty as my motto, “If you take away free grace, how does God save the world? And if you take away free will, how does he judge the world?” So great is the force of truth, that the same prejudiced father, com- menting upon this text, “ Every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself,” 1 John iii, 3, does not scruple to say :—“ Behold after what manner he has not taken away free will, that the apostle should say, ‘keepeth himself pure.’ Who keepeth us pure, except God? But God keepeth thee not thus against thy will. Therefore inasmuch as thou. joinest thy will to God, thou keepest thyself pure. Thou keepest thy- self pure, not of thyself, but by him who comes to dwell in thee. Yet because in this thou dost something of thine own will, therefore is some- thing also attributed to thee. Yet so it is ascribed to thee, that still thou mayest say, with the psalmist, ‘ Lord, be thou my helper!’ If thou sayest, ‘Be thou my helper,’ thou dost something ; for if thou dost nothing, how does he helo?” Happy would it have been for the Church if St. Au- gustine haa always done justice in this manner to the second, as well as to the first Gospel axiom! He would not have paved the way for free wrath, and Antinomian free grace. Nor could Mr. Wesley do more justice to both Gospel axioms than Augustine does in the following words :—WNon illi debent sibi tribuere, qui venerunt, quia vocati vene- runt: nec illt, qui noluerant venire, debuerant alteri tribuere, sed tan- tum sibi: quia ut venirent vocati in libera erat voluntate. (Ave. lib. 83, Questionum.) “They that came [to Christ] ought not to impute it to themselves, because they came, being called: and they that would not come, ought not to impute it to another, but only to themselves, be- * Dr. Tucker judiciously unfolds St. Augustine’s thought, where he says, ‘“There is a sense, in which it may be allowed on the semi-Pelagian, [semi- Augustinian] or Arminian plan, that grace is irresistible: but it is a sense that can do no manner of service to the cause of Calvinism. Grace, for instance, especially prevenient, or preventing grace may be considered as a precious gift, or universal endowment, like the common gifts of health, strength, &c, in which case the recipient must necessarily receive them; for he has not a power to refuse. But after he has received them, he may choose whether he will apply them to any good and salutary purposes or not: and on this freedom of choice rests the proper distinction between good and evil, virtue and vice, mo- rality and immorality. Grace therefore must be received; but, after it is received, it may be abused: the talent may be hid in a napkin, and the Spirit may be quenched, or have a despite done to it.” : - THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 207 cause, when they were called, it was in the power of ¢heir free will to come.” Deus non deserit nisi desertus: “God forsakes no man, un- less he be first forsaken.” (Quest. 68.) Here is a right dividing of the word of truth! a giving God the glory of our salvation, without charging him with our destruction ! Nay, Sr. Jerome and Sr. Auveusrine, notwithstanding their warmth against Pelagius, have not only at times strongly maintained our remu- nerative election ; but by not immediately securing the election of dis- tinguishing -grace, they have really granted him far more than I in conscience can do. ‘Take the following instances of it :— Sr. Jerome upon Gal. i, says, Ex Dei prescientia evenit, ut quem scit justum futurum, prius diligat quam oriatur ex utero: “It is owing to God’s prescience that he loves those who he foresees will become just, before they come out of their mother’s womb.” Again, upon Mal. i, he says, Dilectio et odium Dei vel ex prescientia nascitur fuiurorum vel ex operibus: “God’s love and hatred spring from his foreknowledge of future events, or from our works.” Nay, in his very dispute with the Pelagians, (book ii,) he declares that God eligit quem bonum cernit, “chooses him whom he sees good :” which is entirely agreeable to this unguarded assertion of St. Augustine :—Nemo eligitur nisi jam distans ab illo qui rejicitur. Unde quod dictum est, quia “ elegit nos Deus ante mundi constitutionem,” non video quomodo sit dictum, nisi de pre- scientia fidei et operum pietatis. (AuG. Quest. 2, ad Simplicianum.), That is, Nobody is chosen but as he already differs from him that is rejected. Nor do I see how it can be said that “God has chosen us before the beginning of the world,” unless this be said with respect to God’s foreknowledge of our faith and works of piety.” * I call these assertions of St. Jerome and St. Augustine “ unguarded,” because they so maintain the election of remunerative justice as to leave no room for the election of distinguishing grace, which I have main- tained in my exposition of Rom. ix, and Eph. i: an election this, which the Pelagians overlook, and which St. Paul secures when he says that God chose Jacob to the privileges of the covenant of peculiarity, “ before he had done any good, that the purpose of God according to the elec- tion [of superior grace] might stand not of works, but of [the superior kindness of ] him that calleth :” an important election this, inconsistently given up by St. Augustine, when speaking of Jacob he says, in the aboye-quoted treatise, Non electus est ut fieret bonus, sed bonus factus eligi potuit: “He was not chosen that he might become good; but, being made good, he could be chosen.” I shall close these quotations from. the fathers, with one more from St. Irenzeus, who was Polycarp’s disciple, and flourished immediately after the apostolic age :—Quoniam omnes ejusdem sunt nature, et potentes relinere et operari bonum, et potentes rursum amittere id, et non facere ; juste apud homines sensatos, quanto magis apud Deum, ali quidem laudan- tur, et dignum percipiunt testimonium electionis bone, et perseverantie ; alii vero accusantur, et dignum percipiunt damnum eo quod justum et bonum reprobaverunt. (Iren. Adv. Her. lib. wv, cap. 74.) ‘That is, “ Forasmuch as all men are of the same nature, having power to held and to do that which is good, and having power again to lose it, and not to do what is right; before men of sense, (and how much more before 208 EQUAL CHECK. : [PaRT God!) some are justly praised, and receive a worthy testimony, for making a good choice and persevering therein; while others are justly accused, and receive condign punishment, because they refused what is just and sight.” If I am not mistaken, the preceding quotations prove, (1.) That the fathers in general pleaded for as much free will as we contend for. (2.) That the two champions of the doctrines of grace, Prosper and Fulgentius, and their Predestinarian leader, St. Augustine, when they considered (justum Dei judicium) “the righteous judgment of God,” have (at times at least) maintained the doctrine of liberty as strongly as the rest of the fathers. And, (3.) That St. Augustine himself was so carried away once by the force of the arguments and scriptures which support the remunerative election of impartial justice, as rashly to give up the gratuitous election of distinguishing grace. Should any of the above-mentioned fathers have contradicted himself, (as St. Augustine has done for one,) I hope I shall not be charged with “sross misrepresentations” for quoting them when they speak as the oracles of God. If at any time they deviate from that blessed rule, let them defend their deviations if they can; or let Zelotes and Honestus (who follow them when they go out of the way) do it for them. I re- peat it, like a true Protestant, I rest the cause upon right reason and plain Scripture ; and if I produce the sentiments of the fathers, it is merely to undeceive Zelotes, who thinks that all moderate free willers are Pelagian heretics, and that the fathers were as rigid bound willers as himself. II. Proceed we to confirm the preceding quotations by the testimony of some modern divines. 1. Calvin says, Quasi adhuc integer staret homo, semper apud Latinos Liberi Arbitrat nomen extitit. Gracus vero non puduit mullo arrogantius usurpare vocabulum. Siquidem avrszovciwv diaerunt, acsi potestas sui ipsius penes hominem fuisset. (Inst. lib. 2, cap. 2, sec. 4.) “The Latin fathers have always retained the word rreE wiLL, as if man stood yet upright. As for the Greek fathers, they have not been ashamed to make use of a much more arrogant expression ;, calling man avregoudiov, [ free agent, or self manager :] just as if man had a power to govern himself.” This concession of Calvin decides the question. I need only observe that Calvin wrongs the fathers when he insinuates that*they ascribed liberty to man, “as if man stood yet upright.” No: they attributed to man a natural liberty to evil, and a gracious blood-béught liberty to good. Thus, like our reformers, they maintained man’s free agency without derogating from God’s grace. 2. Bishop ANDREws, a moderate Calvinist, says, “I dare not com demn the fathers, who almost all assert we are elected and predestinated according to faith foreseen ; that the necessity of damnation is hypothe- tical, not absolute, &c. That God is ready and at hand to bestow and communicate his grace, &c. It is the fault of men themselves, that what is offered is not actually conferred : for grace is not wanting to us, but we are wanting to that.” And this he confirms, by this passage from St. Augustine :— All men may turn themselves from the love of visible and temporal things to keep God’s commands, if they will ; be- cause that light [Christ] is the light of all mankind.” * THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 20 3. The doctrine of free will stands or falls with the conditionality of the covenant of grace. Hence it is that all rigid bound willers abhor the word condition: nevertheless, Mr. Robert, a judicious Calvinist, sees the tide of the contrary doctrine so strong, that he says, in his Mystery of the Bible, “Sound writers, godly and learned, ancient and modern, foreign and domestic, do unanimously subscribe to the condi- tionality of the covenant of grace, in the sense before stated :” a sense this, which Bishop Davenant clearly expresses in these words :—* Peter, notwithstanding his predestination, might have been damned, if he had voluntarily continued in his impenitency.” And Judas, notwithstanding his reprobation, might have been saved, if he had not voluntarily con- tinued in his impenitency. (Animadversions, p. 241.) 4, Dr. Tucker observes, that although Vossius and Norris (who have each written a history of Pelagianism) differ in some points, yet they “agree that St. Augustine’s [Calvinian] positions were allowed by his warmest defenders at that very time to be little better than novelties, if compared with the writings of the most ancient fathers, especially of the Greek Church.” (Letter to Dr. Kippis, p. 79.) 5. Episcorius, in his answer to Capellus, p. 1, says, “ Augustine, Prosper, and all the other divines of that age, [quin et priorum omnium seculorum Patres,| and the fathers of all the preceding ages, have not represented the grace of regeneration so special as to take away free will. On the contrary, they unanimously agree that the full effect of regenerating grace depends in some degree on man’s free will: inso much that, this grace being imparted, the consent or dissent of the human will may follow. I say the consent or dissent, lest some people should think that I understand by free will nothing but a certain willing. — ness.” The same learned author says, in his answer to Camero, chap. vi, “‘ What is plamer than that the ancient divines, for three hundred years after Christ, those at least who flourished before St. Augustine, maintained the liberty of our will, or an indifference to two contrary things, free from all internal or external necessity! &c. Almost all the reformed divines confess it, when they are pressed by the authority of the fathers. ‘Thus Melancthon on Rom. ix, says, Scriptores veteres omnes, preter Augustinum, ponunt aliquam causam electionis in nodis esse. "That is, “ All the ancient authors, except St. Augustine, allow that the cause of our election [to an eternal life of glory] is in some degree in ourselves.” 6. Vosstus, a divine perfectly acquainted with all the ancient Chris- tian writers, says, in the sixth book of his Pelagian History, “The * Greek fathers anways, and axu the Latin fathers who lived before Augustine, are wont to say that those men are predestinated to life [eternal glory] whom God foresaw would live piously and well; or, as some others speak, whom God foresaw would believe and persevere, &c. Which they so interpret, that predestination unto glory is made ac- cording to God’s foreknowledge of faith and perseverance. But they did not mean the foreknowledge of such things, which a man was to do by the power of nature, but by the strength of prevenient and subsequent grace. ‘Therefore this consent of antiquity is of no service to the Pela- gians or semi-Pelagians, who both hold, that a reason of predestination, in all its effects, may be assigned from something in us. Whereas Vou. I. 14 . 210 EQUAL CHECK. . [PART the orthodox* fathers acknowledge that the first grace [i. e. initial, sal- vation] is not conferred of merit [or works] but freely. So that they thought no reason, from any thing in us, could be given of predestination to prevenient grace.” 7. Dr. Davenanr, Bishop of Salisbury, and one of the English divines who were sent to the synod of Dort, (in his “ Animadversions upon a treatise entitled, God’s love to all Mankind,” Cambridge edition, 1641, p. 48,) sets his seal to the preceding quotations in these words :— “The fathers, when they consider that the wills of men non-elected do commit all their evil acts freely, usually say that they had a power to have done the contrary.” And he himself espouses their sentiment : for speaking of Cain’s murder, Absalom’s incest, and Judas’ treason, he says, p. 253, “ All these sinful actions, and the like, are committed by reprobates, out of their own free election, having a power whereby they might have abstained from committing them.” Again, p. 198, he says, “'They [God’s decrees] leave the wills of men to as much liberty as the Divine presciencet does. And this is the general opinion of divines, though they differ about the manner of reconciling man’s liberty with’ God’s predestination.” Once more, p. 326, &c: ‘The decree of pre- terition neither taketh away any power of doing well, wherewith persons non-elected are endued, &c. Neither is it a decree binding God’s hands from giving them sufficient grace to do many good acts, which they wilfully refuse to do, &c. The non-elect have a power, or pos- sibility to believe or repent at the preaching of the Gospel ; which power might be reduced into act, if the voluntary frowardness and resistiveness of their own hearts were not the only hindering cause.” Page 72, the learned bishop grants again all that we contend for, in these words :— “In bad and wicked actions of the reprobate, their freedom of will is not vain; because thereby their consciences are convicted of their guiltiness and misdeserts, and God’s justice is cleared im their damna- tion. Neither is there any indeclinable or insuperable necessity domi- neering over free will, more than in the opinion of the remonstrants.” Once more, p. 177: “ Predestination (says he) did not compel or neces- sitate Judas to betray and sell his Master, &c. The like may be said of all other sinners who commit such sins upon deliberation, and so pro- ceed to election, [i. e. to choose evil ;] having in themselves a natural power of understanding, whereby they were able otherwise to have deli- berated, and thereupon otherwise to have chosen. And we see by expe- rience that traitors and adulterers, fully bent to commit such wicked acts, can, and oftentimes do refrain putting them in practice upon better deli- beration. This is a demonstration that they can choose the doing or the forbearing to do such wicked acts.” . From these quotations it appears that, when judicious and candid Calvinists have to do with judicious and learned remonstrants, they are * J desire the reader to take notice that this doctrine of the absolute freedom of prevenient grace, or initial salvation, is all along maintained in my first Scale; and that if Vossius’ account of the semi-Pelagians is exact, Zelotes cannot justl charge us with semi-Pelagianism: and we have as much right to be called ortho- dox as the fathers themselves. + This would be true if it were spoken of the predestination which I contend for: but it is a great mistake when it is affirmed of the doctrine of efficacious, absolute predestination maintained by Zelotes. — a /THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. ee || obliged to turn moderate free willers, or fly in the face of the sacred writers, the fathers, and the best divines of their own persuasion. Since the preceding pages were written, Providence has thrown in my way Dr. Wuirsy’s Discourse on the points of doctrine which are bal- anced in the “ Scripture Scales.” He highly deserves a place among the modern divines who confirm the contents of this section, concerning the antiquity of the doctrine of free will, evangelically connected with the doctrines of free grace and just wrath. I therefore produce here the following extract from his useful book, second edition, printed in London, 1735 :— In the preface, p. 3, he says, with respect to the leading doctrines of election and reprobation, in which he entirely dissents from Calvin: “I found I still sailed with the stream of antiquity, seeing only one, St Au- gustine, with his two boatswains, Prosper and Fulgentius, tugging hard against it, and often driven back into it by the strong current of Scripture, reason, and common sense.” As a proof of this, the doctor produces, among many more, the following quotations from the fathers, which I transcribe only in English ; referring those who wish to see the Greek or Latin to the doctor’s discourses, where the books, the pages, and the very words of the fathers are quoted :— Page 95, &c, Dr. Whitby says, “They [the fathers] unanimously declare that God hatn left it in the power of man ‘ to turn to vice or virtue,’ says Justin Martyr: ‘to choose or refuse faith and obedience, to believe or not, say Irenzeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and St. Cyprian : ‘that every one, &c, renders himself either righteous or disobedient,’ says Clemens of Alexandria: ‘that God hath left in our own power to turn to, or from good; to be good or bad, to do what is righteous or unrighteous :’ so Athanasius, Epiphanius, Macarius, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Cyril of Alexandria: ‘that our happiness or punishment depends on our own choice ; that itis our own choice to be a holy seed, or the contrary ; to fall into hell, or enjoy the kingdom; to be children of the night or the day: by virtue to be God’s or by wickedness to be the devil’s children:’ so Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, Chrysostom, and Gregory Nyssen: ‘that we are vessels of wrath, or of mercy, from our own choice, every one preparing himself to be a vessel of wrath from his own wicked inclination ; or to be a vessel of Divine love by faith, hecauSe they have rendered themselves fit for [rewarding] mercy :’ so Origen, Macarius, Chrysostom, Aicumenius, and Theophylact.” Page 336, &c, the doctor has the following words and striking quo- tations :—“ All these arguments [for the freedom of the will of man] are strongly confirmed by the concurrent suffrage, and the express and fre- quent declarations of the fathers. ‘Thus Justin Martyr having told us that man would not be worthy of praise or recompense, ‘did he not choose good of himself, nor worthy of punishment for doing evil, if he did not this* of himself, says, ‘This the Holy Spirit hath taught us by * This good father, to guard the doctrine of grace as well as that of justice, should have observed that free grace is the first cause, and free will the second, in our choice of moral good; but that free will is the first cause in our choice of’ moral evil. Forgetting to make thése little distinctions, he has given the Cal- vinists just room to complain, and has afforded the Pelagians a precedent to bear hard upon the doctrine of grace. Should some prejudiced reader think that this doctrine ascribes too much to man, because it makes free will a first cause in the 212 EQUAL CHECK. ‘(parr Moses in these words, See, I have set before thee good and evil ; choose the good.’ Clemens Alexandrinus says, ‘ The prophecy of Isaiah saith, If you be willing, &c, demonstrating that both the choice and the refusal, (viz. of faith and experience, of which he there speaketh,) are in our own ower.’ ‘Tertullian pronounces them ‘ unsound in the faith, corrupters of the Christian discipline, and excusers of all sin, who so refer all things to the will of God, by saying, Nothing is done without his appointment, as that we cannot understand that any thing is left to ourselves to do.’ St. Cyprian proves, Credendi vel non credendi libertatem in arbitrio positam, ‘that to believe or not, is left to our own free choice,’ from Deut. xxx, 19, and Isa. i, 19. Theodoret, having cited these words of Christ, If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink, adds: ‘Ten thou- sand things of this nature may be found, both in the Gospels and other writings of the apostles, clearly manifesting the liberty and self election of the nature of man.’ St. Chrysostom speaks thus :—‘ God saith, If you will, and if you will not, giving us power, and putting it in our own option to be virtuous or vicious. The devil saith, Thou canst not avoid thy fate. God saith, I have put before thee fire and water, life and death, stretch forth thy hand to whether of them thou wilt. .The devil says, [tis — "not in thee to stretch forth thy hand to them.’ St. Austin proves, from those words of Christ, Make the tree good, &c, or make the tree evil (in nostra potestate situm esse mutare voluntatem,) ‘that it is put in our own power to change the will.’ It would be endless to transcribe all that the fathers: say upon this head. Origen is also copious in this assertion: for having cited these words, And now, Israel, what does the Lord thy God require of thee? he adds: ‘ Let them blush at these words, who deny that man has free will, How could God require that of man which he had not in his power to offer him? And again: ‘The soul,’ saith he, ‘does not incline to either part out of necessity, for then neither vice nor virtue could be ascribed to it; nor would its choice of virtue deserve reward; nor its declination to vice punishment. But the liberty of the will is preserved in all things, that it may incline to what it will; asit iswritten, Behold I have set before thee life and death.’ St. Augustine also, from many passages in which the Scripture saith, Do not so, or so; or do this, or that, lays down this general rule: that all such places sufficiently demonstrate the liberty of the will: and this he saith against them, qui sic gratiam Dei defendunt, ut negent liberum arbi- _trium, ‘who so assert the grace of God, as to deny the liberty of the will.’ ” Page 340. “They [the fathers] add, that all God’s commands and choice of moral evil, I answer two things: (1.) To make God the first cause of moral evil is to turn Manichee, and assert that there is an evil as well as a good principle in the Godhead. (2.) When we say that free will chooses moral eyil of itself, without necessity, and is, of consequence, the first cause of its own evil choice ; we do not mean that free will is its own first cause. No: God made the free-willing soul, and freely endued man with the power of choosing withont ne- cessity. Thus God’s supremacy is fully secured. If, therefore, in the day of probation, we have the cast, when good and evil are set before us; our free will is not placed on a level with God by this tremendous power, but we place our- selves voluntarily under the rewarding sceptre of free grace, or the iron rod of just wrath. By this mean God maintains both his sovereignty as a king, and his justice as a judge; while man is still a subject fit to be graciously rewarded vr justly punished, according to the doctrines of free gYace and just wrath. i . THIRD. |] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 213 prohibitions, &c, would be vain and unreasonable, and all his punish- ments unjust, and his rewards groundless, if man, after the fall, had not still the liberty todo what is commanded, and forbear what is forbidden. For, saith St. Austin, ‘the Divine precepts would profit none, if they had not free will, by which they, doing them, might obtain the promised rewards, &c. These precepts cut off men’s excuse from ignorance,’ &c. But then, ‘because others,’ saith he, ‘accuse God of being wanting in giving them power to do good or inducing them to sin :’ against these men he cites that known passage of the son of Sirach, God left man in the hands of his counsel, if he would to keep the commandments, &c. And then cries out, ‘ Behold, here, a very plain proof of the liberty of the human will! &c, for how does he command, if man hath not free will or power to obey? What do all God’s commands show, but the free will of man? For they would not be given, if man had not that freedom of will by which he could obey them.’ And therefore in his book, De Fide, against the Manichees, who denied that man had free will, and . that it was in his power to do well or ill, he makes this an indication of their blindness :—‘ Who,’ saith he, ‘ will not cry out that it is folly to command him who has not liberty to do what is commanded ; and that it is unjust to condemn him who has it not in his power to do what is required? And yet these miserable men [the Manichees] understand not that they ascribe this wickedness and injustice to God.’ Clemens of Alexandria declares ‘that neither praises nor reprehensions, rewards- nor punishments are just, if the soul has not the power of choosing or abstaining: but evil is involuntary.? Yea, he makes this ‘the very foundation of salvation, without which there could be neither any 1va- sonable baptism, nor Divine ordering of our natures, because faith would not be in our own power.’ ‘The soul,’ says Origen, ‘acts by her own choice, and it is free for her to incline to whatever part she will: and therefore God’s judgment of her is just, because of her own ac- cord she complies with good or bad monitors.’ ‘One of these two things is necessary,’ saith Epiphanius, ‘either that there should be no judgment, because men act not freely; or if laws be justly made by God, and punishments threatened to, and inflicted on the wicked, and God’s judgments be according to truth, there is no fate; for therefore is one punished for his sins, and another praised for his good works, because he has it in his. power to sin or not.’ ‘For how,’ says Theo- doret, ‘can he justly punish a natur€ [with endless torments] which had no power to do good, but was bound in the bonds of wickedness?” And again: ‘God, having made the rational nature with power over its own actions, averts men from evil things, and provokes them to do what is good by laws and exhortations, but he does not necessitate the un- willing to embrace what is better, that he may not overturn the bounds of nature.’ Innumerable are the passages of this nature, which might be cited from the fathers.” . Page 361, &c, the doctor produces again many quotations from the fathers, in defence of liberty. Take some of them: “Justin Martyr argues: ‘If man has not power by his free choice to avoid evil, and to choose the good, he is unblamable, whatsoever he does.’ Origen, in his Dissertation against Fate, declares ‘that the asserters of it do free , men from all fault; and cast the blame of all the evil that is done upon 214 EQUAL CHECK. [PART God.’ Eusebius declares ‘that this opinion absolves sinners, as doin; nothing on their own accord which was evil; and would east all the blame of all the wickedness committed in the world upon God and u his providence.’ ‘That men lie under no necessity from God’s fore- knowledge [which was of old the chief argument of the fatalists, es- poused of late by Mr. Hobbes, and is still made the refuge of the Pre- destinarians] may be thus proved,’ saith Origen, ‘ because the prophets are exhorted in the Scripture to call men to repentance, and to do this in such words, as if it were unknown whether they would turn to God, | or would continue in their sins; as in those words of Jeremiah, Per. haps they will hear, and turn every man from his evil way: and this is said, not that God understood not whether they would do this or not, but to demonstrate the almost equal balance of their power so to do, and that they might not despond, or remit of their endeavours by an imagi- nation that God’s foreknowledge laid a necessity upon them, as not _leaving it in their power to turn, and so was the cause of their sin.’ ‘If men,’ says Chrysostom, ‘ do» pardon their fellow men, when they are necessitated to do a thing, much more should this be done to men compelled by fate [or by decrees] to do what they do; for if it be ab- surd to punish them, who by the force of barbarians are compelled to any action, it must be more so to punish him who is compelled by a stronger power.’ ‘If fate be established,’ says Eusebius, ‘ philosophy and piety are overthrown.’ ” Page 364, the doctor adds :—“'Though there is in the rational soul a power to do evil, ‘it is not evil on that account,’ saith Didymus Alexan- drinus, ‘ but because she will freely use that power; and this is not only ours, but the opinion of all who speak orthodoxly of rational beings.’ St. Augustine lays down this as the true definition of sin :—<‘ Sin is the will to obtain or retain that which justice forbids, and from which i és free for us to abstain.’ Whence he concludes ‘that no man is worthy of dispraise or punishment, for not doing that which he has not power to do; and that if sin be worthy of dispraise and punishment, itis not to be doubted, (tunc esse peccatum cum et liberum est nolle) that our choice is sin, when we are free not to make that choice.’ ‘These things,’ saith he, ‘the shepherds sing upon the mountains, and the poets in the theatres, and the unlearned in their assemblies, and the learned in the libraries, and the doctors in the schools, and the bishops in the churches, and mankind throughout the whole earth.’ ” I conclude this extract by accounting for St. Augustine’s inconsist- ency. He was a warm man: and such men, when they write much, and do not yet firmly stand upon the line of moderation, are apt to con- tradict themselves, as often as they use the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, to oppose contrary errors. Hence it is, that. when St. Augustine opposed the Manichees, who were rigid bound willers, he strongly maintained free will with Pelagius; and when he opposed the Pelagians, who were rigid free willers, he strongly main- tained bound will and necessity with Manes. The Scripture doctrine of free will lies between the errer of Pelagius and that of Manes. The middle way between these extremes is, I hope, clearly pointed out in section xx. Upon the whole, he must be perverse who can cast his eyes upon the numerous quotations which Dr. Whitby has produced, and deny ; _THIRD.] / SCRIPTURE SCALES. 215 that the fathers held the doctrine of the Scripture Scales with respect to free will; and that, if they leaned to one extreme, it was rather to that of the Pelagians, than to that of the rigid bound willers, who clothe their fayourite doctrine of necessity with the specious names of invin- cible fate, irrevocable decrees, or absolute predestination. Ill. Zelotes endeavours to hide his error under the wings of the Church of England, as well as behind the authority of the fathers, but with as little success. I design to show his mistake in this respect, in an “ Essay on the Seventeenth Article.” In the meantime I shall ob- serye, that a few years before Archbishop Cranmer drew up our “ arti- cles of religion,” he helped the other reformers to compose a book called, « The Necessary Doctrine of a Christian Man,” and added to it a section upon free will, in which free will is defined “a power of the will jomed with reason, whereby, a reasonable creature, without con- straint, in things of reason, discerneth and willeth good and evil; but chooseth good by the assistance of God’s grace, and evil of itself.” ** Wherefore,” adds Cranmer, “men be to be warned, that they do not impute to God their vice or their damnation, but to themselves, whick by free will have abused the grace and benefits of God. All men be also to be monished, and chiefly preachers, that in this high matter they, looking on both sides, [i. e. regarding both Gospel axioms] so attemper and moderate themselves, that neither they so preach the grace of God [with Zelotes] that they take away thereby free will; nor, on the other side, so extol free will [with Honestus] that injury be done to the grace of God.” I grant that in the book, from which this quotation* is taken, there * Burnet’s History of the Reformation, (second edition, part i, p. 291,) anda pamphlet entitled, A Dissertation on the Seventeenth Article, &c, furnish me with these important quotations. The last seems greatly to embarrass Mr. Hill. He attempts to set it aside, by urging: (1.) That in The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, “‘the doctrines of the mass, transubstantiation, &c, are particu- larly taught as necessary to salvation.” (2.) That ‘‘Bonner and Gardiner, as well as Cranmer, gave their imprimatur to it.” And, (3.) That ‘‘ even in this book the doctrine of predestination is not denied, but the thing its SECTION X. Zelotes’ sixth objection to a reconciliation with Honestus—The reconciler answers it by showing, (1.) That the evangelical marriage of free grace and free will reflects no dishonour upon God's sovereignty. (2.) That Mr. Toplady’s grand argument against that marriage ; is incon- clusive. (3.) That Mr. Whitefield’s “ inextricable dilemma,” in favour of Calvinian election and reprobation, is a mere sophism. And, (4.) That Zelotes’ jumble of free wrath, and unevangelical Sree grace, pours real contempt upon all the Divine perfections, sovereignty itself not excepted. » Ozsection VI. “If you are not a Pelagian, are you not a secret Atheist? Do you not indirectly represent Jehovah as not God? You want me to meet Honestus half way: but if I meet him where you are, shall not I meet him on the brink of a horrible precipice? Are you not an opposer of God’s sovereignty, which shines as gloriously among his other perfections, as the moon does among the stars? Is not a God with- out sovereignty as contemptible as a king without a kingdom? And can you reconcile your arrogant doctrine of free will, with the supreme, ab- solute, irresistible power, by which God ¢ works all things after the coun- sel of his own will?’ Hear the Calvin of the day—the champion of the doctrines of grace :— “For this [Atheism] also Arminianism has paved the way, by despoiling the Divine Being, among other attributes of his unlimited supremacy, of his infinite knowledge, of his infallible wisdom, of his in- vincible power, of his absolute independency, of his eternal immutability. Not to observe that the exempting of some things and events from the providence of God, by referring them to free will, &c, is another of those black lanes, which lead, in a direct line, from Arminianism to Atheism. Neither is it at all surprising that any who represent men as gods (by supposing man to possess the Divine attribute of independent self determination) should, when their hand is in it, represent God himself with the imperfections of a man, by putting limitations to his sovereignty, by supposing his knowledge to be shackled with circumscription, and darkened with uncertainty ; by connecting their ideas of his wisdom and power with the possibility of disconcertment and disappointment, embar- rassment and defeat; by transferring his independency to themselves, in order to support their favourite doctrine, which affirms that the Divine will and conduct are dependent on the will and conduct of men ; by blotting out his immutability, that they may clear the way for condi- tional, variable, vanquishable, and amissible grace ; and by narrowing his providence, to keep the idol of free will upon its legs, and to save human reason from the humiliation of acknowledging her inability to account for many of the Divine disposals, &c. Who sees not the Atheistical tendency of all this? Let Arminianism try to exculpate herself from the heavy, but unexaggerated indictment, which if she cannot effect, it will be doing her no injustice to term her Atheism in masquerade.’ ” (Rev. Mr. Toplady’s Historic Proof, p. 728, &c.) Answer. If this terrible objection had the least degree of solidity, I would instantly burn the Checks and the Scripture Scales; for I trust THIRD.| SCRIPTURE SCALES. 227 > that the glory of God is ten thousand times dearer to me than the success of my little publications. But I cannot take bare assertions, groundless insinuations, and bombastic charges for solid proofs. In a mock sea fight, cannons may dreadfully roar, but no masts are shot away, no ship is sent to the bottom. And that, in this polemical broad- side, the weight of the ball (if there be any) does not answer to the noise of the explosion, will appear, I hope, by the following an- swers :— I. (1.) This objection is entirely levelled at the second Scripture Scale, which is made of so great a variety of plain scriptures, that, to attempt to set it aside as leading to Atheism, is to endeavour setting aside one half of the doctrinal part of the Bible as being Atheistical. And if so considerable a part of the Bible be Atheistical, the whole is undoubt- edly a forgery. Thus Zelotes, rather than not to cut down what he is pleased to call Arminianism, fells one half of the trees that grow in the fruitful garden of revealed truth, under pretence that they are produc- tive of Atheism: and, by that means, he gives infidels a fair opportunity of cutting down all the rest. (2.) Zelotes is greatly mistaken if he thinks that the free agency we plead for, absolutely crosses the designs of “Him who works all after the counsel of his own will :” for if part of this counsel be, that man shall be a free agent, that life and death, heaven and hell, shall be “set be- fore him ;” and that he shall eternally have either the one or the other, according to his own choice: if this be the case, I say, God’s wisdom cannot be disappoited, nor his sovereign power baffled, be man’s choice whatever it may: because God designed to manifest his sovereign wis- dom and power in the wonderful creation, wise government, and right- eous judgment of free agents; and not in overpowering their will, .or in destroying their free agency ; much less in subverting his awful tri- bunal, and in obscuring all his perfections to place one of them (sove- reignty) in a more glaring light.” (3.) I grant that the doctrine of free will evangelically assisted by free grace, (not Calvinistically overpowered by forcible grace or wrath,) I grant, I say, that this doctrine can never be reconciled with the doc- trme of an unscriptural, tyrannical sovereignty, which Zelotes rashly attributes to God, under pretence of doing him honour. But that it is perfectly consistent with the awful, and yet amiable views which the Scriptures give us of God’s real sovereignty, is, 1 hope, abundantly proved in the preceding pages. To the arguments which they con- tain, I add the following illustration :— If a king, wisely to try, and justly to reward the honesty of his sub- jects, made a statute, to insure particular rewards to thief catchers, and particular punishments to thieves; would it be any disparagement to hi3 wisdom, power, supremacy, and sovereignty, if he did not neces- sitate, nor absolutely oblige some of*his subjects to rob, and others to catch them in the robbery; lest he should not order the former for in- fallible execution, and appoint to the latter a gratuitous reward? Would not our gracious sovereign be injyred by the bare supposition that he is capable of displaying his supreme authority by such a pitiful method? And shall we suppose that the King of kings—the Judge of all the earth, maintains his righteous sovereignty by a similar conduct? 2298 EQUAL CHECK. [PART (4.) We perpetually assert tnat God is the only first cause of all good, both natural and moral; and thus we ascribe to him a sovereignty worthy of the Parent of good. If we do not directly, with the Mani- chees, or indirectly, with the Calvinists, represent God as the first cause of evil, it is merely because we dare not attribute to him a diabolical supremacy. And we fear that Zelotes will have no more thanks for giving God the glory of predestinating the reprobate necessarily to con- tinue in sin, and be damned, than | should have, were I to give our Lord the shameful glory of seducing Eve in the shape of a lying ser- pent, lest he should not have the glory of being, and doing all in all. (5.) We apprehend that the doctrine of the Scales (i. e. the doctrine of free will, evangelically subordinate to free grace or to just wrath) perfectly secures the honour of God’s greatness, supremacy, and power without dishonouring his goodness, justice, and veracity. It seems to us unscriptural and unreasonable to suppose that God should eclipse these, his morat perfections, (by which he chiefly proposes himself to us for our imitation,) in order to set off those, his NaruraL perfections. A grim tyrant, a Nebuchadnezzar, is praised for his greatness, sove- reignty, and power; but a Titus, a prince who deserves to be called “the darling of mankind,” is extolled for his goodness, justice, and. veracity. And who but Satan, or his subjects, would so overvalue the praise given to a Nebuchadnezzar, as to slight the praise bestowed upon a Titus? Was not. Titus as great a potentate as Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, though he did not, like them, make tyrannical decrees to assert his powers, and then execute them with wanton cruelty, or with absurd mourning ; lest he should lose the praise of his sovereignty and immu- tability, before a multitude of mistaken decretists ? Il. Having, I hope, broken the heart of Zelotes’ objection by the preceding arguments, it will not be difficult to take in pieces his boasted quotation from Mr, 'Toplady’s “ Historic Proof ;” and to point out the flaw of every part. (1.) “ Arminianism paves the way for Atheism by despoiling the Di- vine Being of his wnlimzted supremacy.” No: it only teaches us that it is absurd to make God’s supremacy bear an undue proportion to his other perfections. Do we despoil the kmg of his manly shape, because we deny his having the head of a giant, and the body of a dwarf? (2.) “Of his infallible wisdom.” No: God wisely made free agents, that he might wisely judge them according to their works ; and it is one of our objections to the modern doctrines of grace, that they despoil God of his “ wisdom” in both these respects. (3.) “ Of his invincible power.” No: God does whatever pleases him, in heaven, earth, and hell. But reason and Scripture testify that he does not choose to set his invincible power against his unerring wisdom, by overpowering with saving grace, or damning wrath, the men whom he is going judicially to reward or punish. (4.) “Of his absolute independency.” Absurd! when we say that the promised reward, which a general bestows upon a soldier for his gallant behaviour in the field, depends in some measure upon the soldier’s gallant behaviour, do we despoil the general of his independ- ency with respect to the scldier? Must the general, to show himself independent, necessitate some of his soldiers to fight, that he may fool- ishly promote them; and others to desert, that he may blow their brains THIRD. |] SCRIPTURE SCALES. : 229 > out with Calvinian independence? (5.) “ Of his eternal immutability.” No: when we assert that God justifies men according to their faith, and rewards them according to their good works; or when we say that he condemns them according to their unbelief, and punishes them ac- cording to their bad works ; do we intimate that he betrays the least degree of mutability? On the contrary, do we not hereby represent him as faithfully executing his eternal, immutable decree of judging and treating men according to their works of faith, or of unbelief? (See “the Genuine Creed,” article eighth.) Mr. Toplady goes on: (6.) “The exempting of some things and events from the providence of God, by referring them to free will, &c, is another of those black lanes, which lead, in a direct line, from Armi- nianism to Atheism.” ‘This is a mistake all over. By the doctrine of moderate free will we exempt no event or thing from the providence of God : for we maintain, that as God’s power made free will, so his pro- vidence rules or overrules it in all things. Only we do not believe that ruling or overruling implies “necessitating, overpowering,” or “ trick- ing,” when judgments, punishments, and rewards are to follow. Our doctrine, therefore, is a lightsome walk, which leads to the right know- ledge of God, and not one of those “black lanes which leads in a direct line” from Calvinian election to “Mr. Fulsome’s” presumption; and from Calvinian reprobation, to Francis Spira’s despair. (7.) Arminianism “represents men as gods, by supposing man to possess the Divine attribute of independent self determination.” Our doctrines of grace suppose no such thing: on the contrary, we assert that obedient free will is always dependent upon God’s free grace ; and disobedient free will upon God’s just wrath: this charge of Mr. Top- lady is therefore absolutely groundless. (8.) Arminianism “ represents God himself with the imperfections of a man, by putting limitations to his sovereignty.” This is only a repetition of what is absurdly said, No. 1, about God’s “unlimited supremacy.” (9.) It “supposes his knowledge to be shackled with circumscription, and darkened with un- certainty.” It supposes no such thing: on the contrary, one of our great objections to Calvinism is, that it so shackles God’s infinite know- ledge as to despoil him of the knowledge of future contingencies, or of those events which depend upon man’s unnecessitated choice : absurdly supposing that God knows what he absolutely decrees, and no more. “If events were undecreed,” says Mr. Toplady, in his Hist. Proof, p. 192, “they would be unforeknown; if unforeknown, they could not be infallibly predicted. How came God to foreknow man’s fall,” says ~ Calvin, [nist quia sic ordinarat,| “but because he had appointed it ?” Thus Calvin and Mr. Toplady, in one sense, allow less foreknowledge to God, than to a stable boy ; for without decreeing any thing about the matter, a postilion knows that if the horse he curries gets into his mas- ter’s garden, some of the beds will be trampled ; and that if a thief has an opportunity of taking a guinea without being seen, he will take it. (See pages 283, 287.) (10.) The Arminians “connect their ideas of God’s wisdom and power with the possibility of disconcertment and disappointment, em- barrassment and defeat.” No such thing: we maintain that God, in his infinite wisdom and power, has made free agents, in order to display 230 EQUAL CHECK. : [parr his goodness by rewarding them, if they believe and obey; or his justice by punishing them, if they prove faithless and disobedient. _Whichso- ever of the two therefore comes to pass, God is no more “ disconcerted, disappointed, embarrassed,” &c, than a lawgiver and judge, who acquits or condemns criminals according to his own law, and to their own works (11.) What Mr. Toplady says in the next lines about the Arminiar “transferring independency to themselves in order to support thesr favourite doctrine, which affirms that the Divine will and conduct are dependent on the will and conduct of men;” and what he adds about their “ blotting out God’s immutability, and narrowing his providence, to keep the idol of free will upon its iegs,” is a mere repetition of what is answered in No. 4, 5,6, 7. This elegant tautology of Mr. Toplady may make some of his admirers wonder at the surprising variety of his arguments ; but attentive readers can see through the rhetorical veil. What that gentleman says of “conditional; variable, vanquishable, and amissible grace,” is verbal dust, raised to obscure the glory of the second Gospel axiom, to hide one of the Scripture Scales, and to substi- tute overbearing, necessitating grace, and free, unprovoked wrath, for the genuine grace and just wrath mentioned in the Gospel. Let us however dwell a moment upon each of these epithets: (1.) “ Con- ditional grace :” we assert (according to the first axiom) that the grace of initial salvation is unconditional ; and (according to the second axiom) we maintain that the grace of eternal salvation is conditional, excepting the case of complete idiots, and of all who die in their infancy. If Mr. Toplady can disprove either part of this doctrine, or, which is all one, if he can overthrow the second Gospel axiom, and break our left Scale, let him do it. (2.) “ Variable grace :” we assert that grace, as it is inherent in God, is invariable. But we maintain that the displays of it toward mankind are various; ; asserting that those displays of it which God grants in a way of reward to them that faithfully use what they have, and properly ask for more, may and do vary according to the variations of faithful or unfaithful free will; our Lord himself having declared that “to him that hath to purpose, more shall be given;” and that “from him that hath not to purpose, even what he hath shall be taken away.” (3.) “‘ Vanquishable grace :” to call God’s grace yan- quishable is absurd ; because Christ does not fight men with grace, any more than a physician fights the sick with remedies. If a patient will not take his medicines, or will not take them properly, or will take poison also, the medicines are not vanquished, but despised, or improperly taken. ~ This does not show the weakness of the medicines, but the perverseness of the patient. Nor does it prove that the dying man is stronger than his healthy physician; but only that the physician will not drench him as a farrier does a brute. If Mr. Toplady asserts the contrary, I refer him to page 67 of this volume. And, pointing at Christ’s tribunal, I ask, Could the Judge of all the earth wisely and equitably sentence men to eternal life, or to eternal death, if he first drenched them with the cup of finished salvation, or finished damnation? (4.) “ Amissible grace :” why cannot evangelical grace be lost as well as the celestial and para- disiacal grace which was bestowed upon angels and man before the fall? Is a diamond less precious for being amissible? Is it any disgrace to the sun that thousands of his beams are lost upon the drones who sleep THIRD. ] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 231 away his morning light? or that they are abused by all the wicked who dare to sin in open day? If Divine grace is both forcible and ina. missible, what signify the apostolic cautions of “not receiving it in vain,” and of not “doing despite to the Spirit of grace?’ In a word, what signifies our second Gospel Scale, with all the scriptures that fill it up? To conclude: if those scriptures clearly demonstrate the doctrine of a free will, always subordinate either to free grace or to just wrath ; when Mr. Toplady calls that free will an “idol,” does he not inad- vertently charge God with being an idol maker, and Hs ee the sacred writers as supporters of the idol which God has made? And when that gentleman says that we “keep the idol of free will upon its legs, to save human reason from the humiliation of acknowledging her inability to account for many of the Divine disposals ;” does he not impose bound will and Calvinian reprobation upon us, just as the bishop of Rome im- poses transubstantiation upon his tame underlings: that is, under pretence that we must humbly submit our reason to the Divine declarations, decrees, or disposals? Just as if there were no difference betweer popish declarations, or Calvinian decrees, and “ Divine disposals!” Just as if the bare fear of regarding reason were sufficient to drive us from all the rational scriptures which fill our second Scale, into all the absurdities and horrors of free wrath and finished damnation ! And now say, candid reader, if I may not justly apply to the Calvinian doctrines of grace a part of what Mr. Toplady rashly says of “ Ar- minianism?”’ “Let Calvinism exculpate hérself from the heavy, but unexaggerated indictment, which, if she cannot effect, it will be doing her no injustice to term her” (I shall not say “ Atheism in masquerade,” spe an irrational and unscriptural system of doctrine. II. «Not so, (replies Zelotes :) if you have answered Mr. Toplady’s argument, you cannot set aside Mr. Whitefield’s dilemma in his letter to Mr. Wesley. To me, at least, that dilemma appears absolutely un- answerable. It runs thus :—‘ Surely Mr. Wesley will own God’s justice in imputing Adam’s sin to his posterity: and also, that after Adam fell, and his posterity in him, God might justly have “passed them all by,” without sending his own Son to be a Saviour for any one. Unless you do heartily agree in both these points, you do not believe original sin aright. If you do own them, you must acknowledge the doctrine of election and reprobation to be highly just and reasonable. For if God might justly impute Adam’s sin to all, and afterward have passed by all, then he might justly pass by some. Turn to the right hand or to the” left, you are reduced to an inextricable dilemma.’” (See Mr. White- field’s Works, vol. iv, p. 67.) Answer. We own God’s justice in imputing Adam’s sin seminally to his posterity, because his posterity sinned seminally in him, and was in him seminally corrupted. And we grant that, in the loins of Adam, we seminally deserved all that Adam himself personally deserved. So far we agree with Mr. Whitefield; maintaining, as he does, that, by our fallen nature in Adam, we are all children of wrath; and that, as soon as our first parents had sinned, God might justly have sent them, and us in their loins, into the pit of destruction; much more “ might he justly have passed us all by, without sending his own Son to be a Saviour for 232 EQUAL CHECK [Part any one.” Therefore Mr, Whitefield has no reason to suspect that we deny the Scripture doctrine of original sin. This being premised, we may easily see that the great flaw of the «inextricable dilemma” consists in confounding our seminal state with our personal state: and in concluding that what would have been just, when we were in our seminal state in the loins of Adam, must also be just in our personal state, now we are out of his loins. As this is the main spring of Mr. Whitefield’s mistake, it is proper to point it out a little more clearly. Let the following propositions form the pointer :— (1.) “ The wages of sin is death,” yea, eternal death or damnation. (2.) The wages of sin personally and consciously committed, is damna- tion personally and consciously suffered. (3.) The wages of sin semi- nally and unknowingly committed is damnation, seminally and unknow- ingly suffered. (4.) When Adam had personally and consciously sinned; God would have been just if he had inflicted upon him the per- sonal and conscious punishment which we call damnation. (5.) When we had seminally and unknowingly sinned in Adam, God would have been just if he had inflicted a seminal and unfelt damnation upon us for it; for then our punishment would have borne just proportion to our offence. We should have been punished as we had sinned, that is, seminally, and without the least consciousness of pain or of loss. But is it not contrary to all equity to punish a sin seminally and unknowingly committed with an eternal punishment, personally and knowingly endured? For what is Calvinian reprobation but a dreadful decree that a majority of the children of men shall be personally bound over to conscious, necessary, and eternal sin; which sin shall draw after it conscious, necessary, and eternal damnation? Hence it appears that Calvinian predestination to death is horrible in its end, which is personal, necessary, and eternal torments consciously endured: but much more horrible in the means which it appoints to secure that end, namely, personal, remediless sin; sin necessarily, unavoidably, and eternally committed; and all this merely for a sin seminally, unknow- ingly, and unconsciously committed: and (what is still more horrible) for a sin which God himself had absolutely predestinated, if the doctrine of Calvinian predestination, or of the absolute* necessity of events be Scriptural. ‘It is true,” Zelotes says, “that although reprobates are absolutely reprobated merely for the sin of Adam, yet they are damned merely for their own.” But this evasion only makes a bad matter worse ; for it intimates that free wrath so flamed against their unformed — persons, as to determine that they should absolutely be formed, not only to be necessarily and eternally miserable, but also to be necessarily and eternally guilty; which is pourmg as much contempt upon Divine goodness, as I should pour upon Phinehas’ character, if I asserted that he contrived, and absolutely secured the filthy crime of Zimri and Cosbi, that, by this means, he might have a fair opportunity of infallibly running them both through the body. An illustration may help the reader to understand how hard the ground * Wickliff used to say, ‘‘ All things that happen do come absolutely of neces- sity.” (Historic Proof, page 191.) And Mr. Toplady, after taking care to dis- tinguish, and set off the words will, absolutely, and necessity, says, in the next page, ‘I ugree with him as to the necessity of events.” THIRD.| SCRIPTURE SCALES. 233 of Mr. Whitefield’s dilemma bears upon God’s equity. I have committed a horrible murder: Iam condemned to be burnt alive for it ; my sentence is just; having personally and consciously sinned without necessity, I deserve to be personally and consciously tormented. The judge may then, without cruelty, condemn every part of me to the flames; and the unbegotten posterity in my loins may justly burn with me, and in me: for with me and in me it has sinned as a part of myself. Nor is it a great misfortune for my posterity to be thus punished; because it has as little knowledge and feeling of my punishment, as of my crime. But _suppose the judge, after reprieving me, divided and multiplied me into ‘ten thousand parts; suppose again that each of these parts necessarily grew up into a man or a woman; would it be reasonable in him to say to seven or eight hundred of these men and women, “ You were all seminally guilty of the murder committed by the man whom I reprieved ; and from whose lois I have extracted you; and therefore my mercy passes you by, and my Justice absolutely reprobates your Benen | force you into remediless circumstances, in which you will al! necessa- rily commit murder; and then [ shall have as fair an opportunity of unavoidably burning you for your own unavoidable murders, as I have had of absolutely reprobating you for the murder committed by the man from whom your wretched existence is derived.” Who does not see the injustice and cruelty of such a speech? Who, but Zelotes, would not blush to call it a gracious speech, or a “ doctrine of grace?” But if the persons, whom I suppose extracted from me, are reprieved as well as myself; if we are put all together in remediable circumstances, where sin indeed abounds, but where grace abounds much more, supposing we are not unnecessarily, voluntarily, and obstinately wanting to ourselves ; who does not see that, upon the personal commission of avoidable, voluntary murder, (and much more upon the personal refusal of a pardon sincerely offered upon reasonable conditions,) my posterity may be condemned to the flames as justly as myself? If this illustration exactly represents the deplorable case of Calvinian reprobates, who, barely for a sin which they seminally committed, are supposed to be personally bound over first to unavoidable perseverance in sin, and next to unavoidable and eternal damnation ; will not all my _ unprejudiced readers wonder to hear Mr. Whitefield assert that the Cal- vinian doctrine of reprobation is “highly just and reasonable ?” «“ What !” replies that good mistaken man, “ will not Mr. Wesley own that God might justly have passed all Adam’s posterity by, without send- ing his own Son to be a Saviour for any man?” Answer. God forbid we should ever imagine that God was bound to send his Son to die for any man! No: God was no more bound to redeem any man, than he was bound to create the first man; redemption as well as creation entirely flowing from rich, and every way undeserved grace. “ Then you give up the point,” says Zelotes ; “ for there is no medium between God’s refusing to send his Son to redeem a part of Adam’s posterity, and his passing a sentence of Calvinian reprobation upon them. Now if he could justly,refuse to send his Son to save all, he could justly refuse to send him to save some, and therefore he could justly reprobate some, i. e. predestinate them to a remediless state of sin, and of consequence to unavoidable damnation.” 234 EQUAL CHECK. [PART This sophistical argument probably misled Mr. Whitefield. But the «“ medium” which he could not see, the medium which spoils his “inex- tricable dilemma,” the door at which we readily go out of the prison where Logica Genevensis fancies she has confined us, may easily be | pointed out, thus:—If God had not entertained gracious thoughts of peace, mercy, and redemption toward all mankind; if he had designed absolutely and unconditionally to glorify nothing but his vindie- tive justice upon a number of them, for having seminally sinned in Adam, he might undoubtedly have passed them by; yea, he might have severely punished them. But, as | have observed, in this case he would have punished them equitably, that is, seminally: he would have crushed guilty Adam, and with him his Cainish, reprobated seed ; contriving the birth of Abel, Seth, and others, in such a manner as to bring no man into personal existence, but such as had a personal share in his redeem- ing mercy. And this is the very plan, which, according to our doctrines of grace, and according to the Scriptures, God graciously laid down in — eternity, and faithfully executed when “the Lamb slain from the founda- tion of the world tasted death for every man—gave himself a ransom for al]”—and became an evangelical (not an Antinomian) “ propitiation for the sins of the whole world.” A third flaw in Mr. Whitefield’s dilemma is the supposition that Cal- vinian reprobation is only a harmless preterition: but a passing by, m some cases, is horrible cruelty. Thus if a mother Calvinistically passes by her suckling child for a week, she actually starves and destroys him. This is not all: Calvinian reprobation is a downright appointment to eternal death. “The [Calvinian] predestination 6f some to life,” &c, says Mr. Toplady, “cannot be maintained without admitting the [Cal- vinian] reprobation of some others unto death,” even unto eternal death, or damnation. But I ask, again, what can be mere unreasonable and unjust than to appoint millions of unborn infants to personal, conscious, unavoidable, and eternal death, through the horrible medium of a per- sonal, unavoidable perseverance in sin; and this merely Tor a sin which they never personally and consciously committed ? A fourth flaw in Mr. Whitefield’s argument consists in confounding the Calvinian with the Scriptural imputation of Adar’s sin. If God imputed sin to Adam’s offspring in its seminal state, it was merely because Adam’s offspring seminally sinned in him. God’s imputation is always according to truth. When Adam had actually tainted his soul with sin, and his body with mortality, sinfulness and mortality actually tainted all his offspring then in his loms; and therefore God can truly impute sinfulness and mortality to all, that is, he could truly account them all to be what they really were, 7. e. seminally sinful and mortal. How different is this righteous imputation, from the imputation main- tained by Zelotes! a cruel, supposed imputation this, whereby God is represented as arbitrarily determining that numberless myriads of — unformed men shall be so accounted guilty of a sin which they never personally committed, as to be personally and absolutely predestinated to eternal death, through the horrible medium of necessary, remediless sin! If Zelotes reply : “ God may as justly impute Adam’s sin to the natu- ral seed of Adam, as he does impute Christ’s righteousness to the spiritual seed of Christ:” I reply, (1.) The case is not parallel. The THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 235 king may justly give a thousand pounds gratis to whom he pleases, but he cannot give a thousand stripes gratis to whom he pleases, because free wrath is absolutely incompatible with justice. (2.) “Faith is im- puted for righteousness ;” or, if you please, God imputes righteousness to believers. Now, who are believers? Are they not men who have faith? men who have that grace which unites them to Christ the righteous, and by which they actually derive from Christ (in various degrees) not only a peculiar interest in his merits, but also the very righteousness, the very hatred of sin, and the very love of virtue, which were in the heart of Christ? Therefore when God imputes faith for righteousness, or when he imputes righteousness to believers, he only accounts that what is in believers is actually there ; or, if, you please, that believers are what they really are, that is, righteous. Hence it appears, that to support Calvinian imputation of sin, by Calvinian imputation of righteousness, is only to defend one chimera by another. Mr. Whitefield’s argument in defence of Calvinian reprobation ap- pears to us so much the more inconclusive, as it is not less contrary to Scripture than to reason. Who can fairly reconcile that reprobation to the texts which intimate that “this proverb shall no more ‘be used in Israel :—The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the case is remediless ; the children’s teeth being necessarily and eternally set on edge ?” that “the son shall not eternally die,” or be reprobated to eternal death “for the sins of the father ;” that “God’s mercy is over all his works” till provoked free grace gives place to just wrath; that he “willeth not primarily the death of a simer ;” and that “God our Saviour will have all men to be saved,” in a rational; evangelic way, that is, by freely working out their own salvation in subordination to his free grace. From all the preceding answers, I hope I may conclude, that the “in- extricable dilemma” is a mere sophism;. and that the truly reverend Mr. Whitefield understood far better how to offer up a warm prayer, and preach a pathetic sermon, than how to follow error into her lurking holes, in order to seize there the twisting viper with the tongs of truth, and bring her out to public view, stripped of her shining, slippery dress, and darting in vain her forked and hissing tongue. IV. Having answered the threefold objection of Zelotes, Mr. Top- lady, and Mr. Whitefield, I shall now retort it, and show, that upon the plan of the Calvinian “ doctrines of grace” and wrath—of unavoidable, finished salvation for a fixed number of elect, and of unavoidable, finished damnation for a fixed number of reprobates, all the Divine per- fections (sovereignty not excepted) suffer a partial, or a total eclipse. I have, it is true, done it already in the Checks: but as my opponents do not seem to have taken the least notice of the passage I refer to, though it contains the strength of our cause with respect to the Divine perfec. tions, I beg leave to produce it a second time. If in a civil court a second citation is fair and expedient, why might it not be so too in a court of controversial judicature? I sBdpadbre ask a second time :-— “What becomes of God’s goodness, if the tokens of it, which he gives to millions of men, be only intended to enhance their ruin, or cast a deceitful veil over his everlasting wrath? What of his mercy, which ‘is over all his works,’ if millions were for ever excluded from 236 EQUAL CHECK. _ [parr the least interest in it, by an absolute decree that constituted. them ves- sels of wrath from all eternity? What becomes of his justice, if he sen tence myriads of men upon myriads to everlasting fire, ‘because they. — have not believed on the name of his only begotten Son ;’ when, if they had believed that he was their Jesus, their “Saviour, they would have | believed a monstrous lie, and claimed what they have no more right to, than I have to the crown of England? What of his veracity, and the — oath he swears that he ‘willeth not primarily the death of a sinner;’ | if he never affords most sinners sufficient means of escaping eternal | death? if he sends his ambassadors to ‘every creature,’ declaring that ‘all things are now ready’ for their salvation, when nothing but ‘ Tophet is prepared of old’ for the inevitable destruction of a vast ma- jority of them? What becomes of his holiness, if, in order to condemn the reprobates with some show of justice, and to secure the end of his decree of reprobation, which is, that ‘millions shall absolutely sin and be damned,’ he absolutely fixes the means of their damnation, that is, their sins and wickedness? What of his wisdom, if he seriously expostu- lates with souls as dead as corpses, and gravely urges to repentance and faith persons that can no more repent and believe, than fishes can speak and sing? What.becomes of his long suffering, if he waits to have an opportunity of sending the reprobates into a deeper hell, and not sincerely to give them a longer time to ‘save themselves from this perverse gene- ration 1’? What of his equity, if there was mercy for Adam and Eve, who personally broke the hedge of duty, and wantonly rushed out of para- dise into this howling wilderness ; while there is no mercy for millions of their unfortunate children, who are born in a state of sm and misery without any personal choice, and of consequence without any personal sin? And what becomes of his omniscience, if he cannot foreknow fu- ture contingencies? if to foretel, without a mistake, that such a thing © will happen, he must necessitate it, or do it himself? Was not Nero as — wise in this respect? Could not he foretel that Phebe should not con- tinue a virgin, when he was bent upon ravishing her? That Seneca should not die a natural death, when he had determined to have him murdered? And that Crispus should fall into a pit, if he obliged him to run a race at midnight in a place full of pits? And what old woman in the kingdom could-not precisely foretel that a silly tale should be told — at such an hour, if she were resolved to tell it herself; or, at any rate, make a child do it for her? “Again: what becomes of God’s ‘loving kindnesses, which have been ever of old toward the children of men? And what of his impartiality, if most men, absolutely reprobated for the sin of Adam, are never placed in a state of personal trial and probation? Does not God use them far less kindly than he does devils, who were tried every one ‘for himself, and remain in their diabolical state, because they brought it upon themselves by a personal choice? Astonishing! That the Son of God should have been flesh of the flesh, and bone of the bone of millions of men, whom, upon the Calvinistic scheme, he never indulged so far as he did devils! What a hard-hearted relation to myriads of his fellow — men does Calvin represent our Lord! Suppose Satan had become our — kinsman by incarnation, and had by that mean got the right of redemp- tion, would he not have acted like himself, if he had not only left the ‘THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 237 majority of them in the depths of the fall, but enhanced their misery by the sight of his partiality to the elect? “Once more: what becomes of fair dealing, ff God every where represents sin as the dreadful evil which causes damnation, and yet the most horrid sins work for good to some, and, as P. O. intimates, ‘accomplish their salvation through Christ ?” And what of honesty, if the God of truth himself promises that ‘all the families of the earth shall be blessed in Christ,’ when he has cursed a vast majority of them with a decree of absolute reprobation, which excludes them from obtaining an interest in him, even from the foundation of the world? “Nay, what becomes of his sovereignty itself, if it is torn from the mild and gracious attributes by which it is tempered? If it is held forth in such a light as renders it more terrible to millions than the sovereignty of Nebuchadnezzar in the plain of Dura appeared to Daniel’s companions, when ‘the form of his visage was changed against them, and he decreed that they should be cast into the burning fiery furnace? For they might have saved their bodily life, by bowing to the golden image, which was a thing in their power; but poor Calvinian reprobates can escape at no rate; the ‘horrible decree’ is gone forth; they must, in spite of their best endeavours, ‘dwell,’ body and soul, ‘ with everlasting burn- ings.’ ” To these queries, taken from the Third Check, I now add those which follow :—What becomes of God’s infinite power, if he cannot make free agents, or creatures endued with free will? And what of his boundless wisdom, if, when he has made such creatures, he knows not how to rule, overrule, reward, and punish them, without necessitating them, that is, without undoing his own work—without destroying their free agency, which is his masterpiece in the universe? Nay, what would become of the Divine immutability, about which Zelotes makes so much ado, if after God had suspended in all the Scriptures the reward of eternal life, and the punishment of eternal death, upon our unnecessitated works of faith and unbelief, he so altered his mind, in the day of judgment, as to suspend heavenly thrones, and infernal racks, only upon the good works of Christ, and the bad works of Adam; through the necessary medium of faith and holiness, absolutely forced upon some men to the end ; and through the necessary means of unbelief and sin, absolutely bound upon all the rest of mankind? And, to conclude, how shall we be able to praise God for his invariable faithfulness, if his secret will and public declarations are at almost perpetual variance ? And if Zelotes’ doctrines of grace tempt us to complain with the poet, Nescio quo teneam mutantem Protea nodo ;* instead of encouraging us to say, with David, “ For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven :” “thy faithfulness is unto all generations.” If Zelotes cannot answer these queries in as rational and Scriptural a manner as his objections have, I trust, been answered; will not the * “ He is like Proteus: I know not how to hold him” whether by his secret will, which has absolutely predestinated millions of men to necessary sin and eternal damnation; or by his revealed will, which declares that he willeth not primarily that any man should perish, but that ail should be etérnally saved, by “working out their own salvation,” according to the talent of will and power, which he gives to every :nan to profit withal. 238 EQUAL CHECK. _ [parr Calvinian doctrines «.f unscriptural free grace and everlasting free wrath _ appear to unprejudiced persons as great enemies to the Divine perfee tions, and to “the sincere milk of God’s word,” as Virgil’s Harpies were to the Trojan hero, and to his richly spread tables? And is there not some resemblance between the Diana and Hecate whom I unmask, and the petty goddesses whom the poet describes thus ? ' Sive* Dew, seu sint dire obsceneque vohucres,— -! Tristius haud illis monstrum, nee sevior ulla Pestis et ira deum Stygiis sese extulit undis. Virginei volucrum vultus, fedissima ventris Proluvies, uneeque manus :—nec vulnera tergo Accipiunt: ceterique fuga sub sidera lapse, Semesam predam, et vestigia feda relinquunt. SECTION XI. Zelotes’ last objection against a reconciliation with Honestus—In answer to it, the reconciler shows, by various illustrations, that the Scriptures do not contradict themselves in holding forth first and second causes— Primary and subordinate motives ; and that the connection of free grace with free will is properly illustrated by the Scriptural emblem of a marriage ; this relation exactly representing the conjunction and oppo- sition of the two Gospel axioms, together with the pre-eminence of free grace, and the subordination of free will. Ir you compare the prejudice of Zelotes against Honestus to a strong castle, the objections which fortify that castle may be compared to the rivers which were supposed to surround Pluto’s palace. Six of them we have already crossed ; one more obstructs our way to the reconcilia- tion, and, like Phlegethon, it warmly runs in the following lines :— Oxszction VII. “When King Joram said to Jehu, ‘Is it peace‘ Jehu answered, ‘ What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel are so many?’ And what peace can I make with Honestus and you, so long as you adulterate the Gospel, by what you call the evangelical marriage, and what I call the monstrous mixture of free grace and free will? I cannot, in conscience, take one step toward a reconciliation, unless you can make appear that, upon your conciliating plan, the dignity of free grace is properly secured. But, as this is impos- sible, I can only look upon your Scripture Scales as a new attempt to set one part of the Scripture against the other, and to give infidels more room to say that the Bible is full of contradictions.” Answer. Exceedingly sorry should I be, if the Scripture Scales haé ihis unhappy tendency. ‘To remove your groundless fears in this re. spect, and to prevent the hasty triumph of infidels, permit me, (1.) Te show that what at first sight seems a contradiction in the scriptures which compose my Scales, appears, upon due consideration, to be only * «OTs hard to say whether they are goddesses or fowls obscene. However they are as ugly and dangerous appearances as. ever ascended from the Stygiaz lake. They have faces like virgins, hands like birds’ claws, and an intolerable filthy looseness! As for their body, it is invulnerable; at lvast, you cannot wound it, they so nimbly fly away into the clouds; leaving the food, which they greedily tore, polluted by their defiling touch.” | “THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 239 the just subordination of second causes to the first, or the proper union of inferior motives with leading ones. Aad, (2.) To prove what Zelotes calls “a monstrous mixture of free grace and free will,” is their im- portant concurrence, which the Scriptures frequently represent to us under the significant emblem of a marriage. Plain illustrations will throw more light upon the subject than deep arguments; I shall there- fore use the former, because they are within the reach of every body, and because Zelotes cannot set them aside under pretence that they are “ metaphysical.” ~ L May we not, on different occasions, use with propriety words which seem contradictory, and which nevertheless agree perfectly together? For instance: with respect to the doctrine of first and second causes, and of primary and secondary means, may I not say, “I ploughed my field this year,” because I ordered it to be ploughed? May I not say, on another occasion, “Such a farmer ploughed it alone,” because no other farmer shared in his toil? May I not, the next moment, point at his team, and say, “These horses ploughed all my field alone if I want to intimate that no other horses were employed in that business? And yet, may I not by and by show Zelotes a new constructed plough, and say, “That light plough ploughed all my field?” Would it be right in Zelotes or Lorenzo to charge me with shuffling, or with self contra- diction, for these different assertions ? If this illustration do not sufficiently strike the reader, I ask, May not a clergyman, without a shadow of prevarication, say, on different occasions, I hold my living through Divine permission; through the lord chancellor’s presentation ; through a liberal education ; through my subscriptions ; through the bishop’s institution, &c? May not all these expressions be true, and proper on different occasions? And may not these causes, means, and qualifications, concur together, and be all 2ssential in their places ? Once more: speaking of a barge that sails up the river, may I not, without contradicting myself, say one moment, The wind alone (in oppo- sition to the tide) brings her up? And if the next moment I add, Her sails alone (in opposition to oars or haling lines) bring her up against the stream, would it be right to infer that I exclude the tackling of the vessel, the rudder, and the steersman from being necessary in their places? Such, however, is the inference of Zelotes. For while Honestus thinks him an enthusiast, for supposing that absolutely nothing but wind and sail [grace and faith] is requisite to spiritual navigation, Zelotes thinks that Honestus is hardly fit to be a cabin boy in the ship of the Church, because he lays a particular stress on the right management of the tackling and rudder ; and both will perhaps look upon me as a trimmer, because, in order to reconcile them, I assert that the wind and sails, the masts and yards, the rigging and the rudder, the compass and pulot have each their proper use ‘and office. II. With respect to primary and secondary motives, may I not say that Christ humbled himself to the death of the cross, out of obedience to his Father ; out of compassionate love for a lost world; that he might put away sin by the sacrifice cf himself; that w hosoever believeth in nim should not perish; that the Scriptures might be fulfilled; that he might leave us an example of humble patience ; that through “death he 240 EQUAL CHECK. (parr might destroy the prince of darkness; and that he might see the fruit of the travail of his soul, obtain the joy that was set before him, and be satisfied? Would Zelotes show himself a judicious divine, if he intimated that these motives are incompatible and contradictory? May not a variety of motives sweetly concur to the same end? May you not, for example, relieve your indigent neighbour, out of fear lest you should meet the fate of the inexorable rich man in hell? Out of pity for a fellow creature in distress? Out of regard for him as a fellow Christian ? Out of a desire to maintain a good conscience, and to keep the com mandments? Out of gratitude, love, and obedience to Christ? That the worthy name by which we are called Christians may not be blas- phemed? That your neighbour may be edified? That you may show your love to God? That you may declare your faith in Christ? That you may lay up treasure in heaven? That, like a faithful steward, you may deliver up your accounts with joy? ‘That you may receive the reward of the inheritance? That you may be justified by your works as a believer in the great day, &c? May not all these motives, like the various steps of Jacob’s mysterious ladder, perfectly agree together? And if a good work “ comes up for a memorial before God,” winged with all these Scriptural motives, is it not likely to be more acceptable than one which ascends supported only by one or two such motives?! Zelotes frequently admits but of two causes of our salvation, and recommends but one motive of good works. The two causes of eternal salvation, which he generally confines himself to, are Christ and faith: and, what is most astonishing, Solifidian as he is, he sometimes gives up even faith itself: for if he reads that “ faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness,” he tells you that faith is to be taken objectively for Christ and his good works; which is just as reasonable as if I said that when Sir Isaac Newton speaks of the eye and of a telescope, he intends that these words should be taken objectively, and should mean the sun and the moon. Again: as Zelotes frequently admits but one cause of salva- tion, that is, Christ’s righteousness, so he often admits but one motive of sincere obedience, and that is, the love of Christ known by name. Hence he gives you to understand that all the good works of those who never heard of Christ are nothing but splendid sins. To ayoid his mistake, we need only admit a variety of causes and motives: and to steer clear of the error of Honestus, we need only pay to the Redeemer the so justly deserved honour of being, in conjunction with his Father and Spirit, the grand original cause, and as he is the Lamb slain, the one properly meritorious cause of our salvation; representing a grateful love to him as the noblest and most powerful motive to obedience, where the Christian Gospel is preached. In following this reasonable and catholic method, we discover the harmony of the Scriptures; we reconcile the opposite texts which fill the Scripture Seales ; and far from giving room to infidels to say that the Bible is full of contradictions, we show the wonderful agreement of a variety of passages, which, upon the narrow plans of Zelotes and Honestus, are really inconsistent, if not altogether contra- dictory. 1 III. With respect to the two Gospel axioms and their basis, FREE _ GRACE and FREE WILL, contrary as they seem to each other, they agree as well as a thousand harmonious contrasts around us. If Zelotes THIRD. | SCRIPTURE SCALES. Q41 consider the natural world in a favourable light, he will see nothing but opposition in harmony. Midnight darkness, when it is reconciled with the blaze of noon, crowns our hills with the mild, the delightful light of, the rising or setting sun. When sultry summers and frozen winters meet half way, they yield the flowers of the spring and the fruits of autumn. If the warming beams of the sun act in conjunction with cooling showers, the earth opens her fruitful bosom, and crowns our fields with a plenteous harvest. Reflect upon your animal frame : how does it subsist? Is it not by a proper union of opposite things, fluids and solids? And by a just temperature of contrary things, cold and heat? Consider your whole self: are you not made of a thinking soul, and of an organized body? Of spirit and matter? Thus two things, which are exactly the reverse of each other, by harmonizing together, form man, who is the wonder of the natural world: just as the Son of God, united to the son of Mary, forms Christ, who is the wonder of the spiritual world. , I readily confess that the connection of the two Gospel axioms, like that of matter and spirit, is a deep mystery. But as it would be absurd to infer that man is an imaginary being, because we cannot explain how thought and reason can be connected with flesh and blood: so would it be unreasonable to suppose that the coalition of free grace with free will is a chimera in divinity, because we cannot exactly describe how they are coupled. We are, however, indebted to St. Paul for a most striking emblem of the essential opposition and wonderful union that subsist between the two axioms, or (which comes to be the same thing) between the Redeemer and the redeemed—between free grace and free will. If the true Church is a mystical body composed of all the souls whose submissive free will yields to free grace, and exerts itself in due subordi- nation to our loving Redeemer ; does it not follow that free grace exactly answers to Christ, and holy free will to God’s holy Church? “ Now,” says the apostle, “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church: a man shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh: this is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church ;” and upon the preceding observation I take the liberty to add :—This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning FREE GRACE and FREE witt. If marriage is a Divine institution, honourable among all men, and typical of spiritual mysteries: if Isaiah says, “'Thy Maker is thy husband :” if Hosea writes, “ In that day, says Jehovah, thou shalt call me Isur ;” that is, my HUSBAND: if St. Paul says to the Corinthians, «T have espoused you as a chaste virgin to one HUSBAND, even Christ :” and if he tells the Romans that they “are become dead to the law, that they should be married to another, even to nim who is raised from the dead, that they should bring forth fruit unto God :” if the sacred writers, I say, frequently use that emblematical way of speech, may I not reve- rently tread in their steps, and in the fear of God warily run the parallel between the conjugal tie and the mystical union of free grace and free will? And,— (1.) “If the husband is the head of the wife,” as says St. Paul; or her lord, as St. Peter intimates ; is not free grace the head and lord of free will? Has it not the pre-eminence in all things? (2.) If the bride- Vou. IL, 16 242 EQUAL CHECK [part groom makes his address to the bride first, without foreing or binding her with cords of necessity, does not free grace also seek free will first, without forcing it, and chaining it down with necessitating, Turkish de- crees? (3.) If the mutual, unnecessitated, voluntary consent of the bridegroom and of the bride, is the very essence of marriage; may I not say that the mutual, unnecessitated, voluntary consent of free grace and free will makes the marriage between Christ and the willing souls, whom St. John calls “the bride,” and “the Lamb’s wife?” (4.) The husband owes no obedience to his wife, but the wife owes all reasonable obedience to her husband. And does not the parallel hold here also? Must not free will humbly and obediently submit to free grace, as Sarah did to Abraham, calling him lord? (5.) The man is to “ give honour to his wife, as to the weaker vessel :” and does not free grace do so to free will, its inferior? Is not its condescending language, “ Behold, I stand at the door and knock: open to me, my sister, my love,” &c. Yea, does not free grace, like St. Paul, “become all things [but sin and wantonness] to all men, that by any means it may gain the free will of some?” (6.) “If the unbelieving wife departs, let her depart,” says St. Paul. And if unbelieving free will is bent upon eloping from free grace, may it not do it? Is it locked up as the sultanas are in Turkey? Al- though incarnate free grace compassionately mourned over the obstinate free will of the Jews, did it dragoon them into compliance? Was not its language, “I would and ye would not?”* “Thou hast been weary of me, O Israel. My people would none of me; so I gave them up to their own hearts’ lust, and they walked in their own counsel :” doing, as a nation, what Judas was judicially permitted to do as an individual. (7.) In case of adultery is it not lawful for the husband to put away his wife? And may not free grace repudiate free will for the same reason? ‘When the free will of Judas had long carried on an adulterous com- merce with mammon; and when he refused to return, did not our Lord put him away, giving him a bill of divorce, together with the fatal sop? And far from detaining him by fulsome Calvinian caresses, did he not publicly say, “‘ Wo to that man! What thou doest, do quickly. Remember Lot’s wife?” (8.) Can the husband, or the wife, have chil- dren alone? Can free grace do human good works without human free will? Did not our Lord speak a self-evident truth, when he declared, ° « Without me ye can do nothing?’ And did not St. Paul set his seal to it when he said, “‘ We are not sufficient, of ourselves, to think any thing [morally good] as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God. Not I, [alone or principally] but the grace of God, which was with me?” And, morally speaking, what can Christ do as the husband of the Church, * Some Calvinists have done this great truth justice, and among them the judicious Mr. Ryland, of Northampton, A. M., who hath published an extract from Dr. Long, bishop of Norwich, descriptive of the resemblance that man bears to God. The first article of his extract runs thus :—‘ The soul is an image of the almighty power of God. God has a power of beginning motion: so has the soul. God’s will acts with astonishing sovereignty, and absolute dominion and pleasure, where, and when, and how he will. The soul chooses or refuses, accepts or rejects an object, with an amazing resemblance to God. Even devils and the wicked refuse God with sovereign will and a most free contempt.” Hence it appears that to rob man of free agency, under pretence of making free grace all in all, is to destroy the first feature of God’s image in his living picture, man ee ee ee hd THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 243 without her concurrence? What beside atoning, inviting, pre-engaging, and drawing?) Do we not read, that he could not do many works among the people of Nazareth, because of their unbelief? And for want of co-operation or concurrence in sinners, does he not complain, “J have laboured in vain: I have spent my strength for naught: all the day long I stretched forth my hands, and no man regarded?” Lasr- ty: may I not observe that as the procreation of children is the most important consequence of marriage ; so the production of “the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ,” is the most important conse- quence of the harmonious opposition of free grace and free will, when they are joined together in that evangelical marriage, which the Scrip- ture calls “faith working by love ?” Should Zelotes object here that “some good people produce all the fruits of righteousness, and do all the good works which St. Paul expects from believers, though they will hear of nothing but free grace, and perpetually decry their own good works:” I reply, that there are such persons is granted: nor are they less conspicuous for their unreason- ableness, than for their piety. They may rank for consistency with a woman, who is excessively fond of her husband, and peevish with every body else, especially with her own children. Her constant language is, «« My husband is all in all in the house; he does every thing: I am ab- solutely nobody, I am worse than any body, I am a monster, I bring forth nothing but monsters: my best productions are dung, dross, and filthy rags,” &c, &c. A friend of her husband, tired to hear such speeches day by day, ventures to set her right by the followmg ques- tions :—“ Pray, madam, if your husband is all in all im the house, is he his own wife? If he does all that is done under your roof, did he get drunk the other day when your footman did so? Does he bear his own children, and give them suck? If you are absolutely nobody, who is the mother of the fine boy that hangs at your breast? And if that child is a mere* monster, why do you dishonour your husband by fathering a monster upon him?’ While she blushes and says, “ I hate controversy, I cannot bear carnal reasonings,” &c, I close this parallel between mar- riage, and the evangelical union of free grace and free will, by some remarks, which; I hope, will reconcile Zelotes and Honestus to the har- monious opposition of the seemingly contrary doctrines of grace and justice, of faith and works, of free grace and free will, which answer to the two Gospel axioms, and are balanced in the two Scripture Scales. Union without opposition is dull and insipid. You are acquainted with the pleasures of friendship: you would gladly go miles to shake hands with an intimate friend ; but why did you never feel any pleasure * Walking about my parish some years ago, I heard a collier’s wife venting her bad humour upon somebody, whom she called ‘‘ son of a b—h.” I went into the house to make peace; and finding it was her own son, whom she thus abused, I expostulated with her about the absurdity of her language, so far as it offended God, and reflected upon herself. I might have added that if her child was the son of a b—ch, he must also be the son of a d—g; a circumstance this not less dishonourable to her husband than to herself: but I really forgot this argu- ment [ad mulierem] at that time. However, I mention it here, in hopes that Zelotes, who, through voluntary humility, calls his good works as many bad names as the woman did her son, will take the hint, and will no more reflect upon Christ, by injudiciously loading the productions of his free grace with Antinomian abuse. 244 EQUAL CHECK. [Parr in shaking your left hand with your right, and in returning the friendly civility? Is it not because the joining of your own hands would be expressive of a union without proper opposition; of a union without sufficient room to display the mutual endearments of one free will in harmony with another? For what I have all along called free grace, is nothing but God’s gracious free will, to which the obedient free will of believers humbly submits itself. Why can you have no satisfaction in going to the fire, when a fever inflames your blood; or in drinking a cooling draught, when you are benumbed with cold? Is it not because in either case the pleasure ceases, or rather becomes pain, for want of proper opposition ? Is not opposition without union the very ground of infernal wo? When opposition amounts to downright contrariety, does it not end in fierce, destructive discord? And does not this discord produce the hor- rid concert which our Lord describes by “ weeping, wailing, and gnash- ing of teeth,” the genuine expressions of sorrow, anguish, and despair ? On the other hand, is not opposition in union the very soul of celestial joys? And should I take too much liberty with the deep things of God, if I ventured upon the following query :—TIs it not from the eternal, mysterious, ineffable opposition of Father and Son, in eternal, mysterious, ineffable union with each other, that the eternal love and joy of the Spirit proceeds to accomplish the mystery of the Divine unity, and form the very heaven of heaven? But if that question appear too bold, or too deep, I drop it, and, keep- ing within earthly bounds, I ask, Does not experience convince us that the most perfect concerts are those in which a number of instruments, soft as the flute, and strong as the bassoon, high sounding as the clarion, and deep toned as the kettle drum, properly agree with tenor, counter tenor, bass, and treble voices? Is it not then that the combined effects of slow and quick vibrations, high and low notes, sharp and flat tones solemn and cheerful accents, grave and shrill, melting and rousing, gen- tle and terrible sounds, by their harmonizing oppositions, alternately brace and dilate our auditory nerves ; or delightfully soothe and alarm, lull and ravish our musical powers? Such, and far more glorious, is the Gospel concert of free grace and free will: a sweetly awful concert this, in which prohibitions and commands, cautions and exhortations, alluring promises and fearful threatenings, gentle offers of mercy and terrible denunciations of vengeance, have all their proper places. Now man is brought down to the gates of hell, as a rebellious worm ; and now [by a proper transition] he is exalted to the heaven of heavens, as the friend of God. Now Christ hangs on an ignominious cross ; and now he fills the everlasting throne : one day as a Saviour and a prophet, he gives grace, he offers glory; he calls, he entreats, he weeps, he bleeds, he dies : another day, as a rewarder and a king, he revives and triumphs ; he absolves or condemns ; he opens and shuts both hell and heaven. The treble in this doctrinal concert appears enthusiastic jar to prejudiced Honestus ; and the bass passes for heretical discord with heated Zelotes : but an unbiassed Protestant “ knows the joyful sound” of free grace ; the solemn sound of free will; and the alarming sound ~ of just wrath ; and admitting each in his concert, he makes Scriptural melody to his Priest and Lawgiver—to his Redeemer and his Judge. As =~ : _ THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 245 for the merry tune of Antinomian free grace, mixed with the reprovsting roar of Calvinian free wrath, it grates upon him, it grieves his soul, it diffuses chillness through his veins, it carries horror to his very heart. While a divine combines evangelically, and uses properly the two Gospel axioms, you may compare him to a musician who skilfully tunes, and wisely uses all the strings of his instrument. But when Zelotes and Honestus discard one of the evangelical axioms, they resemble a harper who peevishly cuts half the strings of his harp, and ridiculously confines himself to using only the other half. Or, to return to the Scripture simile of a marriage: when an unprejudiced evangelist solemnizes the doctrinal marriage which I contend for, he pays a proper regard to the bridegroom and to the bride ; he considers both free grace and free will. Therefore when he sees Honestus perform all the ceremony with free will only, he is as much surprised as if he saw a clergyman take a gold ring from the right hand of a woman, put it on the fourth finger of her left hand, and gravely try to-marry her to herself. And when he sees Zelotes transact all the business with free grace alone, he is not less astonished than if he saw a minister take a single man’s right hand, put it into his left hand, and render himself ridiculous by pronouncing over him a solemn nuptial blessing. If Zelotes be still afraid that upon the plan of an evangelical marriage between free grace and free will, the transcendent dignity of God’s grace is not properly secured; and that human agency will absolutely claim the incommunicable honours due to Divine favour ; I shall guard the preceding pages by some remarks, which will, I hope, remove Zelotes’ groundless fears, and give Honestus a seasonable caution. God’s gracious dispensations toward man, (or which comes to the same,) the dealings of free grace with free will, are frequently represented in Scripture under the emblem of gracious covenants. Now covenants which are made between the Creator and his creatures ; between the Supreme Being, who is absolutely independent, because he wants nothing ; and inferior beings, who are entirely dependent upon him, because they want all things; such gracious covenants, I say, always imply a match- less condescension on the part of the Creator, and an inconceivable obli- gation on the part of his creatures. Therefore, according to the doctrine enforced in these sheets, free grace, which shines by its own eternal lustre, without receiving any thing from free will, can never, in point of dignity, be confounded with free will; because free will borrows all its power and excellence from free grace ; just as the moon borrows all her light and glory from the sun. We infer, therefore, that as the moon acts in conjunction with, and due subordination to the sun in the natural world, without supplanting or rivalling the sun: so free will may act in conjunction with, and due subordination to free grace in the spiritual world, without rivalling, much more without supplanting free grace. And hence it appears that Zelotes’ fears lest our doctrine should pour contempt on the glory of free grace, are as groundless as the panic of the ancient Persians, who, when they saw the moon passing between the earth and the sun, imagined that the great luminaries which rule the day and the night were actually fighting for the mastery ; and absurdly dreaded that the strife would end in the fotal extinction of the solar light. 246 EQUAL CHECK [part Ezekiel, chap. xvi, gives us an account of the glory to which God advanced the Jewish Church. From a state of the greatest meanness and pollution, he raised her to the dignity and splendour described in these words :—*“ I sware unto thee, and entered into a marriage coye- nant with thee, saith the Lord God; and thou becamest mine. I clothed thee also with embroidered work; I decked thee with ornaments: thou wast exceeding beautiful: thou didst prosper into a kingdom, and thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was per- fact through the comeliness which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord.” However, the Jewish Church (such is the power of free will !) abused these glorious favours, as appears from the next words :—“ Thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot, saith the Lord God.” But does this adulterous ingratitude of the Jews disprove the truth of Ezekiel’s doctrine, any more than the adultery of Bathsheba disproved her being once Uriah’s lawful wife? And can any consequence be charged upon the doctrine of the evangelical marriage maintained in these sheets, which is not equally chargeable upon the above-mentioned doctrine of the prophet ? We grant that free will too frequently forgets its place, as too many persons of the inferior and weaker sex forget theirs, notwithstanding their solemn promise of dutiful obedience till death ; but does this show, either that the union of indulgent free grace and dutiful free will is a heretical fancy : or that free will is really equal to free grace? _If imperious free will rises against free grace, and acts the part of a Jezebel, is not free grace strong enough to reduce it by proper methods, or wise enough to give it a bill of divorcement, if such methods prove ineffectual? Does Zelotes act a becoming part when he so interferes between free grace and free will, as to turn the latter out of the Church, under pretence of siding with the former? Has he any more right to do it, than I have to turn Queen Charlotte out of England, under pretence that bloody Mary abused her royal authority ? Why does Zelotes stumble at the doctrine of the evangelical marriage which I prove? And why is Lorenzo offended at the mystery of Christ’s incarnation? Is it not because they overlook the noble original of free will? If you trace the free-willing soul back to its eternal source, you will find that it proceeds from Him, who “breathed into the nostrils of Adam the breath of life,” that man might “ become a living soul.” And where is the absurdity of asserting that by means of the mysteries which we call redemption and sanctification, he reunites him- self to that very spirit which came from him; to that very soul which he breathed into the earthly Adam? If man’s dignity before the fall was such, that when St. Luke declares our Lord’s human generation, and comes to the highest round of the genealogical ladder, he is not afraid to say that Christ was “the son of Adam, &c, who was the son of God,” Luke ii, 38, where is the absurdity of supposing that God in Christ kindly receives his son again, when that son returns to him like the free-willing, penitent prodigal ? Nor need free will be proud of this unspeakable honour: for, not to mention its creation, for which it is entirely indebted to free grace, does it not owe to Divine favour all the blessings of redemption? If free grace should say to free will, “ When I passed by thee, and saw THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 247 thee polluted in thy own blood, I said unto thee, Live ;” would not believing free will instantly bow to the dust, and thankfully acknowledge the undeserved mercy? Why then should Zelotes think that free will will infallibly forget its place, if it be raised to the honour of an evan- gelical, conjugal union with free grace? If a prince raised a filthy, ecn- demned, dead shepherdess from the dung-hill, the dungeon, and the grave ; . graciously adyancing her to princely honours, and a seat at his feet, or by his side; does it follow that she must necessarily forget her former baseness? or that his condescension must unavoidably rob him of his native superiority? For my part, when I hear St. John say, “ Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we [who submit our free will to free grace] should be called the sons of God,— the wife of the Lamb,” &c, far from being tempted to forget my wretch- edness, I am excited to “fear the Lord and his goodness,” and encou- - raged to ‘‘ perfect holiness in that fear ;” for “every man who hath this faith and hope, purifieth himself, even as God is pure:” so far is he from necessarily walking in pride as a vain-glorious Pharisée ; or from exalting himself as a self-deified antichrist! Beside, to all eternity the glaring truth, maintained by the apostle, will abase free wall, and secure the transcendent dignity of free grace: “ What hast thou, which thou hast not [more or less directly] received” of free, creating, persevering, redeeming, sanctifying, or rewarding grace? ‘ Who hath first given to 2, and it shall be recompensed to him again?” “For of him,” i. e. of God, the bottomless and shoreless ocean of free grace, “and through him, and to him, are all good things: to whom be glory, for ever. Amen !” SECTION XII. The author sums up the opposite errors of Zelotes and Honestus, whom he invites to a speedy reconciliation—To bring them to it, he urges strong and soft motives; and after giving them some directions and encouragements, he concludes by apologizing for his plainness of speech. Ir Honestus be not averse to the rational and Scriptural terms of peace proposed in the preceding pages; and if I have removed the objections which Zelotes makes against these terms, what remains for me to do but to press them both to be instantly reconciled? To this end I shall once more urge upon them two powerful motives, the one taken from the unspeakable mischief done by their unreasonable divi- sion, and the other from the advantage and comfort which their Scrip- tural agreement will produce. Permit me, Zelotes, to begin by the mischief which you do, through your opposition to the moral truths maintained by Honestus. If reason and Scripture breathe through the preceding pages, is it not evident that, under pretence of exalting free grace, which is the first weight of the sanctuary, you throw away the second weight, which is the free will » offering of sincere obedience ; constantly refusing it the place of a weight before God, when the children of men are weighed for eternal 248 EQUAL CHECK. [PART life or eternal death, in the awful, decisive balance of election and reprobation? Does it not necessarily follow from thence that the per- sonal election of some men to eternal salvation is merely of unscriptural free grace ; while the personal reprobation of others from grace and glory is entirely of tyrannical free wrath? Is not this the language of your doctrine? “There is for the elect but one weight, bearing the stamp of Heaven and everlasting love; namely, the finished work of Christ, which is absolutely and irresistibly thrown into the scale of all who are predestinated to eternal life: and this golden weight is so heavy that, without any of their good works, it will unavoidably turn the scale for their eternal salvation. And, on the other hand, there is for the reprobates but one weight, bearing the stamp of hell and everlasting wrath, namely, the finished work of Adam, which is absolutely and irresistibly thrown into the scale of all that are predestinated to eternal death : and this leaden weight is so heavy, that let them endeavour ever © so much to rise to heavenly joys, it will necessarily sink them to eternal wo.” Thus you turn the Gospel into a Calvinian farrago; whereas, if you divided the truth aright, you would do both Gospel axioms jus- tice ; asserting, that although the initial salvation of sinners is of free grace alone; yet the eternal salvation of adult believers, which is judi- cially as well as graciously bestowed upon them by way of reward, is both of free grace and of rectified free will; both of faith, and of its voluntary wurks ; both of Christ living, dying, and rising again for us ; and of believers graciously assisted (not despotically necessitated) to persevere in the obedience of faith. The mischief does not stop here. 'To make way for your error, you frequently represent the second Scripture Scale, with the passages which it contains, as Pharisaical or Mosaical legality; distressing the minds of the simple by your unscriptural refinements, and hardening the Nicolaitans,—the practical Antinomians, in their contempt of morality and sincere obedience. Ido you justice, Zelotes: I confess that, like Christ, you hate their deeds; but, alas! like antichrist, you love, you dearly love their spurious doctrines of grace; and this inconsistency involves you in perpetual difficulties and glaring contradictions. One moment Solifidianism makes you extol their immoral principles; the next moment your exemplary piety makes you exclaim against their consistent immoral practices. One hour you assure them that our eternal justification entirely depends upon God’s absolute predestination, and upon the salvation completely finished by Christ for us ; you openly declare that, from first to last, our works have absolutely no hand in the business of salvation ; and you insinuate that a fallen believer is as much a child of God when he puts his bottle to his neighbour to make him drunk, or when he commits adultery and premeditates murder, as when he deeply repents and bears fruit meet for repentance. The next hour, indeed, you are ashamed of such barefaced Antinomianism. To mend the matter you contradict yourself, you play the Arminian, and assert that all drunkards, adulterers, and murderers are unbelievers, and that all such sinners are in the high road to hell. Thus you alternately encourage and chide, flatter and correct your Nicolaitan converts; but one caress does them more harm than twenty stripes or wounds; for instead of the precious balm of Gilead, you have substituted the cheap THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 249 balm of Geneva: a dangerous salve this, which slightly heals, and teo often imperceptibly poisons a wounded conscience. With this applica- tion they soon cure themselves ; one single dose of unconditional elec- tion to eternal life, of inamissible, complete justification merely by the good works of another, or of “salvation finished in the full extent of the word,” without any of our outward performances, makes them as hearty and cheerful as any Laodiceans ever were. When they hear your Arminian pleas for undefiled religion, they wonder at your legality. If you will be inconsistent, they will not : they are determined to be all of a piece. You have inspired them with sove- reign contempt far the preceptive, remunerative, and vindictive part of the Gospel: nay, you have taught them to abhor it, as the dreadful heresy of the Arminians, Pelagians, Pharisees, and free willers. And thus you have inadvertently paved and pointed out the way to the Anti- nomian city of refuge. ‘Thither they have fled, by your direction, and having laid hold on the false hope which you have set before them, they now stand completely deceived in self-imputed and non-imparted right- eousness. It is true that you attack them there from time to time; ashamed of the genuine consequence of your partial gospel, you call St. James to your assistance, and erect a Wesleyan battery to demolish their Solifidian ramparts: but, alas! you have long since taught them to nail up all the pieces of evangelical ordnance ; and when you “point them against their towers, they do but smile at your inconsistency. Looking upon you as one who is not less entangled in the law, than risen Lazarus was in his grave clothes, they heartily pray that you may be delivered from the remains of Moses? veil, and see into the privileges-of believers as clearly as they do; and when they have briskly fired back your own shots, legality ! ! legality ! they sit down behind the walls which you take so much pains to repair, I mean the walls of mystical Geneva, singing there a Solifidian Requiem to themselves, and sometimes a triumphal Te Deum to oue another. Happy would it be for you, Zelotes, and for the Church of God, if the mischief done by your modern gospel were confined to the immoral fraternity of the Nicolaitans. But, alas! it produces the worst effect upon the moralists also. Honestus and his admirers see you extol free grace in so unguarded a manner, as to demolish free will, and unfurl the banner of free wrath. They hear you talk im such a strain of “a day of God’s power,” in which the elect are irresistibly converted, as to make sinners forget that now is the day of salvation, and the time to use one or two talents, till the Lord comes with more. Perhaps also Honestus meets with a soul frightened almost to distraction by the doctrine of ab- solute reprobation, which always dogs your favourite doctrine of Cal- vinian election. To complete the mischief you drop some deadly hints about the harmlessness of sin; or, what is still worse, about its profit- ableness and sanctifying influence with respect to believers. Neither height nor depth of iniquity shall separate them from the love of God Nay, the most grievous falls, falls into adultery and murder, shall be se overruled, as infallibly to drive them nearer to Christ, and of consequence. to make them rise higher and sing louder in heaven. This Solifidian gospel shocks Honestus. His moral breast swells against it with just indignation ; and supposing that the doctrine of free grace (of which you 250 EQUAL CHECK. [PART call yourself the defender) is necessarily connected with such loose prin- ciples, he is tempted to give it up, and begins perhaps to suspect that religious experiences are only the workings of a melancholy blood, or the conceits of enthusiastic brains. This, Zelotes, and more, is the mis chief you inadvertently do by your warm opposition to the doctrines of justice, which support the second Gospel axiom, and are inseparable from the Scripture doctrines of grace. Sit And you, Honestus, if you lay aside the first weight of the sanctuary. are you less guilty than Zelotes ? When you say little or nothing of the fall in Adam, of our recovery by Christ, and of our need of a living, victorious faith : and when, under the plausible pretence of asserting our moral agency, and pleading for sincere obedience, you keep out of sight the unsearchable riches of Christ, the wonderful efficacy of his atoning blood, and the encouraging doctrine of free grace ; do you not inadvert- ently confirm Deistical moralists in their destructive notions, that scraps of moral honesty will answer the end of exalted piety, and of renovating — faith? And do you not increase the prejudices of Zelotes ; making him believe, by your sparing use of the first Gospel axiom, that all who re- present morality and good works as an indispensable part of Christ’s Gospel, are secret enemies to free grace, and stiff maintainers of Phari- saic errors? O Zelotes, O Honestus, what have ye done? What are ye still doing? Alas! ye drive one another farther and farther from the complete “truth, as it is in Jesus.” In your unreasonable contention, you break the har- mony of the Gospel; ye destroy the Scripture Scales; ye tear in two the book of life, and run away with a mangled part, which ye fondly take for the whole. Ye crucify Christ doctrinally: Honestus pierces his right hand, while Zelotes transfixes the left; both pleading, as the scribes and Pharisees did, that ye only crucify a “ deceiver of the people.” A skilful physician, by prudently mixing two contrary drugs, may so temper their effect as to compound an excellent medicine. Thus those ingredients, which, if they were given alone, would perhaps kill his pa- tients, by being administered together, operate in corrective, qualifying conjunction, and prove highly conducive to health. Happy would it be for your spiritual patients, if ye imitated his skill, by evangelically com- bining the gracious promises, and the holy precepts, which support the two Gospel axioms! But, alas! ye do just the reverse, when ye indis- criminately administer only the truths of the first or of the second axiom. Thus, instead of curing your patients, ye sour their minds; Honestus with the poisonous leaven of the Pharisees ; and Zelotes with the killing leaven of the Antinomians. The practice of thousands shows what dangerous touches ye haye, by these means, given to their principles: for your admireyg, O Zelotes, are encouraged so to depend upon free grace, as not vigorously to exert the powers of free will. And it is well if some of them do not lie down in stupid dejection, idly waiting for an overbearing impetus of Divine grace, which, you insinuate, is to do all for us without us ; while others cheer- fully. rise up to play, in consequence of the Laodicean ease which natu- rally flows from the doctrine of salvation Calvinistically finished. On the other hand, your hearers, O Honestus, are so taught to depend upon their best endeavours, and the faithful exertion of their free will, that many of THIRD.] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 251 them see no occasion ardently to implore the help of free grace, as de- prayed, impotent, blind, guilty, hell-deserving sinners ought todo. Trust- ing to what they will do to-morrow, they neglect and grieve the Holy Spirit, whichis ready to help their infirmities to-day. And it is to be feared that many of them play the dangerous game of procrastination till the Sun of righteousness sets, with respect to them;; till all their oil is burned, and their lamps, going out with a bad smell, leave them in the dreadful night when no man can work. Who can tell the mischiefs which ye have already done by your mangled gospels? It will be known im the great day. But suppose ye had only caused the miscarriage of one soui ; would not this be matter of unspeakable grief? If ye would esteem it a misfortune to have oc- casioned the loss of your neighbour’s horse ; think, O think, how sad a thing it must be to have caused, though undesignedly, the destruction of his soul! The loss of the cattle upon a thousand hills can be repaired ; but if a man should gain the whole world, and through your wrong direc- tions lose his own soul, what will he, what will you give in exchange for his soul? In the multitude of those, whose saly et is thus endangered, I see Lorenzo—sensible, thoughtful, learned Lorenzo: his case is truly deplorable, and a particular attention to it may convince you of the fatal tendency of a gospel which wants almost one half of its proper weight. Although the dogmatical assertions of a preacher, if they be supported by the charms of a mellifiuous eloquence, or the violence of a boisterous oratory, prevail with many; yet not with all. For while some greedily drink in the very dregs of error, through the weakness of their minds, the movableness of their passions, and the credulity which accompanies superstitious ignorance; others are tempted to doubt of the plainest truths, through the nicety of a keen wit, the refinements of a polite education, and the scrupulousness of a skeptical understanding. Lorenzo is one of this number. He is determined not to pin his faith upon any man’s sleeve. And he sets out in search of religious truth with this just principle, that religion may improve, but can never oppose good sense and good morals. _In this disposition Lorenzo hears Zelotes ; and when Zelotes begins to play upon his numerous audience with his rhetorical artillery, Lorenzo examines if the cannon of his eloquence is loaded with a proper ball; if the solidity of his arguments answers to the positiveness, loudness, or pathos of hisdelivery. Zelotes, not satisfied to preach only the doctrine contained in the first Scripture Scale, takes upon himself warmly to decry the doctrine contained in the second ; and at times he even explodes morality ; unguardedly representing it as the cleaner way to hell. If this be the Gospel, says Lorenzo, I must ever remain an unbeliever; for I cannot swallow down a cluster of incon- sistencies, whence the poison of immorality visibly distils. He hears you next, Honestus ; and he admires the rational manner in which you prove man’s free agency, and point out the delightful path of virtue ; but, alas! you mention neither our natural impotence, nor the help which free, redeeming grace has laid on Christ for helpless smners. As this doctrine is not repugnant co the light of reason, Lorenzo prefers it to the Solifidian scheme of Zelotes. Thus reason stands him instead of Christ, free will instead of free grace, and some external acts of 252 EQUAL CHECK. [PART benevolence instead of the faith which renews the heart. And upon the same leg of this outward morality he hops along in the ways of virtue, till a violent temptation pushes him into some gross immorality. His wounded conscience begins then to want ease and a cure ; but he knows not where to seek it. Honestus seldom points him clearly to the Saviour’s blood ; and when Zelotes does it, he too often defiles the sacred fountain with unscriptural refinements, and immoral absurdities, artfully wrapped up in Scripture phrases. Hence it is that Lorenzo does not see the remedy, or that he turns from it with contempt. Nor should I wonder if, while each of you thus keeps from him one of the keys of Christian knowledge, he remained a stranger to the Gospel, and began to suspect that the Bible is a mere jumble of legends and inconsistencies—an apple of discord thrown among men by crafty priests, and artful politicians, to awe the vulgar, and divert the thoughts of the inquisitive. In these critical circumstances he meets with Hume and Voltaire, whom he prefers to you both; and, renouncing equally free grace and free will, he flees for shelter to open infidelity and avowed fatalism. Thither numbers follow him daily ; and thither your refinements, O Zelotes, and your errors, O Honestus, will probably drive the next generation, if ye continue to sap the foundation of the Gospel axioms. For the Gospel can no more stand long upon one of its pillars, than you can stand long upon one of your legs. Christianity without faith, or without works, is like a sun without light, or without healt. Such Christianity is as different from primitive Christianity, as such a sun is different from the bright luminary at whose approach darkness flies and winters retire. Nor are Lorenzo, and his Deistical friends, only hurt by your doc- trinal mistakes. Ye, yourselves, probably feel the bad effects of your parting the Gospel axioms. It is hardly possible that ye should take off the fore wheels, or the hind wheels of the Gospel chariot, without retarding your own progress toward the New Jerusalem. To say nothing of your spiritual experiences, may I not inquire if Honestus, after all his dis. courses on morality and charity, might not, in some instances, be a little more moral, or more extensively charitable, if not to the bodies, at least to the souls of his neighbours? And may I not ask Zelotes, if after all his encomiums upon free grace, he might not be a little more averse to narrowness of spirit, unscriptural positiveness, and self-electing partiality ; a little less inclined to rash judging, contempt of his opponents, and free wrath ? Should ye find, after close examination, that these are the mischievous consequences of your variance ; and should ye desire to prevent them, ye need only go half way to meet and embrace each other. You, Zelotes, receive the important truth which Honestus defends, and, in subordination to Christ and free grace, preach free will, without whieh there can be no acceptable obedience. And you, Honestus, espouse the delightful truth recommended by Zelotes. Preach free grace, without which free will can neyer be productive of sincere morality. So shall you vindicate morality and free will with less offence to Zelotes, and with more success among your own admirers. In a word, instead of parting the two Gos- pel axioms, and filling the Church with Gnostics or formalists; with Antinomian believers, or faithless workers ; instead of tearing our Priest asunder from our King, and making Christianity a laughing stock for : ; i ‘ 5 Boe ae re “hoe eat THIRD.| SCRIPTURE SCALES. 253 infidels by your perpetual divisions, admit the use of the Scripture Scales , contend for the faith once delivered to the saints; and, dropping your unreasonable and unscriptural objections against each other, seek, hand in hand, “ Fulsome,” the gross Antinomian, and Lorenzo, the immoral moralist ; earnestly seek these lost sheep, which ye have inadvertently driven from the good Shepherd, and which now wander upon the dark mountains of immorality and skepticism. ‘They may be brought back ; they are not yet devoured by the roaring lion. If you will reclaim them, you, Honestus, calm the agitated breast of Lorenzo, and strengthen his feeble knees, by all the reviving, exhilarating truths of the first Gospel axiom. And you, Zelotes, instead of frightening him from these truths by adulterating the genuine doctrine of free grace, with loose, Solifidian tenets; or by slyly dropping into the cup of salvation which you offer him, poisonous drops of free wrath, Calvinian reprobation, and necessary damnation ; recommend yourself to his reason and conscience by all the moral truths which spring from the fitness of things and the second Gospel axiom. With regard to Fulsome, remember, O Zelotes, that you are commanded to “ feed the fat with judgment,” and that Christ-himself fed the ancient Laodiceans with that convenient food. Give therefore to this modern Laodicean chiefly the Gospel truths which fill the second Gospel scale. But give them to him in full weight. Let him have a good measure, pressed down, and running over into his Antinomian bosom, till he “ hold the truth in unrighteousness’ no more. And that he may receive the “ whole truth as it is in Jesus,” be you persuaded, Honestus, to second Zelotes. Enforce your moral persuasions upon Fulsome, by all the weighty, evangelical arguments which the first axiom suggests. So shall you break the force of his prejudices. He will see that sincere obedience is inseparable from true faith ; and, being taught by happy experience, he will soon acknowledge that the doctrine of free will is as consistent with the doctrine of free grace, as the free returning of our breath is consistent with the free drawing of it. Thus ye will both happily concur in converting those whom ye have imadvertently perverted. While, like faithful dispensers of Gospel truths, ye weigh in this man- ner to every one his portion of physic or food in due season, and in proper scales; our Lord, by lifting upon you the light of his pleased countenance, will make you sensible, that, in spirituals as well as in temporals, “a false balance is an abomination to him; but a just weight is his delight.” Your honesty may indeed offend many of your admirers, and make you lose your popularity ; but prefer the testimony of a good conscience to popular applause; and the witness of God’s Spirit to the praise of party men. Nor be afraid to share the fate of our great Pro- phet, and of his blunt forerunner, who, by firmly standing to the Gospel axioms, lost their immense congregations and their lives. Christ fell a sacrifice not only to Divine justice, but also to Caiaphas’ Pharisaic rage against the truths contained in the first Scale ; and John the Baptist had the honour of being beheaded, for bearing his bold testimony to those contained in the second Scale, and against the Antinomianism of a pro- fessing prince, who “observed him, heard him gladly, and did many things.” O Honestus, O Zelotes, think it an honour to tread in the steps of these two martyred champions of truth. Let them revive, and 954 EQUAL CHECK. [PART preach again in you. Shrink not at the thought of the Pharisaic con- tempt, and of the Antinomian abuse which await you, if you are deter- mined to preach both the anti-Pharisaic and the anti-Solifidian part of the Gospel. On the contrary, be ambitious to suffer something for him, who calls himself the truth: for him, who suffered so much for you, and who, fer the joy of your salvation, which was set before him, despised the shame, endured the cross, and now sits at God’s right hand, ready to reward your faithfulness with a crown of righteousness, life, and lory. 7 Ye should wade to that triple crown through floods of persecution, and rivers of blood, if it were necessary. But God may not call you to suffer for your faithfulness. And if he do, he will reward you, even in this life, with a double portion of peace and love. While the demon of discord sows the tares of division, and blows up the coals which bi- gotry has kinaled, ye shall inherit the beatitude of peace makers. “The peace of God, which passes all understanding,” shall rest upon you as it does upon all the sons of peace. And the delightful tranquillity restored to the Church, shall flow back into your own souls, and be extended as a river to your families and neighbourhood, which your opposite extremes have perhaps distracted. What a glorious prospect rises before my exulting imagination! A holy, catholic Church! A Church, where the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, and the foretastes of eternal life, are constantly enjoyed ; where swords are beat into reaping hooks; and where shouts for controversial engagements are turned into songs of brotherly love! To whom, next to God, are we obliged for this wonderful change? It is to you, Zelotes, whose intemperate zeal is now rectified by the judi- cious solidity of Honestus; and to you, Honestus, whose phlegmatic religion is now corrected by the fervour of Zelotes. Henceforth, in- stead of contending with each other, ye amicably bear together the ark of the Lord. While ye triumphantly sustain the sacred load, and while Christian psalmists joyfully sing, “Behold how good and pleasant a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity; union is the refresh- ing dew which falls upon the hill of Sion, where the Lord has promised his blessing, and life for evermore :”’—while they’sing this, I see the thousands of Israel pass the “waters of strife,” and take possession of the land of Canaan—the spiritual kingdom of God. Their happiness is almost paradisiacal! “The multitude of them that believe are of one heart and of one soul: they continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship—in breaking of bread, and in prayers. ‘They eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart; neither says any of them that aught of the things which he possesses is his own: for they have all things common ; they are perfected in one.” Truth has cast them into the mould of love. Their hearts and their language are no more ~ divided. They think and speak the same. In a word, Babel is “no more, and the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven.- O Zelotes! O Honestus! shall this pleasing prospect vanish away as the colours of the rambow? Will ye stil) make Lorenzo think that the Acts of the Apostles is a religious novel? And the Christian harmony there described a delusive dream? O God of peace, truth, and love, suffer 1t not. Bless the scriptures, bless the arguments which fill these pages. THIRD. ] SCRIPTURE SCALES. 253 Give, O give me favour in the sight of the two antagonists whom I address. Make me, unworthy as I am, the mean of their lasting recon- ciliation. Remove their prejudices; soften their hearts; humble their minds ; and endue me with the strength of a spiritual Samson; that, taking these two pillars of our divisions in the arms of praying love, I may bend them toward each other, and press them, breast to breast, upon the line of moderation, till they become one with the truth, and one with each other. When thou hadst prospered the endeavours of Abra- ham’s servant, to the bringing about the marriage of Isaac and Rebecca, thou wroughtest new miracles. Thou didst melt angry Esau in the arms of trembling Jacob, and injured Joseph over the neck of his relent- ing brethren. Repeat, good Lord, these ancient wonders ; show thyself still the God of all consolation. Let me not only succeed in asserting the evangelical marriage of condescending free grace and humble free will; but also im reconciling the contentious divines, who rashly put asunder what thou hast so strongly joined together. O Zelotes! O Honestus! my heart is enlarged toward you. It ar- dently desires the peace of Jerusalem and your own. If to-day ye do not despise the consistent testimonies of the fathers, and of our reformers; if to-day ye regard the whispers of reason, and the calls of conscience ; if to-day ye reverence the suffragés of the prophets, the assertions of the apostles, and the declarations of Jesus Christ; if to-day “ye hear the voice of God” speaking to you by the Spirit of truth, and by the Prince of Peace; “harden not your hearts.” You, Zelotes, harden it not against free will, smcere obedience, and your brother Honestus. And you, Honestus, humbly bow to free grace, and kindly embrace your brother Zelotes. All things are now ready. Come together to the marriage of free grace and free will. Come to the feast of reconcilia- tion. Jesus himself will be there, to turn your bitter “ waters of jea- lousy” into the generous wine of “ brotherly kindness.” Too long have you begged to be excused; saying, “I have married a wife; I have espoused a party, and therefore I] cannot come!” Party spirit has seduced you; put away that strumpet. Espouse truth ; embrace love ; and you will soon give each other the right hand of fellowship. Ihave gently drawn you both with the bands of a man—vwith rational arguments. I have morally compelled you with the Spirit’s sword, “ the word of God.” By the numerous and heavy weights, which fill these Scripture Scales, | have endeavoured to turn the scale of the preju- dices, which each of you has entertained against one of the Gospel axioms. But, alas! my labour will be lost, if you are determined still to rise against that part of the truth, which each of you has hitherto defended. Come, then, when reason invites, when revelation bids, when conscience urges, yield to my plea: nay, yield to the solicitations of thousands; for although I seem to mediate alone between you both, thousands of well wishers to Sion’s peace, thousands of moderate men, wno mourn for the desolations of Jerusalem, wish success to my media- tion. Their good wishes support my pen; their ardent prayers warm my soul ; my love for peace grows importunate, and constrains me to redouble my entreaties. O Zelutes, O Honestus, by the names of Christians, and Protestants, which ye bear; by your regard for the honour and peace of Sion; by the blessings promised to them that love 206 EQUAL CHECK. [parr her prosperity ; by the curses denounced against those who widen the breaches of her walls; by the scandalous joy, which your injudicious contentions give to all the classes of infidels; by the tears of undis- sembled sorrow, which God’s dearest children shed im secret over the disputes which your mistaken zeal has raised, and which your opposi- tion to a part of the truth continues to foment ; by your professed regard for the sacred book, which your divisions lacerate, and render contemp- tible ; by the worth of the souls, which you fill with prejudices against Christianity ; by the danger of those whom you have already driven into the destructive errors of the Antinomians and of the Pharisees; by the Redeemer’s seamless garment, which you rend from top to bottom ; by the insults, the blows, the wounds which Christ personal received in the house of his Jewish friends; and by those which Christ doctrinal daily receives at your own hands; by the fear of being found proud despisers of one half of God’s revealed decrees, and rebellious opposers of some of the Redeemer’s most solemn proclamations ; by all the woes — pronounced against the enemies of his royal crown, or of his bloody cross; by the dreadful destruction which awaits antichrist ; whether he transforms himself into an angel of light, artfully to set aside Christ’s righteous law ; or whether he appears as a man of God, slyly to super- _ sede Christ’s gracious promises ; by-the horrible curse which shall light on them, who, when they are properly informed, and lovingly warned, will nevertheless obstinately continue to weigh out, in false balances, ' the food of the poor to whom the Gospel is preached; and, above all, by the matchless love of him who “ was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,” I entreat you, “suffer the word of reconciliation: be ye reconciled” to reason and conscience; to each other and to me; to all the Bible and to primitive Christianity; to Christ our King and to Christ our Priest. So shall all unprejudiced Christians meet and em- brace you both, upon the meridian of moderation and Protestantism, _ which stands at an equal distance from Antinomian dreams and Phari- saic delusions. O Zelotes! O Honestus! mistaken servants of God; if there be any consolation in Christ; if any delight in truth; if any comfort in love; if any fellowship of the Spirit ; if any bowels of mercies, fulfil ye my joy, and the joy of all moderate men in the Church militant ; nay, fulfil ye the joy of saints and angels in the Church triumphant: é be ye like minded ; having the same love ; being of one accord ; of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory; but in lowliness of mind, let each esteem the other better than himself. Look not each on his own things, [on the scriptures of his favourite scale ;] but look also on the things of the other,” on the passages which fill the scale defended by your brother. Remember, that if we “have all faith,” and all external works, without “ charity we are nothing.” “ Charity suffereth long, and is kind: charity envieth not: charity seeketh not her own: charity rejoiceth not in iniquity and discord, but rejoiceth in the truth,” even when the truth bruiseth the head of our favourite serpent—our darling prejudice. Let then charity, never-failing charity, perfect you both in one. Hang on this golden beam, and it will make you a couple of impartial, | complete divines, holding together as closely, and balancing one another as evenly as the concordant passages which form my Scripture Scales. si , | | : THIRD.) SCRIPTURE SCALES. 257 My message respecting the equipoise of the Gospel axioms I have endeavoured to deliver with that plainness and earnestness which the importance of the subject calls for; if, in doing it, my aversion to unscrip- tural extremes, and my love of peaceful moderation have betrayed me into any unbecoming severity of thought, or asperity of expression, for- give me this wrong, which I never designed, and for which I would make you all possible satisfaction, if I were conscious of guilt in this respect. Ye are sensible that I could not act as a reconciler, without doing first the office of an expostulator and reprover; an office this which is so much the more thankless, as our very friends are sometimes prone to suspect that we enter upon it, not so much to do them good, as to carry the mace of superiority, and indulge, a restless, meddling, censorious, lordly disposition. If unfavourable appearances have represented me to you in these odious colours, give me leave to wipe them off, by cordial assurances of my esteem and respect for you. Yes, my dear, though mistaken brothers, I sincerely honour you both for the good which is in you ; being persuaded that your mistakes spring from your religious prejudices, and not from a conscious enmity against any part of the truth. When I have been obliged to expose your partiality, | have com- forted myself with the pleasing thought that it is a partiality to an impor- tant part of the Gospel. The meek and lowly Saviour, in whose steps I desire to tread, teaches me to honour you for the part of the truth which you embrace, and forbids me to despise you for that which you cannot yet see it your duty to espouse. Nay, so far as ye have defended free grace without annihilating free will, or contended for free will without undervaluing free grace, you have done the duty of evan- gelists in the midst of this Pharisaic and Antinomian generation. For this ye both deserve the thanks of every Bible Christian, and I publicly return you mine. Yes, so far as Zelotes has buiit the right wing of Christ’s palace, without pulling down the left ; and so far as Honestus has raised the left wing, without demolishing the right, I acknowledge that ye are both ingenious and laborious architects, and I shall think myself highly honoured, if, like an under labourer, I am permitted to wait upon you, and to bring you some rational and Scriptural materials, that you may build the temple of Gospel truth with more solidity, more evan- gelical symmetry, and more brotherly love, than you have yet done. God only knows what contemptible thoughts I have of myself. It is better to spread them before him, than to do it before you. This only I will venture to say; in a thousand respects I see myself vastly infenor to either of you. If{f have presumed to uncover your theological sores, and to pour into them some tincture of myrrh and aloes, it is no proof that I prefer myself to you. A surgeon may open an imposthume in a royal breast, and believe that he understands the use of his scissors and probe better than the king, without entertaining the least idea of his being the king’s superior. If I have made a pair of Scripture Scales, which weigh Gospel gold better than your single scales ; it no more follows that I esteem myself your superior, than it follows that an artist who makes scales to weigh common gold esteems himself superior to the ministers of state, because he understands scale making better than they. Horace will help me to illustrate the consistency of my reproofs to you, with my professions of respect for you. I consider you, Zelotes, as Von. Il. 17 258 EQUAL CHECK. [PART THIRD. a one-edged sword, which cuts down the Pharisaic error ; and you, Ho- nestus, as a one-edged scymetar, which hews the Antinomian mistakes in pieces ; but I want to see you both as the Lord’s two-edged sword; and I have indulged my Alpine roughness, in hopes that (through the — concurrence of your candour with the Divine blessing which I implore on these pages) you will be ground to the other edge you want. ‘This, ye know, cannot be done without some close rubbing; and, therefore, while ye glitter in the field of action, let not your displeasure arise against a grinding stone cut from the neighbourhood of the Alps, and providentially brought into a corner of your Church, where it wears itself away in the thankless office of grinding you both, that each of you may be as dreadful to Antinomianism and to Pharisaism, as the cherub’s “ flaming sword, which turned, and cut every way,” was terrible to the two first offenders. So shall ye keep the way to the tree of life in an evangelical manner; and instead of triumphing over you, as I go the dull round of my controversial labour, I shall adopt the poet’s humble saying :— Fungor vice cotis, acutum Reddere que ferrum valet, exsors ipsa secandi. Not that I dare to flaming zeal pretend, But only boast to be the Gospel’s friend ; To whet you both to act, and, lie the hone, Give others edge, though I myself have none., Or rather, considering what the prophet says of the impartial hand which weighed feasting Belshazzar, and wrote his awful doom upon the wall that faced him, I will pray: ‘“‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner ; and when I turn my face to the wall on my dying bed, let not my knees smite one against the other at the sight of the killing word, ‘TExex: thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting.’ Let me not be ‘found wanting’ either the testimony of thy free grace, through faith, or the testimony of a good conscience through the works of faith. So shall the Spirit of thy free grace bear witness with my free-willing spirit, that I am a child of thine, that I have kept the faith, and that in the great day, when I shall be weighed in the balances of the sanctuary, I shall be found a justified sinner, according to the anti-Pharisaic weights, which fill the first Scripture Scale; and a justified believer, according to the anti-Solifidian weights, which fill the second.” THE DOCTRINES : GRACE AND JUSTICE, EQUALLY ESSENTIAL TO THE PURE GOSPEL: WITH SOME REMARKS ON THE MISCHIEVOUS DIVISIONS CAUSED AMONG CHRISTIANS BY PARTING THOSE DOCTRINES. BEING AN INTRODUCTION TO A PLAN OF RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE DEFENDERS OF THE-DOCTRINES OF PARTIAL GRACE, COMMONLY CALLED CALVINISTS; AND THE DEFENDERS OF THE DOCTRINES OF IMPARTIAL JUSTICE, COMMONLY CALLED ARMINIANS. a ‘neal | ss on a Ree Mt “algal hah, Ue ies THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE AND JUSTICE. SECTION I. A plain account of the Gospel in general, and of the various dispensa- tions into which it branches itself —The Gospel holds forth the doctrines of justice, as well as the doctrines of grace—An opposition to this capital truth gave rise to the controversy about the Minutes—An an- swer to an objection of those who suppose that the Gospel consists only of doctrines of grace. Ir a judicious mariner, who has sailed round the world, sees with pleasure and improvement a map, which exhibits, in one point of view, the shape and proportion of the wide seas, in crossing of which he has spent some years; a judicious Protestant may profitably look upon a doctrinal map, (if I may be allowed the expression,) which places before him in diminutive proportion, the windings of a controversy, which, like a noisy, impetuous torrent, has disturbed the Churches of Christ for fourteen hundred years, and carried religious desolation through the four parts of the globe ; but more especially if this map exhibits, with some degree of accuracy, the boundaries of truth, the crooked shores of the sea of error, the haven of peace, and the rocks rendered famous by the doctrinal wrecks of myriads of unwary evangelists. Without any apology, therefore, I shall lay before the reader a plain account of the primitive catholic Gospel, and its various dispensations. Tue Gosret, in general, is a Divine system of truth, which, with various degrees of evidence, points out to sinners the way of eternal salvation, agreeable to the mercy and justice of a holy God; and there- fore the Gospel, in general, is an assemblage of holy doctrines of GRacE, and gracious doctrines of syustice. ‘This is the idea which our Lord himself gives us of it, Mark xvi, 16. Jor though he speaks there of the peculiar Gospel dispensation, which he opened, his words may, in some sense, be applied to every Gospel dispensation. “Preach the Gosret. He that believeth [in the light of his dispensation, supposing he does it ‘with the heart unto righteousness’| shall be saved,” according to the privileges of his dispensation: here you have a holy doctrine of grace. “But he that believeth not shall be damned :” here you have a gracious doctrine of justice. For, supposing man has a gracious capa- cityto believe in the light of his dispensation, there is no Antinomian grace in the promise, and no free wrath in the threatening, which com- pose what our Lord calls the Gospel; but the conditional promise exhibits a righteous doctrine of grace, and the conditional threatening displays a gracious doctrine of justice. Tire Gosre in general branches itself out into four capital dispen- sations, the last of which is most eminently called the Gospel, because it includes and perfects all the preceding displays of God’s grace and justice toward mankind. Take we a view of these four dispensations, beginning at the lowest, viz. Gentilism. 262 EQUAL CHECK. . [Part - I. Gewrrttsm, which is frequently called natural religion; and might with propricty be called, the Gospel of Gentiles: Gentilism, I say, is a dispensation of grace and justice, which St. Peter preaches and describes — in these words :—‘ In every nation he that feareth God, and worketh — righteousness [according to his light] is accepted of him.” These words — contain a holy doctrine of grace ; which is inseparably connected with this holy doctrine of justice, In every nation fe that feareth nor God, and worketh nor righteousness, [according'to his light,] ts Nor accepted | of him. II. Jupazsm, which is frequently called the Mosaic dispensation, or : the law, (that is, according to the first meaning of the Hebrew word noun, the doctrine, or the instruction,) and which might with propriety be called the Jewish Gospel: Judaism, I say, is that particular display of the doctrines of grace and justice, which was chiefly calculated for the meridian of Canaan, and is contained in the Old Testament; but espe- cially in the five books of Moses. The Prophet Samuel sums it all up in these words :—“ Only fear the Lord, and serve him in truth with all your heart, [according to the law, i. e. doctrine of Moses,] for consider how great things he hath done for you, [his peculiar people :] but if Ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed,” 1 Sam. xii, 24. In this Gospel dispensation, also, the doctrine of grace goes hand in hand with — the doctrine of justice. Every book in the Old Testament confirms the truth of this assertion. ; III. Tue Gosret of John the Baptist, which is commonly called the baptism of John, in connection with the Gospel, or baptism, which the apostles preached, before Christ opened the glorious baptism of his own Spirit on the day of pentecost; this Gospel dispensation, I say, is the Jewish Gospel improved into infant Christianity. Or, if you please, it is Christianity falling short of that “indwelling power from on high,” which is called “the kingdom of Ged come with power.” This Gospel is chiefly found in the four Gospels. It clearly points out the person of Christ, gives us his history, holds forth his mediatorial law; and, lead. ing on to the perfection of Christianity, displays, with increasing light, (1.) The doctrines of grace, which kindly call the chief of sinners to — eternal salvation through the practicable means of repentance, faith, and obedience. And, (2.) The doctrines of justice, which awfully threatens sinners with destruction, if they finally neglect to repent, believe, and obey. The capital difference between this Gospel dispensation and the © Jewish Gospel, consists in this: the Jewish Gospel holds forth Christ about to come, in types and prophecies ; but this Gospel displays the ful- filment of the Jewish prophecies, and without a typical veil points out Christ already come. Again: the political part of the Jewish Gospel admits of some temporary indulgences, with respect to divorce, a plu- rality of wives, &c, which indulgences are repealed in the Christian institution, where morality is carried to the greatest height, and enforced by the strongest motives. But, on the other hand, the ceremonial part of the Gospel of Christ grants us many indulgences with respect to Sabbaths, festivals, washings, meats, places of worship, &e. For it — binds upon us only the two unbloody significant rites, which the Serip- tures call baptism and the Lord’s Supper; freeing us from shedding THIRD.] GRACE AND JUSTICE. 263 human blgod in circumcision; and the blood of beasts in daily sacri- fices ; an important freedom this, which St. Paul calls “the ceremonial liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,” and for which he so strenuously contends against the Judaizing preachers, who would have brought his Galatian converts under the bloody yoke of circumcision and Jewish bondage. IV. The per, fect Gospel of Cunisr is frequently called rH GosPEL . only, on account of its “fulness, and because it contains whatever is excellent in the above-described Gospel dispensations. We may truly say, therefore, that perfect Christianity, or the complete Gospel of Christ, is Gentilism, Judaism, and the baptism of John, arrived at their full maturity. This perfected Gospel is found then, initially, in the four books, which bear the name of Gospels, and perfectively in the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles. The difference between this perfected Gospel and the Gospel which was preached before the day of pentecost, consists in this capital article :—Before that day, our Lord and his fore- runner, John the Baptist, foretold that Christ “should baptize with the Holy Ghost ;” and Christ promised the indwelling Spirit. He said, “He dweileth with you, and shall then be in you. Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence.” But the full Gospel of Christ takes in the full dispensation of Christ’s Spirit, as well as the full history of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection ; comprehending the glad news of the descent of the Holy Ghost, as well as the joyful tidings of the ascension of the Son; and therefore its distinguishing character is thus laid down by St. Peter, “Jesus, being by the right hand of God #XALTED, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. ‘This pro- mise is unto you [that repent and believe.] We are his witnesses of these things, and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God [since the day of pentecost] hath given to them that obey him:” for, before Christ’s ascension, the evangelists could say, “’The Holy Ghost is not yet given, [in its Christian fulness,] because Christ is not yet GLoririmp :” com- pare Acts ii, 33, &c, with Acts v, 22,-and John vii, 39. This Gospel is the richest display of Divine grace and justice which takes place among men in the present state of things. For Christ’s sake “the Holy Ghost is given” as an indwelling, sanctifying comforter. Here is the highest doctrine of grace! He is thus given “to them that obey ;” and of consequence he is refused to the disobedient. Here is the highest doctrine of justice, so far as the purpose of God, according to the elections of grace and justice, actually takes place in this life, before the second coming of Christ. These two last clauses are of peculiar importance. 1. I say in this life, because, after death, two great dispensations of grace and justice will yet take place, with respect to every man: the one in the day of death, when Christ will say to each of us, “ Thou shalt be with me in paradise ;” or, “Thou shalt go to thy own place :” and the other in the day of judgment, when our Lord will add, “ Come, ye blessed,” or, “Go, ye cursed.” Then shall the “Gospel mystery of God,” which equally displays the doctrines of grace and of justice, be ay accomplished. - 1 have added the clause, before the second coming of Christ 264 EQUAL CIIECK. [part because in the Psalms, Prophets, Acis, Epistles, and especiajly in the Revelation, we have a variety of promises, that “in the day of his dis- played power, Christ will come in his glory, to judge among the heathen, to wound even kings in the day of his wrath, to root up the wicked, to fill the places with their dead bodies, to smite in sunder antichrist, and the heads over divers countries, and to lift up his triumphant head,” on this very earth, where he once “ bowed his wounded head, and gave up the ghost :” compare Psalm cx, with Acts i, 11; 2 Thess. i, 10; Rev. xix, &c. In that great day, another Gospel dispensation shall take place. We have it now in prophecy, as the Jews had the Gospel of Christ’s first advent; but when Christ shall “come to destroy the wicked, to be actually glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believe: in that day,” ministers of the Gospel shall no more pro- — phesy, but, speaking a plain, historical truth, they shall lift up their voices, as “the yoice of many waters and mighty thunderings, saying, Allelujah, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth; the marriage of the Lamb is come ; his wife [the Church of the first born] has made her- self ready: blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection : he ReIGNs with Christ a thousand years. Blessed are the meek, for they po inherit the earth. The times of refreshing are come, and he HAS seNT Jesus Christ, who before was preached unto us; whom the heaven pip receive” till this solemn season. But now are come “the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world began,” Rey. xix, xx; Matt. v, 5; Acts ili, 19, &c. May the Lord hasten this Gospel dispensation! And, till it take place, may “the Spirit and the bride say, Come !” This being premised, it will not be difficult to give the reader a just idea of the grand controversy which has torn the Churches of Christ, from the days of Augustine and Pelagius, and which has lately been revived among us, on the following occasion. In the year 1770, Mr. Wesley (in the Minutes of a conference, which he held with the preachers in his connection) advanced some propositions, the manifest tendency of which was to assert that the doctrines of justice are an essential part of the Gospel; and that, when we have been afraid to preach them, as well as the doctrines of grace, we haye been partial dispensers of the truth, and have leaned too much toward Calvinism ; that is, toward a system of doctrine, which, in a great degree, explains away the doctrines of justice, to make more room for the doctrines of race. ; Some good people, who imagined that the doctrines of impartial jus- tice have little or nothing to do with the Gospel, were not only highly displeased with Mr. Wesley’s propositions, but very greatly alarmed at the word merit, which he warily used in one of them, to intimate that the doctrines of justice and the day of judgment must fall to the ground, if every kind of merit or desert is banished from the Gospel ; justice being a virtue which, from an impartial tribunal, “ renders to every man according to his works,” that is, according to his worthiness or unwor- thiness, or, as some express it, according to his merit or demerit. A regard for the doctrines of justice, and a fear lest Antinomian doc- — trines of grace, and dreadful doctrines of free wrath, should be still entertained by my friends as the genuine doctrines of grace, engaged me THIRD. | GRACE AND JUSTICE. 265 to vindicate those obnoxious propositions, or rather, the doctrines of justice held forth there. And this, I hope, I have done in a series of Checks to Antinomianism, or of tracts against an unscriptural doctrine of grace, a doctrine of grace torn from the Scripture doctrine of justice. In order to rescue the doctrine of justice, I have endeavoured to prove that no man is born an absolute reprobate in Calvin’s sense of the word; that “God is loving to every man” for Christ’s sake ; and that, of con- sequence, there is a Gospel dispensation for every man, though it should be only that which is called Gentilism. I have shown the cruelty of those opinions which directly or indirectly doom to eternal perdition all the heathens, who never read the law of Moses, or heard the Gospel of Christ. I have evinced, by a variety of arguments, that nothing can be more unscriptural than to represent the law of Moses (i. e. the Jewish Gospel) as a graceless doctrine of justice ; and the law of Christ (or the Christian Gospel) as a lawless doctrine of grace. By these means I have defended, so far as lay in me, both the Jewish doctrines of grace and the Christian doctrines of justice. And by demonstrating that the Scripture doctrines of grace are inseparably connected with the Scrip- ‘ture doctrines of justice, I flatter myself to have opened the way for the reunion of the two partial gospels of the day; the capital error of which consists either in excluding the doctrines of grace from the doctrines of justice, which is the error of all rigid free willers; or in excluding the doctrines of justice from the doctrines of grace, which is the mistake of all rigid bound willers. «“ What,” says one of these partial defenders of the doctrines of grace, “will you still persist to legalize the Gospel? Do you not know that the word Gosprt, in the original, means Goop news, or a GOOD message, and therefore must denote doctrines of grace abstracted from all the severity of what you call the doctrines of justice?” To this plausible objection, which has deluded thousands of simple souls, I answer :— (1.) A royal proclamation may be called a coop prociamation, though it does not turn the’king’s subjects into lawless favourites, and the Laws of the realm into rules of life, as insignificant in judgment as rules of grammar. And the statutes of parliament may be coop statutes, though they may secure the righteous punishment of offenders as well as the gracious privileges of loyal subjects. (2.) If the hand of God is a coop hand when it “ resists the proud,” as well as when it “ gives grace to the humble ;” and if his arm was a merciful arm when it “ overthrew daring Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea,” as well as when it “made obedient Israel to pass through the midst of it,” see Psalm cxxxvi, why may not a message from God, which requires practical obedience, and is enforced by promises of gracious rewards in case of compliance, and by threatenings of righteous punishments in case of non-compli- ance ; why may not, I say, such a message be called a coop message or Gospel? (3.) Why should not a revelation from God be a coop revelation or a Gospel, when it displays the severity of his justice toward those who reject his gracious offers, as well as the tenderness of his compassion toward those who accept them; especially if we consider that the first intention of the denunciations of his vindictive justice is to excite the godly fear which endears offers of mercy to sinners, and is in them “the beginning of wisdom?” (4.) If, in the Old Testament, the 266 EQUAL CHECK. ' [PaRT sweetest and most joyful messages of God’s grace are called Jaw ; and if, in the New Testament, the most terrible denunciations of indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, are called Gospel; nothing in the world can be more unscriptural and absurd than the Antinomian Babel erected by some zealous evangelists, who teach that the law of God is nothing but the doctrine of merciless justice; and that the Gospel of Christ is nothing but the doctrine of lawless grace. That the word Law, in the Old Testament, frequently means the sweetest Gospel promises, I prove, first, from these sayings of Dayid: “The law of thy mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver,” Psa, cxix, 72. ‘“ He hath remembered his Gospel covenant for ever,—which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath to Isaac, and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law,” Psa. cy, 8, &c. Here the Gospel covenants made with the three chosen patriarchs, are called alaw. Hence it is that when Isaiah speaks of the brightest display of Gospel grace at the time that “the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains,” he says, ‘‘ Out of Sion shall go forth the law,” Isa. ii, 2, 3. Agreeably to this view of things we read in Nehemiah, that “all the people gathered themselves together as one man, and spake to Ezra to bring the book of the law of Moses: that the ears of all the people were attentive to the book of the law: that the Levites did read in the law of God distinetly, and gave the sense : and that all the people went their way, &c,to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared to them: and there was a very great gladness,—the joy of the Lord being their strength,” Neh. viii, 1, 3, 8, 10, 12,17. Now, if the law, which was read and explained to them, contained only the impracticable sanctions of a merciless, thundering justice ; were not all the people out of their senses when they “went their way with great gladness” after hearing the law expounded ? The New Testament confirms this account of the doctrines of grace and justice, and of the words law and Gospel. When our Lord (who undoubtedly knew the exact meaning of the word Gospel) sent his dis- ciples to “preach the Gospel to every creature,” he charged them to declare, that “he who believeth not shall be damned,” as well as that “‘he who believeth shall be saved,” Mark xvi, 16. Whence it evidently appears that our Lord meant by the Gospxt the severe doctrines of jus- tice, as well as the comfortable doctrines of grace. St. Paul gives us exactly the same idea of the Gospel. In the Epistle to the Romans, where he contends most for the gratuitous election of distinguishing love, he expostulates with those who “ despise the riches of God’s goodness, and treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds,—eternal life to them, who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory ; but indigna- tion and wrath to them that obey not the truth.” If you ask St. Paul when God will thus display his merciful goodness and tremendous jus- tice, he directly answers, “‘ When God shall judge the secrets of men according to my Gospel,” that is, according to the promises and threat- enings,—the doctrines of grace and the doctrines of justice, which compose the Gospel I preach, Rom. ii, 4—16. THIRD.] GRACE AND JUSTICE. 267 Hence it is that the apostle calls the Mosaic dispensation sometimes the law, and sometimes the Gospel, while he styles the Christian dispen- sation sometimes the law of Christ, and sometimes the Gospel of Christ. That St. Paul indifferently calls the Mosaic dispensation law and Gos- pel, is evident from the following texts: “ Every man that is circum- cised is a debtor to the whole law,” Gal. v, 3. Here the word law undoubtedly means the Mosaic dispensation. Again: “To us was the Gospel preached, as well as to them,” the Israelites who perished in the wilderness, for not believing Moses, Heb. iv, 2. Whence it follows, that “to ruem [the Israelites, who perished] the Gospel [i. e. the doc- trines of grace and justice] was preached as well as to us,” Christians, who are saved by obedient faith. Once more: that what Moses preached to them was a doctrine of grace and of justice, is evident from this consideration: had the Mosaic Gospel been a doctrine of mere justice, it could not have been a Gospel like our gracious Gospel ; and had it been a mere doctrine of grace, the apostle could never have excited us not to neglect our Christian Gospel, and great salvation, by poiting out to us the fearful destruction of the Israelites, who neglecte! their Jewish Gospel and salvation ; “lest any Christian should fall after the same example of unbelief,” Heb. iv, 11. With respect to the Christian dispensation, the apostle calls it some- times the law: “The doers of the law [i. e. of the preceptive part of the Gospel] shall be justified, when God shall judge the secrets of men according to my Gospel,” Rom. ii, 13, 16, compared with Matt. xu, 36, 37. Sometimes he calls it the law of Christ : “ Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ,” Gal. vi, 2: sometimes the laws of God : “1 will write my laws [i. e. my evangelical precepts and pro- mises] in their hearts,” Heb. viii, 10; x, 16: sometimes the law of the Spirit, Rom. viii, 2: and sometimes the Gospel of Christ, Rom. 1, 16. Hence it is that to be a Christian believer, in St. Paul’s language, is “to be under the law of Christ,” 1 Cor. ix, 21. As for St. James, he never calls the Christian dispensation Gospel ; but he simply calls it either the aw, James iv, 11, 12; ii, 10, the law of liberty, James ui, 12, or, the perfect law of het eaeda 1, 25. St. John uses the same lan- guage in his epistles, in which he never mentions the word Gospel, and in which, speaking of the sins of Christian believers, he say: S, that “sim is the transgression of the law ;” whence it follows, that the sin of Chris- tians is the ‘transgression of the law of Christ, or of the holy doctrines of justice preached by Jesus Christ. To deny it, would be asserting we cannot sin; for St. Paul informs us that the Mosaic law is done away, 2 Cor. ili, 11. Now, if no Christian is under the law of Moses, and if Christ never adopted the law of our nature, and never grafied the moral part of the Mosaic law into the Christian dispensation ; or, in other terms, if Christ’s Gospel is a lawless institution, it necessarily follows that no Christian can sin: for sin is not imputed or charged, (that is, there is no sin,) “ where there is no law,” Rom. v, 13. Hence it is that Antinomian doctrines of grace represent fallen, adulterous, bloody believers as spotless, or sinless before God, in all their sins. Such is the necessary consequence of a lawless Gospel armed with pointless “rules of life!’ Such the dreadful tendency of doctrines of grace torn away from the doctrines of justice. 268 EQUAL CHECK. [PAR * SECTION II. Remarks on the two Gospel axioms, or capital truths, wpon which the doctrines of grace and justice are founded—Augustine himself once granted both those truths—Rigid Arminians indirectly deny the one, and rigid Calvinists the other—How the partial defenders of the doctrines of justice and grace try to save appearances, with respect to the part of the truth which they indirectly oppose. So noble and solid a superstructure as the Gospel, i. e. the Scripture doctrines of grace and justice, undoubtedly stands upon a noble and sure foundation. Accordingly we find that the primitive Gospel rests on two principles, the one theological and the other moral. These two principles, or, if you please, these two pillars of Gospel truth, may, for distinction sake, be called Gospel axioms; at least, I beg leave to call them so. Nor will the candid reader deny my request, if he consider the following definitions :— I. Aw axtom is a self-evident truth, which at once recommends itself to the understanding, or the conscience of every unprejudiced man. Thus, two and two make four, is an axtom in eyery counting house. And that “the absolute necessity of all human actions is incompatible with a moral law and a day of judgment,” is an axiom in every unpre- judiced mind. ' II. The two Gospel axioms are the two principles, or capital self-evi- dent truths, on which the primitive Gospel, that is, the Scripture doc- trine of grace and justice is founded. III. The first Gospel axiom bears up the holy doctrines of grace, and when it is cordially received, is equally destructive of proud Phari- saism and the unholy doctrines of lawless grace. This axiom is the following self-evident truth, which recommends itself to the mind and conscience of every candid Bible Christian :—“ Our first talent or de- gree of salvation is merely of God’s free grace in Christ, without any work or endeavour of our own; and our eternal salvation is originally, capitally,* and finallyt of Ged’s free grace in Christ; through our not * A Solifidian would say entirely, and by this means he would leave no room for the second Gospel axiom, for the rewardableness of the works of faith, and for the doctrine of remunerative justice. But by saying capitally, we avoid this threefold mistake, we secure the honour of holy free grace, and shut the door against its counterfeit. + By adding finally, we show that the top stone, as well as the foundation stone of our eternal salvation, is to be brought with “‘shouting, Grace! grace! unto it;” because if God had honoured his obedient saints with a sight of his heavenly glory for half an hour, and then suffered them to fall gently asleep in the bosom of oblivion, or te slide into a state of personal non-existence, he would have demonstrated his remunerative justice, and amply rewarded their best ser- vices. Hence it appears that Gcod’s giving eternal rewards of glory for a few temporary services, done by his own grace, is such an instance of free grace as nothing but eternal shouts of ‘Grace! grace!” can sufficiently acknowledge. We desire our mistaken brethren to consider this remark ; otherwise they will wrong the truth and us, by continuing to say that our doctrines of grace allow indeed free grace to lay the foundation, but that they reserve to the works of our rectified free will the honour of bringing the top stone of our eternal salvation, with saying, ‘‘ Works! works! unto it:” a Pharisaic doctrine this, which we abhor; loudly asserting that although our free, nnnecessitated obedience of faith intervenes, yet God in Christ is the Omega as well as the Alpha,—the end, as well as the beginning, of our eternal salvation. THIRD. | ’ GRACE AND JUSTICE. 269 neglecting that first talent or degree of salvation. I say through our not neglecting, &c, to secure the connection of the two Gospel axioms, and to leave Scripture room for the doctrines of remunerative justice. IV. The second Gospel axiom bears up the doctrines of justice, and extirpates the doctrine of free wrath. It is the following proposition, which, I believe, no candid Bible Christian will deny :— Our eternal damnation is originally* and principally of our own personal free will, through an obstinate and final neglect of the first talent or degree of salvation.” These two Gospel axioms may be thus expressed: (1.) Our salva- tion is of God: or, there is free grace in God, which, through Christ, freely places all men in a state of temporary redemption, justification, or salvation, according to various Gospel dispensations, and crowns those who are faithful unto death with an eternal redemption, justification, o1 salvation. (2.) Our damnation is of ourselves : or, there is free will in man, by which he may, through the grace freely imparted to him in the day of temporary salvation, work out his own eternal salvation: or he may, through the natural power which angels had to sin in heaven, and our first parents in paradise, choose to sin away the day of temporary sal- vation. And by thus working out his damnation, he may provoke just wrath, which is the same as despised free grace, to punish him with eternal destruction. These two truths, or axioms, might be made still plainer, thus : (1.) Our gracious and just God, in a day of salvation begun, sets life or death before us. (2.) As free-willing, assisted creatures, we may, during that day, choose which we please : we may “ stretch out our hand to the water, or to the fire.” Or thus: (1.) There is holy, righteous, and partial free grace in God. (2.) There is free will in redeemed, assisted man, whereby he is capable of obeying or disobeying God’s holy, righteous, and partial free grace. For conveniency’s sake, these axioms may be shortened thus: (1.) The doctrine of holy free grace and partial mercy in God is true. (2.) The doctrine of rectified, assisted free will in man, and of impartial justice in God, is true also. This lovely pair of evangelical propositions appears to me so essential to the fulness and harmony of the Gospel, that I believe if Pelagius and Augustine themselves were alive, neither of them would dare directly to rise against it. Time, or envy, has destroyed the works of Pelagius, the great asserter of free will and the doctrines of justice ; we cannot therefore support the doctrines of free grace by his concessions : but we have the writings of Augustine, the great defender of God’s dis- tinguishing love, and the doctrine of free grace ; and yet, partial as he was to these doctrines, in a happy moment, he boldly stood up for free * Tadd the word originally, to cut off the self-excusing opinion of those men who charge their eternal damnation upon an absolute decree of reprobation, or upon Adam’s first transgression. As for the word principally, it secures the part in the damnation of the wicked, which the Scriptures ascribe to the righteous God : it being certain, (1.) That God judicially hardens his slothful and unpro- fitable servants, by taking from them, at the end of their day of grace, the talent of softening grace, which they have obstinately buried. And, (2.) That he judi- cially reprobates or damns them, by pronouncing this awful sentence, ‘ Depart, cursed,” &c. A flame-of vindictive justice belongs to the Gospel of Christ, eb. xii, 29, but not a single spark of free wrath. 870 EQUAL CHECK. [parr will and the doctrines of justice. This appears from the judicious and candid questions which he proposes in one of his epistles:—Si non est gratia Dei, quomodo salvat mundum? Si non est liberum arbitrium, quomodo judicat mundum? If there be not free grace in God, how does he graciously save the world? If there be not free will 7x men, how does he righteously judge the world?” ; To conclude: whoever holds forth these two Bible axioms, “‘ There is free grace in God, whence man’s salvation graciously flows in various degrees ;” and, ‘“‘ There is free will in every man, whence the damnation of all that perish justly proceeds :” whoever, I say, consistently holds forth these two self-evident propositions, is, in my humble judgment, a Gos- pel minister, who “rightly divides the word of truth.” He is a friend to both the doctrines of partial grace and impartial justice, of mercy and obedience, of faith and good works: in short, he preaches the primitive Gospel, reunites the two opposite gospels of the day, and equally obviates the errors of Honestus and Zelotes, who stand up for these modern gospels. If you ask what those errors are, I answer, as follows :—Honestus, the Pelagian, seldom preaches free grace, and never dwells upon the absolute sovereignty with which God at first distributes the various talents of his grace : and when he preaches free will, he seldom preaches free will initially rectified and continually assisted by free grace ; rarely, if ever, deeply humbling his hearers by displaying the total helplessness of unrectified and unassisted free will: and thus he veils the delightful doctrine of God’s free grace, clouds the evangelical doctrine of man’s free will, and inadvertently opens the door to self-conceited Pharisaism. On the other hand, Zelotes, the Solifidian, or ngid Calvinist, seldom or never'preaches rectified, assisted free will; he harps only on the doc- trines of absolute necessity ; and when he preaches free grace, he too often preaches, (1.) A cruel free grace, which turning itself into free wrath, with respect to a majority of mankind, absolutely passes them by, and consigns them over to everlasting, infallible damnation, by means of necessary, foreordained sin ; and, (2.) An unscriptural free grace, which turning itself into lawless fondness, with respect to a number of favourite souls, absolutely insures to them eternal redemption, complete justifica- tion, and finished salvation, be they ever so unfaithful. By these means Zelotes spoils the doctrine of free grace, undesign- edly injures the doctrine of holiness, and utterly destroys the doctrine of justice. For when he denies that the greatest part of mankind have any ‘materest in God’s redeeming love ; when he intimates that the doctrines -of an absolute, necessitating election to eternal life are true; and that ‘God’s reprobates are not less necessitated to sin to the end and be damned, than God’s elect are to obey to the end and be saved; does he “not pour contempt upon the throne of Divine justice 1 Does he not make ‘the supreme Judge, who fills that throne, appear as unwise when he distributes heavenly rewards, as cruel, when he inflicts infernal punish- «ments 1 Honestus and Zelotes will probably think that I misrepresent them. ‘Honestus will say that he cordially believes God is full of free grace for - all men, and that he only thinks it would be unjust in God to be partial in the distribution of his free grace. But when Honestus reasons thus, THIRD.] GRACE AND JUSTICE. 271 does he not confound grace and justice? Does he not sap the founda- tion of the throne of grace, under pretence of establishing the throne of justice ? If God cannot do what he pleases with his grace, and if jus- tice always binds him in the distribution of his favours, does not his grace deserve the name of impartial justice, far better than the appellation of free grace ? As Honestus tries to saye appearances with regard to the doctrines of grace, so does Zelotes with regard to the doctrines of justice. “The Gospel I preach,” says he, “is highly consistent with the doctrines of justice. I indeed intimate that the elect are necessitated to believe and be eternally saved; and the reprobates to continue in sin and be lost: but both this salvation of the elect, and damnation of the reprobates, per- fectly agree with Divine equity. For Christ, by his obedience unto death, merited the eternal salvation of all that shall be saved: and * Adam, by his first act of disobedience, deserved the absolute reproba- tion of all that shall be damned. Our doctrines of grace are therefore highly consistent with the doctrines of justice.” This argument appears unanswerable to Zelotes: but I confess it does not satisfy me. For if the doctrine of absolute necessity be thus foisted into the Gospel, and if Christ make his elect people absolutely and unavoidably willing to obey and go to heaven, while Adam makes his reprobate people abso- lutely and unavoidably willing to sin and go to hell; I should be glad to know how the elect can be wisely judged according to, and rewarded for their faith and good works; and how the reprobates can be justly sentenced according to, and punished for their unbelief and bad works. I repeat it, the doctrine of absolute predestination to life or death eternal, which is one and the same with the doctrine of an absolute necessity to believe or disbelieve, to obey or disobey, to the last,—such a doctrine, I say, is totally subversive of the doctrines of justice. For reason de- poses that it is absurd to give to necessary agents a law, or rule of life, armed with promises of reward, and threatenings of punishment. And conscience declares that it is unjust and cruel to inflict fearful, eternal punishments upon beings that have only moved or acted by absolute necessity : whether such beings are running streams, aspiring flames, fall- ing stones, turning wheels, mad men, bound thinkers, bound willers, or bound agents ; supposing such bound thinkers, bound willers, and bound agents, did think, will, and act, as unavoidably as the wind raises a storm, and as necessarily as a fired cannon pours forth flames and destruction. Absolute necessity and a righteous judgment are ab- solutely incompatible. We must renounce the mistakes of rigid Cal- vinists, or give up the doctrines of justice. SECTION III. By whom chiefly the Gospel axioms were systematically parted ; and under what pretences prejudiced, good men tore asunder the doctrines of grace and justice ; and rent the one primitive, catholic Gospel, into the two partial gospels of the day. From the preceding section it appears, that to preach the Gospel in its primitive purity, is so to hold forth and balance the two Gospel axioms 272 EQUAL CHECK. [parr as to allow both the doctrines of grace and the doctrines of justice the place which is assigned them in the word of God: it is so to preach holy free grace, and rectified, assisted free will, as equally to grind — Pharisaism and Antinomianism (the graceless and the lawless gospel) between these two evangelical mill stones. And thus the Gospel was, in general, preached by good men for above three hundred years after — Christ’s ascension. If ever the tempter put successfully in practice his two capital maxims, “ Confound and destroy,—Divide and conquer,” it was in the fourth century, when he helped Pelagius and Augustine, two warm disputants, openly to confound what should have been properly distinguished, and systematically to divide what should have been re- ligiously joined ; by which means they broke the balance of the doctrines of grace and justice. Nor did they do it out of malice ; but through an ’ immoderate regard for one part of the Gospel; an injudicious regard this, which was naturally productive of a proportionable disregard for the other part of God’s word. Pelagius (we are told by Augustine) preached free will; but, con- founding natural free will with free will rectified and assisted by grace, he made too much of natural free will, and too little of God’s free grace. The left leg of his Gospel system grew gigantic, while the right leg shrunk almost to nothing. And, commencing a rigid free willer, he insisted upon the sufficiency of our natural powers, and dwelt on the second Gospel axiom, and the doctrines of justice in so partial a manner, that he almost eclipsed the first Gospel axiom and the doctrines of grace. Augustine, his cotemporary, under pretence of mending the matter, was guilty of an error exactly contrary. He so puffed up the right leg of his Gospel system, as to make it monstrous; while the left grew as slender and insignificant as a rotten stick. To bring this unhappy change about, in his controversial heats he confounded lawful, righteous free grace, with lawless, unscriptural, overbearing free grace; and, to make room for this latter, imaginary sort of grace, he sometimes turned free will out of its place, to give that place to necessity. Thus he com- menced a rigid bound willer. The irresistible free grace, which he preached, bound the elect by the chains of an unconditional election to — life, absolutely necessitating them to repent, believe, and be eternall saved: while the irresistible free wrath, which secretly advanced behind that overbearing grace, bound the non-elect in chains of absolute repro- bation, and necessitated them to continue in sin, and be unavoidably damned. By these means, new, unholy doctrines of grace and wrath — jostled the holy, ancient doctrines of grace and justice out of their place. The two Gospel axioms did no longer agree; but the first axiom, be- coming like Leviathan, swallowed up the second. For the moment irresistible, lawless free grace, and despotic, cruel free wrath, mount the throne, what room is there for holy, righteous free grace? What room for free will? What room for the doctrines of justice? What room for the primitive Gospel? Absolutely none; unless it be a narrow room indeed, artfully contrived under a heap of Augustinian contradictions, and Calvinian inconsistencies. From this short account of Pelagianism and Augustinianism, it is evident that heated Pelagius (if the account given us be true) gave a desperate thrust to the right side of primitive Christianity; and that THIRD. | GRACE AND JUSTICE. 273 heated Augustine, in his hurry to defend her, aimed a well-meant blow at Pelagius, but by overdoing it, and missing his mark, wounded the left side of the heavenly woman, who from that time has lain bleeding between these two rash antagonists. “The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water,” says the wise man. These “waters of strife,” which Pelagius and Augustine let in upon the Church, by break- ing the flood gates of Gospel truth, soon overflowed the Christian world, and at times, like the waters of the overflowing Nile, have almost beer turned into blood. When streams of self-justifying, rigid, Pelagian free will, have met’ with streams’ of self-electing, lawless, Augustinian free grace, the strife has been loud and terrible. They have foamed out their own shame, and frighted thousands of persons, travelling to Sion, out of the noisy ways of a corrupted gospel, into the more quiet paths of infidelity. For above a thousand years these “waters of strife” have spread devastation through the Christian world ; I had almost said also through the Mohammedan world: for Mohammed, who collected the filth of | corrupt Christianity, derived these errors into his system of religion : Omar and Hali, at least, two of his relations and successors, became the leaders of two sects, which divide the Mohammedan world. Omar, whom the Turks follow, stood up for bound will, necessity, and a species of absolute Augustinian predestination. And Hali, whom the Persians revere, embraced rigid free will and Pelagian free agency. But the worst is, that these muddy waters have flowed through the dirty channel of the Romish Church, into all the Protestant Churches, and have at times deluged them ; turning, wherever they came, brotherly love into fierce contention. For, breaking the evangelical balance of the Gospel axioms is as naturally productive of polemical debates in the Church, as breaking the parliamentary balance between the king and the people is of contention and civil wars in the state. How the plague first infected Protestantism will be seen in the next section. SECTION IV. Luther and Calvin do not restore the balance of the Gospel axioms—- That honour was reserved for Cranmer, the English reformer, who modelled the Church of England very nearly according to the primitive Gospel—How soon the Augustinian doctrines of lawless grace. pre- ponderated—How the Pelagian doctrine of unassisted free will now preponderates. Wauen the first reformers shook off the yoke of Papistical trumperies. they fought gallantly for many glorious truths. But it is to be wished, that while they warmly contended for the simple, Scriptural dress of the primitive Gospel, they had not forgotten to fight for some of its very vitals, I mean the doctrines of holy free grace, and rectified, assisted free will. ‘They did much good in many respects ; so much indeed, that no grateful Protestant can find fault with them without reluctance. But, after all, they did not restore the balance of the doctrines of grace and justice. Luther, the German reformer, being a monk of the order of Vox. II. 18 274 EQUAL CHECK. ‘ [parr Augustine, entered upon the reformation full of prejudices in favour of Augustine’s Solifidian mistakes. And he was so busy in opposing the pope of Rome, his indulgences, Latin masses, and other monastic fool. eries, that he did not find time to oppose the Augustinian fooleries of fatalism, Manichean necessity, lawless grace, and free wrath. On the contrary, in one of his heats, he broke the left scale of the Gospel balances, denied there was any such thing as free will, and by that means gave a most destructive blow to the doctrines of justice: a rash dend, for which Erasmus, the Dutch reformer, openly reproved him, but with too much of the Pelagian spirit. Calvin, the French reformer, who, after he had left his native country, taught divinity in the academy of Geneva, far from getting light, and learning moderation by the controversy of Luther and Erasmus, rushed with all the impetuosity of his ardent spirit into the error of heated Au. gustine, and so zealously maintained it, that, from that time, it has been called Calvinism. i If Calvin did not grow wiser by the dispute of Luther and Erasmus, Melancthon, another German reformer, did; and our great English reformer, Cranmer, who in wisdom, candour, and moderation, far exceeded the generality of the reformers on the continent, closely imi- tated his excellent example. Nay, to the honour of this favoured island, and of perfect Protestantism, in a happy moment he found the exact balance of the Gospel axioms. Read, admire, and obey his anti-Augus- tinian, anti-Pelagian, and apostolic proclamation. “ All men be also to be monished, and chiefly preachers, that, in this high matter, they, look- ing on both sides, [i. e. looking both to the doctrines of grace and the doctrines of justice] so attemper and moderate themselves, that neither they so preach the grace of God, [with heated Augustine] that they take away thereby free will, nor on the other side so extol free will, [with heated Pelagius,] that injury be done to the grace of God.” (Erud. of a Christian Man, sec. on free will, which was added by Cranmer.) Here you see the balance of the doctrines of grace and justice, which Augus- tine and Pelagius had broken, and which Luther and Calvin had ground to dust in some of their overdoing moments,—you see, I say, that impor- tant balance perfectly restored by the English reformer. With this short valuable quotation, as with a shield of impenetrable brass, all men, and ~ chiefly preachers, may quench all the fiery darts cast at the primitive Gospel by the preachers of the partial gospels of the day ; I mean the ~ abettors of the Augustinian or of the Pelagian error. Mankind are prone to run into extremes. The world is full of men — who always overdo or underdo. Few people ever find the line of mo- | deration, the golden mean; and of those who do, few stay long upon it. One blast or another of vain doctrine soon drives them east or west from the meridian of pure truth. How happy would it have been for the Church of “of the ancient saints. These good men, finding that his doctrine was iy ; England if her first members had steadily followed the light which our | great reformers carried before them. But alas, not a few of them had | more zeal than moderation. Cranmer could not make all his fellow | reformers to see with his eyes. In the time of their popish superstition — many of them had deeply imbibed the errors of St Augustine, whom the — Church of Rome reveres as the greatest of the fathers, and the holiest — 2 THIRD.] GRACE AND JUSTICE. 275 countenanced by Luther, Calvin, Peter Martyr, Bucer, and others, whom they look upon as oracles, soon relapsed into the Augustinian doctrines of lawless grace, from which some of them had never been quite disen- tangled. Even during Cranmer’s confinement (but much more after his martyrdom) they began to renounce the doctrines of justice, which were only indirectly secured in the seventeenth article of our Church; warmly contending for the doctrines of necessitating grace, which are always destructive of the doctrines of justice. ‘Thus, while some of them erected the canopy of a lawless, Solifidian free grace over some men, elected according to Calvin’s notion of an absolute election to eternal life ; others cast the sable net of free wrath over the rest of mankind ; imagining that from all eternity most men were absolutely predestinated to eternal death, according to the Calvinian doctrine of absolute, unconditional reprobation. ‘Thus the balance of the Gospel axioms, which Cranmer (considering the times) had maintained to admiration, was again broken. Rigid Calvinism got the ascendancy ; the doctrines of justice were pub- licly decried as popery and heresy, almost all England over. All the reprobates were exculpated. By the doctrine of necessity, their una- voidable continuance in sin, and their damnation, were openly charged upon God and Adam. Decrees of absolute predestination to necessary holiness and eternal salvation, and statutes of absolute appomtment to necessary sin and eternal damnation began currently to pass for Gospel. And the doctrines of justice were swept away, as if they had been poi- sonous cobwebs spun by popish spiders. Hence it is that the Rev. Mr. Toplady, describing the triumphs of rigid Calvinism in the days of Queen Elizabeth, says, in his letter to Dr. Nowell, p. 45, that “those who held this opinion of God’s not being any cause of sin and damnation, were at that time mightily cried out against by the main body of our Reformed Church, as fautors of false religion,” and “that to be called a free-will man, was looked upon as a shameful reproach, and oppro- brious infamy; yea, and that a person so termed was deemed heretical.” A proof this, that Dr. Peter Heylin speaks the truth when he says, “ It was safer for any man in those times to have been looked upon as a hea- then or publican, than an anti-Calvinist.” Should the judicious reader ask how it happened that the doctrines of unscriptural grace, free wrath, and necessity were so soon substituted for the doctrines of genuine free grace, and rectified, assisted free will, whic. Cranmer had so evangelically maintained ; I answer, that although Thomas Aquinas and Scotus, the leading divines of the Church of Rome, through their great veneration for Augustine, leaned too much toward the lawless, wrathful doctrines of grace; yet Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius leaned still more toward that extreme. This was soon observed by some of the popish doctors ; and as they knew not how to make a proper stand against the genuine doctrines of the reformation, they were glad to find a good opportunity of opposing the reformers, by opposing the Augusti- nian mistakes which Luther and Calvin carried to the height. Accord- ingly, leaving the extreme of Augustine, to which they had chiefly leaned before, many of the popish divines began to lean toward the extreme of Pelagius, and commenced rigid and partial defenders of the doctrines of justice, which the German, French, and Swiss reformers had indirectly destroyed, by overthrowing the doctrine of free will, which 276 EQUAL CHECK. [Parr is inseparably connected with the doctrine of a day of just judgment. Hence it is, that, at the council of Trent, which the pope had called to stop the progress of the reformation, the Papists took openly the part of the second Gospel axiom; and in the spirit of contradiction began warmly to oppose Augustine’s mistakes, which the first Jesuits had ardently embraced, Bellarmine himself not excepted. Party spirit soon blew up the partial zeal of the contending divines. Protestant bigotry ran against popish bigotry ; and the effect of the shock was a driving of each other still farther from the line of Scripture moderation. Thus many Papists, especially those who wrote against the Calvinian Protest- ants, became the partial supporters of the doctrines of justice, while their opponents showed themselves the partial vindicators of the doctrines of grace. Hence it is, that, in the popish countries, those who stood up for faith and distinguishing free grace began to be called hereties, Luther- ans, and Solifidians: while, in the Protestant countries, those who had the courage to maintain the doctrines of justice, good works, and unne- cessitated obedience, were branded as Papists, merit mongers, and heretics. Things continued in this unhappy state till oppressed truth made new efforts to shake off the yokes put upon her. For the scales, which hold the weights of the sanctuary, (the two Gospel axioms,) hover and shift till they have attained their equilibrium; just as the disturbed needle of a compass quivers and moves till it has recovered its proper situation, and points again due north. This new shifting happened in the last century, when Arminius, a Protestant divine, endeavoured to rescue the doctrines of justice, which were openly trampled under foot by most Protestants ; and when Jansenius, a popish bishop, attempted to exalt the doctrines of distinguishing grace, which most divines of the Church of Rome had of late left to the Protestants. Thus Jansenius, overdoing after Augustine, brought the doctrines of unscriptural grace and free wrath with a full tide into the Church of Rome: while Arminius (or, at least, some of his followers) drove them with all his might out of the Protestant Churches. Many countries were in a general ferment on this occasion. A great number of Protestant divines, assembled at Dort in Holland, confirmed . Calvin’s indirect opposition to the doctrines of justice, and condemned Arminius after his death ; for during his life none dared to attack him ; such was the reputation he had, even through Holland, both for learning and exemplary piety! On the other hand, the pope, with his conclave, imitating the partiality of the synod of Dort, injudiciously condemned Jansenius and his Calvinism, and thus did an injury to the doctrines of grace, which Jansenius warmly contended for. But truth shall stand, be it ever so much opposed by either partial Protestants or partial Papists. Therefore, notwithstanding the decisions of the popish con- clave, Jansenism and the doctrines of grace continued to leaven the Church of Rome: while, notwithstanding the decisions of the Protestant synod, Arminianism and the doctrines of justice continued to spread through the Protestant Churches. Archbishop Laud, in the days of King James and Charles the First, caused in the Gospel scales the turn which then began to take place in our Church in favour of the doctrines of justice. He was the chief THIRD.] GRACE AND JUSTICE. 277 instrument, which, like Moses’ rod, began to part the boisterous sea of rigid Calvinism. He received his light from Arminius: but it was cor- rupted by a mixture of Pelagian darkness. He aimed rather at putting down absolute reprobation and lawless grace, than at clearing up the Scripture doctrine of a partial election, doing justice to the doctrines of grace, and reconciling the contending parties, by reconciling the two Gospel axioms. Hence, passing beyond the Scripture meridian, he led most of the English clergy from one extreme to the other. For now it is to be feared that the generality of them are gone as far west as they were before east, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The first Gospel axiom formerly preponderated, and now the second goes swiftly down. Free will is, in general, cried up in opposition to free grace, as exces- sively and Pelagianistically (if I may use the expression) as, in the beginning of the last century free grace was unreasonably and Calvin- istically set up in opposition to free will. I say in general, because although most of our pulpits are filled with preachers, who Pelagianize as well as Honestus, there are still a few divines, who, like Zelotes, strongly run into the Calvinian extreme. But however, sooner or later, judicious, moderate men will convince the Christian world that the Gospel equally comprises the doctrines of grace and of justice; and that it consists of promises to be believed, and precepts to be observed; gracious promises and holy precepts, which are armed with the sanction of proper rewards or punishments, and are as incompatible with Pelagian self sufficiency, as with the Calvinian doctrines of lawless grace and free wrath. And as soon as this is clearly and practically understood by Christians, primitive unity and harmony will be restored to the partial gospels of the day. SECTION V. What the two modern gospels are—Their dreadful consequences—Ar- minius tried to find the way of truth between these two gospels, but perhaps missed it a little—The rectifying of his mistakes lately at- tempted. By the two modern gospels, I mean Pelagianism or rigid Arminianism, and the doctrine of absolute necessity or rigid Calvinism. The former is a gospel which so exalts the doctrines of justice, as to obscure the doctrines of partial grace: a gospel which so holds forth, the second Gospel axiom, as to hide the glory of the first, either wholly or in part. Rigid Calvinism, on the other hand, is a gospel which so extols the doc- trines of distinguishing grace, as to eclipse the doctrines of justice: a gospel which so holds forth the first Gospel axiom as to hide the glory of the ‘second, in whole or in part. The fault of these two systems of doctrine consists in parting, or in not properly balancing the doctrines of grace and of justice. The confusion which this error has occasioned in the Churches of Christ for above a thousand years should, one would think, have opened the eyes of all overdoing and underdoing divines, and made them look out for a safe passage between the Pelagian and the Calvinian rocks. That any good 278 EQUAL CHECK. [Part men should continue unconcernedly to run the bark of their orthodoxy against those fatal rocks of error, is really astonishing ; especially if we consider that nobody can look into ecclesiastical history without the marks of the numerous wrecks of truth and love which they have, caused. Wide, however, as the empire of prejudice is, candour is not yet turned out of the world. In all the Churches of Christ, there are men who will yet hear Scripture and reason. But many of them, through a variety of avocations, through an indolence of disposition, or through despair of finding the exact truth, tamely submit to what appears to them a remediless evil. They are sorry that Christians should be so divided : but not seeing any prospect of ending our deplorable divisions, ~ they quietly walk in Pelagian or Calvinian ways, without seeking the unbeaten path of truth which lies exactly between those two frequented roads. One of the reasons why they take up so readily with the Pela- gian or Calvinian system, is, their not considering the dreadful evils which flow from each, some of which I shall set before the reader. I have already observed that the error of Pelagius (if St. Augustine and his votaries: do not wrong him) consists in exalting free will and human powers, so as to leave little or no room for the exertion of free grace and Divine power ; and that, on the other hand, the error of Augustine ~ and Calvin consists in so exalting irresistible free grace openly, and irresistible free wrath secretly, that there is no reasonable room left for the exertion of faithful or unfaithful free will, or indeed for any free will at all. Now in the very nature of things, these two opposite extremes lead to the most dangerous errors. I begin with enumerating those which belong to the Pelagian extreme. Reason and experience show that when the Pelagian error rises to its height, it leads men into Arianism, Socinianism, Deism, and, sometimes, into avowed fatalism, or popish Pharisaism. 1. By Artanism I mean the doctrine of Arius, a divine of Alex. andria, who lived about the time of Pelagius, and not only insinuated that man was not so fallen as to need an omnipotent Redeemer, whose name is “God with us;” but openly taught that Christ was only an exalted, super-angelical creature. 2. Socrnranism is the error of Socinus, a learned, moral man, who lived since the reformation, and had such high notions of man’s free will and powers, that he thought man could save himself, even without the help of a super-angelical Redeemer. And accordingly he asserted that Christ was a mere man like Moses and Elias, and that his blood had no more power to atone for sin, than that of Abel or St. Paul. 3. Drism is the error of those who carry matters still higher, and think that man is so perfectly able, by the exertions of his own mere free will and natural powers, to recommend himself to the mercy of the Supreme Being, that he needs no Redeemer at all. Hence it is, that, although the Deists still believe in God, and on that account assume the name of Theists or Deists, they make no more of Christ and the Bible, than of the pope and his mass book, and look upon the doctrines of the - incarnation and the trinity as wild and idolatrous conceits. 4, AvoweED FaTaLiso is the error of those who believe that “ whatever is, is right ;” and that all things happen (and of consequence that all sins are committed) of fatal, absolute necessity. This is an error into which oe gy see ee THIRD. | GRACE AND JUSTICE. 279 immoral Deists are very apt to run: for, when they feel guilt upon their consciences, as they have no idea of a Mediator to take it away, they wish that their bad actions had been necessary, that is, absolutely brought on by the stars, or caused by God’s decrees, which would fully exculpate them. And as this doctrine eases their guilty consciences, they first desire that it may be true, and by little and little persuade themselves that it is so, and publicly maintain their error. Hence it is that immoral Deists, such as Voltaire, and many of his followers, are avowed fatalists. 5. Jewish Puarisatsm is the error of those who are such strangers to the doctrines of grace, as to think they have no need of the rich mercy which God extends to poor publicans. Fancying themselves righteous, they thank God for their supposed goodness, when they, should smite upon their breasts on account of their real depravity. Porisu Puarisaism is an error still more capital. Those who are deep in it not only take little notice of the doctrines of grace, but carry their ideas of -the doc- trines of justice to such unscriptural and absurd lengths as to imagine that their penances can make a proper atonement for their sins; that God is, strictly speaking, their debtor on account of their good works: and that they can not only merit the reward of eternal life for themselves ‘by their good deeds, but deserve it also for others by their works of supererogation, and through their superabundant obedience and goodness ; a conceit so detestable, that one would think it need only be mentioned to be fully exploded and perfectly abhorred. Dreadful as are these consequences of Pelagianism carried to its height, the consequences of Augustinianism, or Calvinism, carried also to its height, are not at all better. For the demolition of free will, and the setting up of irresistible, electing free grace, and absolute, reprobating free wrath, lead to Antinomianism, Manicheism, disguised fatalism, widely reprobating bigotry, and self-electing presumption or self-reprobating de- spair. ‘The four first of these errors need explanation. I. Anrrvomtanism is the error of such rigid Calvinists as exalt free grace in so injudicious a manner, and make so little account of free will, and its startings aside out of the way of duty, as to represent sin, at times, like a mere bugbear, which can no more hurt the believer, who now commits it, than scarecrows can hurt those who set them up. They assert that if a simmer has once believed, he is not only safe, but eternally and completely justified from all future as well as past iniquities. The pope’s indulgences are nothing to those which these mistaken evangelists preach. I have heard of a bishop of Rome who extended his popish indulgences, pardons, and justifications, to any crime which the indulged man might commit within ten years after date: but these preached finished salvation in the full extent of the word, without any of our own works, and by that means they extend their Protestant indulgences to all eternity—to all believers in general—and to every crime which each of them might choose tocommit. In a word, they preach the inamissible, complete justification of all fallen believers, who add murder to adultery, and a hypocritical show of godliness to incest. Antinomianism, after all, is nothiug but rigid Calvinism dragged to open light by plain-spoken preachers, who think that truth can bear the light, and that no honest man should be ashamed of his religion. II. Manicueism is the capital error of Manes, a Persian, who, 280 EQUAL CHECK. [parr attempting to mend the Gospel of Christ, demolished free will, made man a mere passive tool, and taught that there are two principles in the Godhead, the one good, from which flows all the good, and the other bad, from which flows all the evil in the world. Augustine was once a Manichee, but afterward he left their sect, and refuted their errors. And yet, astonishing ! when he began to lean to the doctrine of absolute predestination, he ran again, unawares, into the capital error of Manes. For if all the good and bad actions of angels, devils, and men, have their source in God’s absolute predestination, and necessitating decrees, it follows that vice absolutely springs from the predestinating God, as well as virtue; and, of consequence, that rigid Calvinism is a branch of Manicheism,artfully painted with fair colours borrowed from Christianity. UI. Discursep raratism is nothing but an absolute necessity of doing good or evil, according to the overbearing decrees, or forcible influences of Manes’ God, who is made up of free grace and of free wrath, that is, of a good and bad principle. I call this doctrine disguised fatalism : (1.) Because it implies the absolute necessity of our actions ; a necessity this, which the heathens called fate: and, (2.) Because it is so horrible, that even those who are most in love with it, dare not look at it without some veil, or disguise. As the words fatalism, evil god, good devil, or Manichean deity, are not in the Bible, the Christian fatalists do what they can to cover their error with decent expressions. The good prin- ciple of their Deity they accordingly call free grace, or everlasting, unchangeable love. From this good principle flow their absolute election and finished salvation. With respect to the bad principle, it is true they dare not openly call it free wrath, or everlasting, unchangeable hatred, as:the honest Manichees did; but they give you dreadful hints that it is a sovereign something in the Godhead, which necessitates reprobated angels and men to sin ; something which ordains their fall, and absolutely passes them by when they are fallen; something which marks out unformed, unbegotten victims for the slaughter, and says to them, according to unchangeable decrees productive of absolute necessity, “Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire; for I passed you by: my absolute reprobation eternally secured your sin, and your continuance in sin; and now, my unchangeable, everlasting wrath absolutely secures your eternal damnation. Go, ye absolutely reprobated wretches,—go, and glorify my free wrath, which flamed against you before the founda- tion of the world. My curses and reprobation are without repentance.” There is not a grain of equity in all this speech: and yet it agrees as truly with rigid Calvinism as with the above-described branch of Mani- cheism ; it falls in as exactly with the necessitating, good-bad principles of Manes, as with the necessitating, good-bad principle of lawless free grace, and absolute sovereignty—the softer name which some Gospel ministers decently give to free wrath. ITV. Wipety REPROBATING BIGOTRY is the peculiar sin of the men who make so much of the doctrines of partial grace, as to pay little or no attention to the doctrines of impartial justice. ‘This detestable sin was so deeply rooted in the breasts of the Jews, that our Lord found himself obliged to work a miracle, that he might not be destroyed by it © before his hour was come. Because the Jews were the peculiar, and elected people of God, they uncharitably concluded that all the heathens, THIRD. |] GRACE AND JUSTICE. 281 i. e. all the rest of mankind were absolutely reprobated, or at least that God would show them no mercy, unless they became proselytes of the gate, and directly or indirectly embraced Judaism. And therefore, when Christ told them that many Gentiles would come from the east and west, and sit with Abraham in the kingdom of God, while many of the Jews would be cast out; and when he reproved their bigotry, by reminding them that in the days of Elijah God was more gracious to a heathen widow, than to all the widows that dwelt in Judea, they flew into a rage, and attempted to throw him down from the top of the craggy hill on which the town of Nazareth was built. It is the same widely reprobating bigotry, which makes the rigid Romanists think that there is no salvation out of their Church. Hence also the rigid Calvinists imagine that there is no saying grace but for those who share in their election of grace. It is impossible to conceive what bad tempers, fierce zeal, and bloody persecutions this reprobating bigotry has caused in all the Churches and nations where the privileges of electing love have been carried beyond the Scripture mark. Let us with candour read the history of the Churches and people who have engrossed to themselves all the saving grace of God, and we shall cry out, From such a fierce election, and such reprobating bigotry, good Lord deliver us! , I make no doubt but this sketch of the dangerous errors to which rigid Pelagianism and rigid Calvinism lead unwary Christians, will make the judicious reader afraid of these partial gospels, and will increase his thankfulness to God for the primitive Gospel, which by its doctrines of grace guards us against rigid Pelagianism and its mischievous effects ; and, by its doctrines of justice, arms us against rigid Calvinism and its dangerous consequences. Among the divines abroad, who have endeavoured to steer their doctrinal course between the Pelagian shelves and the Augustinian rocks, and who have tried to follow the reconciling plan of our great reformer Cranmer, none is more famous, and none came nearer the truth than Arminius. He was a pious and judicious Dutch minister, who, in the beginning of the last century, taught divinity in the university of Leyden -in Holiand. He made some noble efforts to drive Manicheism and disguised fatalism out of the Protestant Church, of which he was a member; and, so far as his light and influence extended, (by proving the evangelical union of redeeming grace and free will,) he restored Scripture harmony to the Gospel, and carried on the plan of recon- ciliation which Cranmer had laid down. His sermons, lectures, and orations made many ashamed of absolute reprobation, and the bad- principled God, who was before quietly worshipped all over Holland. Nevertheless, his attempt was partly unsuccessful ; for, attacking free wrath, (or the bad principle of the Manichean god,) without setting free grace in its full Gospel light, and without properly granting the election of grace which St. Paul contends for, he gave the Calvinists just room to complain. ‘They availed themselves so skilfully of his embarrassment about the doctrine of election, and they pleaded so plausibly for the sovereignty of the good-principled God, as to keep their absolute repro- bation, and the sovereignty of the bad-principled God partly out of sight. In short, implacable free wrath escaped by means of Antinomian free grace. The venomous scorpion concealed itself under the wing of the 282 EQUAL CHECK. [part simple dove ; and the double-principled Deity, the sparingly electing and widely reprobating God, was still held forth to injudicious Protestants as the God of all grace, the God of love, the God in whom is no darkness at all. For, as I have already observed, a number of divines, after the heart of Calvin, assembled at Dort in Holland, and openly condemned there the efforts that Arminius had made to reconcile the doctrines of justice and the doctrines of grace: the clergy who had espoused his sentiments were deprived of their livings; he himself was represented as the author of a heresy almost as dangerous as that of Pelagius ; and from that time the rigid Calvinists have considered all those who stand up for the two Gospel axioms with any degree of con- sistency, as semi-Pelagian, or Arminian heretics. And if Mr. Bayle be not mistaken, the Calvinists did not complain of Arminius’ doctrine altogether without reason; for although he went — very far in his discovery of the passage between the Pelagian and the Augustinian rocks, yet he did not sail quite through. Election proved a — rock on which his doctrinal bark stuck fast; nor could he ever get — entirely clear of that difficulty. Among our English divines several have greatly distinguished themselves by their improvements upon Arminius’ discoveries, Bishop Ovyeral, Bishop Stillingfleet, Bishop Bull, Chillingworth, Baxter, Whitby, and others. — But if I am not mistaken, they have all stuck where Arminius did, or on the opposite rock. And thereabouts we stuck too, when Mr. Wesley got happily clear of a point of the Calvinian rock which had retarded our course, and (so far as he appeared by us to be governed by the Father — of lights) we began to sail on with him through the straits of truth. When we left our moorings, the partial defenders of the doctrmes of grace hung out a signal of distress, and cried to us that our doctrinal ark was going to be lost against the same cliff where Pelagius’ bark went to pieces. Their shouts have made us wary. ‘The Lord has, we humbly hope, blessed us with an anchor of patient hope, a gale of cheerful love of truth, and a shield of resignation to quench the fiery darts which some warm men, who defend the barren rock of absolute reprobation, have thrown at us in our passage. We have sounded our way as we went on; and looking steadily to our theological compass, the Scriptures, to the Sun of righteousness, the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the stars which _ he holds in his right hand, the apostles and true evangelists, after sailing — slowly six years through straits, where strong currents of error and hard gales of prejudice have often retarded our progress, we flatter ourselves’ — that we have got quite out of those narrow and rocky seas, where most divines have been stopped for a long succession of ages. If we are — not mistaken, the ancient haven of Gospel truth is in sight; and, while we enter in, [ take a sketch of it, which the reader will see in a Plan of Reconciliation between the Calvinists and Arminians, which these sheets are designed to introduce. THE RECONCILIATION: OR AN EASY METHOD TO UNITE THE PROFESSING PEOPLE OF GOD. BY PLACING THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE AND JUSTICE IN SUCH A LIGHT AS TO MAKE THE CANDID ARMINIANS BIBLE CALVINISTS, AND THE CANDID CALVINISTS BIBLE ARMINIANS. Vestra solum legitis; vestra amatis ; ceteros, incognita causa, condemnatis.—CICER9. ‘Follow peace with all men. Look not every man on his own things[and favourite doctrines only ;] but every man also on the things|and favourite doctrines] of others.” ‘ The wisdom that is from above is peaceable, and without partiality,” Heb. xii, 14; Phil. ii, 4; James iii 17 . sR Ory *T ‘ THE RECONCILIATION, &c. SECTION I. The sad consequences of the divisions of those who make a peculiar profession of faith in Christ—It is unscriptural and absurd to object that believers can never be of one mind and heart. UnsPeakaste isthe mischief done to the interests of religion by the divisions of Christians: and the greater their profession is, the greater is the offence given by their contests. When the men who seek occa- sion against the Gospel, see them contending for the truth, and never - coming to an agreement, they ask, like Pilate, “ What is truth?” and | he away from Christianity, as that precipitate judge did from Of all the controversies which have given offence to the world, none has been kept up with more obstinacy than that which relates to Divine - grace and the nature of the Gospel. It was set on foot in the fourth century by Augustine and Pelagius, and has since been warmly carried on by Godeschalchus, Calvin, Arminius, and others. And it has lately been revived by Mr. Whitefield, and Mr. Wesley, and by the author of Pietas Oxoniensis, and the orator of the university of Oxford. This unhappy controversy has brought more contempt upon the Gospel for aboye twelve hundred years, than can well be conceived. Preachers entangled therein, instead of agreeing to build the temple of God, think themselves obliged to pull down the scaffolds on which their brethren work. Shepherds, who should join their forces to oppose the common enemy, militate against théir fellow shepherds: and their hungry fol- lowers are too frequently fed with controversial chaff, when they should be nourished with the pure milk of the word. After the example of their leaders, the sheep learn to butt, and wounds or lameness are the consequences of the general debate. ‘The weak are offended, and the lame turned out of the way. The godly mourn, and the wicked triumph: bad tempers are fomented; the hellish flame of party zeal is blown up, and the souls of the contenders are pierced through with many sorrows. This is not all: the Spirit of God is grieved, and the conversion of sinners prevented. How universally would the work of reformation have spread if it had not been hindered by this growing mischief! How many thousands of scoffers daily say, Can these devotees expect we should agree with them, when they cannot agree among themselves? And indeed how can we reasonably hope that they should give us the right hand of fellowship, if we cannot give it one another? “ By this,” saith our Lord, “shall all men know that you are my disciples, if ye love one another.” Continual disputes are destructive of love ; and the men of the world, seeing us cherish such disputes, naturally conclude that we are not the disciples of Christ, that there are none in the world, that the Gospel is only a pious fraud or a fine legend, and that faith is nothing but fancy, superstition, or enthusiasm. Nor wil] such men be prevailed upon cordially to believe in Christ, 286 EQUAL CHECK. _ [parr till they see the generality of professors “made perfect in one,” by agreeing in doctrine, and “walking in love.” We may infer this from our Lord’s prayer for his Church: “Neither pray I for these alone but for them also who shall believe on me through their word: tha they all may BE ong, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that THE WoRLD MAY BELIEVE,” John xvii, 20, 21. Christ intimates, in these words, the men of the world will never generally embrace the Gospel, till the union he prayed for take place among believers. 'To keep up divisions, therefore, is one of the most effectual methods to hinder the conversion of sinners, and strengthen the unbelief which hardens their hearts. The destructive nature of this sin appears from the severity with which St. Paul wrote to the. Corinthians and Galatians, who were divided among themselves. The former he could not acknowledge as “ spi ritual men,” but called them “carnal,” and affirmed that “to their shame, some of them had not the knowledge of God.” And the latte he considered as persons almost “ fallen from Christ ;” intimating, that if they continued to “ bite each other,” (an expression which is beauti- fully descriptive of the malignity, with which most controyertists speak and write against their antagonists,) they would “be consumed one of another,” Gal. vin 5d . In families and civil societies divisions are truly deplorable ; but in the Churches of Christ they are peculiarly pernicious and scandalous: (1.) Pernicious : to be persuaded of it, we need only consider these awful words of St. James :—*“ If ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom is devilish. For where envying and strife i is, there is confusion and every evil work,” James iii, 14, &e. (2.) Scandalous: if Christ be the Prince of Peace, why should his subjects be sons of-contention? If he came to reconcile Jews and Gentiles, “by breaking down the middle wall of partition be- tween them ;” if he “made in himself, of twain [of those two opposed — bodies of men] one new man,” that is, one new body of men, “all of one heart and cf one soul;” if he has “slain the enmity, so making peace ;” if “it pleased the Father to reconcile all things unto himself by him ;” and if “in the dispensation of the fulness of times [the Chris- tian dispensation] he gathers together all things in him :” if this, I say, is the case, what can be more contrary to the Gospel plan than the ob stinacy with which some Protestants refuse to be “ gathered together” with their fellow Protestants, under the shadow of their Redeemer’s wings? And what can be more scandalous than for Christ’s followers, — yea, for the strictest of them to spend their time in building “middle walls of partition” between themselves and their brethren, or in “daub. — ing over with untempered mortar” the walls which mistaken men have built in former ages ! Many Jews refused to be saved by Christ, because he came to save — the Gentiles as well as themselves. And it is to be feared that some | Christians, from a similar motive, refuse the Divine favour, or the emi- | nent degrees of it, to which they are called in the Gospel. Christ says — to these bigots, « How often would I have gathered you together, as a | hen gathers her scattered brood under her wings! but ye would not:” | ye were afraid of your Calvinian or Arminian brethren, and preferred + . ‘THIRD.] THE RECONCILIATION. 287 the selfish heat of party spirit, to the diffusive warmth of Divine and brotherly love. I say Divine, as well as brotherly love; for he “that loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, how can he love God, whom he hath not seen ?” My regard for unity revives my drooping spirits, and adds new strength to my wasted body.* I stop at the brink of the grave over which I bend: and, as the blood, oozing from my decayed lungs, does not permit me vocally to address my contending brethren, by means of my pen I will ask them if they can properly receive the holy com- munion while they wilfully remain in disunion with their brethren from whom controversy has needlessly parted them? For my part, if I felt myself unwilling to, be reconciled on Scripture terms, either with my Calvinian or Arminian neighbours, I would no more dare go to the Lord’s table, than if I had harboured murder in my heart; and this scripture would daily haunt my conscience, “ Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool, [thou silly free willer, thou foolish bound willer, thou heretic !] shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore, if thou bring thy gift before the altar, and there rememberest that thy [Calvinian or Arminian] brother hath aught against thee; leave thy gift and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly”—thy religious as well as thy civil adversary—him with whom thou differest about the gold of the word ; as well as him with whom thou contendest about the gold of this world. Not to be reconciled when we properly may, is to keep up divisions ; and to keep up divisions is as bad as to cause them. And what a dread- ful thing it is to cause divisions, appears from St. Paul’s charge to the Romans: “I beseech you, brethren, mark them who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them,” Rom. xvi, 17. Avoid them, for those who have the itch of con- tention, and the plague of party spirit, are not only in a dangerous case themselves; but they carry about a mortal infection, which they fre- quently communicate to others. Should party men exclaim against my reconciling attempt, and say that “there always were, and always will be divisions among the children of God, and that to aim at a general reconciliation, is to aim at an ab- solute impossibility ;” I reply,— (1.) This plea countenances the lusts of the flesh. “ Walk in the Spirit,” saith St. Paul, “and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh :” and among these lusts he immediately numbers “ debate, emulations, wrath, contentions, and such like,” observing, at the same time, that “the fruit of the Spirit is love, peace, gentleness, meekness,” &c. Now when party men insinuate that we can never live in peace and harmony with our Christian brethren, do they not indirectly teach that “ debate, emulations, contentions, and such like, must” still waste our time, disturb our minds, and impair our love? And is not this an under- hand plea for a wretched obligation to neglect “the fruit of the Spirit,” and for an Antinomian necessity to bring forth the “ fruit of the flesh ?” (2.) It militates against St. Paul’s conflict for believers: “I would,” * Mr. Fletcher was judged to be now in the last stage of a consumption 288 EQUAL CHECK. . [PART * says he to the Colossians, “that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh, that their hearts might be comforted; being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God,” Col. ii, 1, 2. It opposes also the end of the apostle’s prayer for the Romans: “The God of patience — and consolation grant you to be like minded, &e, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, &c. Wherefore receive you one ano- ther, as Christ also received us,” Rom. xv, 5, &c. But what is far worse, it directly contradicts Christ’s capital prayer, which I have already — quoted: “TI pray,” says he, “that they [believers] may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee : that they also may be one in us: that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one: that the [unbelieving] world may know that thou hast sent me,” John xvii, 20, &c. Now if our Lord asked for an absolute impossiblity, when he asked for the perfect union of believers in this life, where was his wisdom? And if he cannot make us one in heart and mind (supposing we are willing to abide by his reconciling word) where is his power! : (3.) It strikes at the authority of these evangelical entreaties, exhor- tations, and commands :—*“ Be of the same mind,” Rom. xii, 16. “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you ; but that ye be perfectly jomed together in the same mind, and in the same judgment,” 1 Cor. i, 10. “Finally, brethren, be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind ; live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you,” 2 Cor. xii, 11. “Let your conversation be as it becometh the Gospel of Christ: that I may hear ye, stand fast in one spirit, with one mind; striving together for the faith of the Gospel. Fulfil ye my joy that ye be like minded—being of one accord, of one mind. I beseech Euodias and Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord,” Phil. i, 27; i, 2; iv, 2. “Finally, be ye all of one mind, &c. Love as brethren, be courteous. For he that will see good days, &c, let him seek peace [with his enemies, much more with his brethren ;] and let him pursue it,” 1 Pet. in, 8, &c. ‘ Let us walk by the same tule, let us mind the same things,” Phil. ill, 16. “ With all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love : endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. For there is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all,” Eph. iv, 2, &c. The same apostle, writing to the divided Corinthians, tries to reconcile them by comparing again the body of believers to the human body, and drawing a suitable inference: “‘ The body is one,” says he, “though it hath many members; that there should be no schism, [no division] in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another; all suffering when one member suffers, and all rejoicing when one member is honoured,” 1 Cor. xii, 12-26. Hence it follows that to plead for the continuance of schisms and divisions in Christ’s mystical body, is evidently to plead — for a breach of “the bond of peace,” and for the neglect of all the above-mentioned apostolic injunctions. THIRD.] THE RECONCILIATION. 289 (4.) It gives the lie to the following promises of the God of truth. “The hatred to Ephraim shall depart, &c. Ephraim shall not envy Judah, neither shall Judah vex Ephraim,” Isa. xi, 18. “I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them and of their children,” Jer. xxxii, 39. “I will give them | one heart, and [ will put a new spirit within them,” Ezek. xi, 19. «I will turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent, &c. Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd,” John x, 16. (5.) It contradicts the following accounts of God’s faithfulness in the initial accomplishment of the preceding promises :—“They were all with one accord in one place; continuing daily with one accord in the temple,” Acts ii, 1, 46. “The multitude of them that believed were of one heart, and of one soul,” Aéts iv, 32. “If we walk in the light, &c, we have fellowship one with another. For he that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is in him no occasion of stumbling :” no- thing in his heart will either cause or keep up divisions, 1 John i, 7; ii,10. ‘ We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, because your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth,” 2 Thess. i, 3. “By one Spirit, ‘all complete Christians are baptized into one body, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, whether they be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit”—the Spirit of truth and love ; and (unless they leave their first love as the Corinthians did) they sweetly continue to “‘ keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” 1 Cor. xii, 13; Eph. iv, 3. From these accounts of the unity of the primitive Chris- tians before they “left their first love,” I infer, that unity is attainable because it was attained. The arm of the Lord is not shortened ; “the same Lord over all zs rich unto all that call upon him ;” and if we be not obstinately bent upon despising the “wisdom from above, which is peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of good fruits and without partiality ;” we shall find that “the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace ;” and we shall evidence that all the sincere followers of Christ can yet “ continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship,” instead of perversely continuing in their own mistakes and in the spirit of discord. Lastly : the objection I answer has a tendency to stop the growth of Christ’s mystical body, and opposes God’s grand design in sending the Gospel: for “he gave apostles, evangelists, and pastors, for the per- fecting of the saints, and the edifying of the body of Christ ; till all come, in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ : that we be no more carried about with every wind of doctrine, &c, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into him who is the head, even Christ ; from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love,” Eph. iv, 11,17. No believer can, I think, candidly read these words of the apostle, without being Vou. Il. 19 290 EQUAL CHECK. . _ [Part convinced that union and growth are inseparable in the Church of “ Christ, from whom all the body, by joints and bands haying nourishment [or help] ministered, and being knit together, increaseth with the increase of God,” Col. ii, 19. walt From these observations, I hope, it appears, that whether we consider the earnest entreaties of the apostles; their conflicts and pious wishes for their converts; the wisdom of our Lord’s address to his Father for the union of believers; the repeated commands of the Gospel to be of “one mind and one judgment ;” the promises which God has made to help us to keep these commands; the Divine power, by which the primitive believers were actually enabled to keep them, so long as they walked in the Spirit; or whether we consider the end of evangelical preaching, and the unity and growth of Christ’s mystical body ; nothing can be more unscriptural than to say that believers can never be again of one heart and of one mind. And as this notion is unscriptural, so it is irrational; inasmuch as it _ supposes that the children of God can never agree to serve him, as the children of the wicked one do to honour their master; for St. John informs us that “these have one mind to give their power and strength unto the beast,” Rev. xvii, 13. And experience daily teaches that when the men of the world are embarked in the same scheme, they can perfectly agree in the pursuit of wealth, pleasure, and fame, or in the performance of duty. If ships that sail under the command of the same admiral do not give each other a broadside, because they have different captains, and are employed in different services ; if soldiers, who follow the same general, do not quarrel because they belong to different regi- ments, because their coats are not turned up alike, or because they do not defend the same fort, fight in the same wing of the army, hear the same drum, and follow the same pair of colours: and if the king’s faithful servants can unanimously promote his interests, and cheerfully lend each other a helping hand, though their departments are as different as the fleet is different from the army, is it not absurd to suppose that Christ’s faithful soldiers and servants, who are the meekest, the humblest, the most disinterested, and the most loving of all men, can never live in perfect union, and sweetly agree to pfomote the interests of their Divi Master? I conclude, therefore, that the objection which supposes the contrary, is not less contrary to reason than to the word of God. SECTION II. “Pious, moderate Calvinists, and pious, moderate Arminians in particular, may be easily reconciled to each other ; because the doctrines of grace and justice, about which they divide, are equally Scriptural, and each party contends for a capital part of the Gospel truth; their grand mistake consisting in a groundless supposition that the part of the truth they defend is incompatible with the part which is defended by their brethren. Som persons will probably make a more plausible objection than that which is answered in the preceding pages. They will urge, “ that truth THIRD.] bd THE RECONCILIATION. 291 should never be sacrificed to love and peace; that the Calvinists and the Arminians holding doctrines diametrically opposite, one party at least must be totally in the wrong; and as the other party ought not to be reconciled to error, the agreement I propose is impossible: it will never take place, unless the Calvinists can be prevailed upon to give up un- conditional election, and their favourite doctrines of partial grace; or the Arminians can be persuaded to part with conditional election, and their fayourite doctrines of impartial justice ; and as this is too great a sacrifice to be expected from either party, it is in vain to attempt bringing about a reconciliation between them.” This objection is weighty: but far from discouraging me, it affords me an oppertunity of laying before my readers the ground of hope I entertain, to reconcile the Calvinists and Arminians. I should indeed utterly despair of effecting it, were I obliged to prove that either party is entirely in the wrong. But I may without folly expect some suctess, because my grand design is to demonstrate that both parties have an important truth on their side ; both holding opposite doctrines, which are as essential to the fulness of Christ’s Gospel, as the two eyes, nostrils, and cheeks, which compose our faces, are essential to the completeness of human beauty. “The language of Scripture seems to favour the one as well as the other,” says Dr. Watts on a similar occasion: “but this is the mischief that ariseth between Christians who differ in their sentiments or expres- sion of things ; they imagine that while one is true, the other must needs be false : and then they brand each other with error and heresy : whereas, if they would but attend to Scripture, that would show them to be both in the right, by its different explication of their own forms of speaking. In this way of reconciliation I cannot but hope for some success, because it falls m with the universal, fond esteem that each man has of his own understanding : it proves that two warm disputers may both have truth on their side. Now, if ten persons differ in their sentiments, it is much easier to persuade all of them that they may be all in the right, than it is to convince one that he is in the wrong.” I shall illustrate this quotation by a remark, which occurs in the be- inning of my Scripture Scales ;*only taking the liberty of applying to Goous Calvinists and pious Arminians what I said there of pious Solifidians and pious moralists :—“'The cause of their misunderstanding is singular. They are good men upon the whole; therefore they never can oppose truth as truth: and as they are not destitute of charity, they cannot quarrel merely for quarreling’s sake. Whence then spring their con- tinual disputes? Is it not from inattention and partiality? They will not look truth full in the face: determined to stand on one side of her, they seldom see above one half of her beauty. The rigid Calvinians gaze upon her side face on the right hand, and the rigid Arminians contemplate it on the left. But her unprejudiced lovers, humbly sitting at her feet, and beholding her in full, admire the exquisite proportion of all her features: a peculiar advantage this, which her partial admirers can never have in their present unfavourable position.” To be more explicit: a rigid Calvinist has no eyes but for God’s sovereignty, unconditional election, and the doctrines of partial grace ; while a rigid Arminian considers nothing but God’s equity, conditional 292 : EQUAL CHECK. e ‘parr election, and the doctrines of impartial justice. And therefore, to unite these contending rivals, you need only prevail on the Arminians to bow to God’s sovereignty, to acknowledge an unconditional election, and to receive the doctrines of partial grace ; and as soon as they do this, they will be reconciled to Bible Calvinism and to all moderate Calvinists. - And, on the other hand, if the Calvinists can be convinced that they should bow to God’s equity, acknowledge a conditional election, and receive the doctrines of impartial justice, they will be reconciled to Bible Arminianism, and to all moderate Arminians. Should it be said that it is impossible to convince the Arminians of the truth of an uncon- ditional election, &c, and that the Calvinists will never receive the doctrine of a. conditional election, &c, I answer, that bigots of either party will not be convinced, because they all pretend to infallibility, though they do not pretend to wear a triple crown. But the candid, on both sides of the question, lie open to conviction, and will, I hope, yield to the force of plain Scripture and sound reason, the two weapons with which I design to attack their prejudices. But before I open my friendly attack, I beg leave, candid reader, to show thee the ground on which I will erect my Scriptural and rational batteries. It is made up of the following reasonable propositions :— When good men warmly contend about truth, you may in general be assured that, if truth can be compared to a staff, each party has one end of the staff, and that to have the whole you need only consistently hold together what they inconsiderately pull asunder. (2.) The Gospel contains doctrines of partial grace and unconditional election, as well as doctvines of impartial justice and conditional election. Nor can wo embrace the whole truth of the Gospel, unless we consistently hold those seemingly contrary doctrines. (3.) Those opposite doctrines, which rigid Calvinists and Arminians suppose to be absolutely incompatible, agree as well together as the following pair cf propositions : God has a throne of grace and a throne of justice ; ; nor is the former throne inconsistent with the latter. God, as the Creator and Governor of mankind, sustains the double character of sovereign Benefactor, and righteous Judge: and the first of these characters is perfectly con- sistent with the second. This is the ground of my reconciling plan and this ground is so solid,that I hardly think any unprejudiced person will ever enter his protest against it. Were divines to do it, they would render themselves as ridiculous as a pilot, who should suppose that the head and stern of the vessel he is called to conduct, can never be two essential parts of the same ship. If Christianity were compared to a ship, the doctrines of grace might be likened to the fore part, and the doctrines of justice to the hinder part of it. This observation brings to my remembrance a quotation from Dr. Doddridge, which will help the reader to understand how it is possible that an election of grace, maintained by moderate Calvinists, and an election of justice, defended by moderate Arminians, may both be true: “I have long observed,” says the judicious doctor, “ that Christians of different parties have eagerly been laying hold on par. ticular parts of the system of Divine truths, and have been contending about them as if each had been all; or as if the separation of the mem. bers from each other, and from the head, were the preservation of tls 4 . 4 THIRD.] THE RECONCILIATION. © 293 body, instead of its destruction. They have been zealous to espouse the defence, and to maintain the honour and usefulness of each part ; whereas their honour as well as usefulness seems to me to lie much in their connection : and suspicions have often arisen between the respective defenders of each, which have appeared as unreasonable and absurd as if all the preparations for securing one part of a ship in a storm,.s were to be censured as a contrivance to sink the rest.” In the name of God, the God of wisdom, truth, and peace, let then the defenders of the doctrines of grace cease to fall out with the defenders of the doctrines of justice, and let both parties seek the happy connection which Dr. Doddridge speaks of, and rejoice in the part of the truth peculiarly held by their brethren, as well as in that part of the Gospel to which they have hitherto been peculiarly attached. Many good men, on both sides of the question, have at times pointed out the connection of the opposite doctrines, which are maintained in these sheets. Mr. Henry, a judicious Calvinist, does it in his notes on the parable of the talents, where he contends for the doctrines of partial grace and impartial justice, and exalts God both as a sovereign Bene- factor, and a righteous Judge. Commenting upon these words, “Take therefore the talent from him” [the slothful servant] says he, “ The talents were first disposed of by the master as an absolute owner, [that is, a sovereign benefactor, who does what he pleases with his own.] But this was now disposed of by him as a judge; he takes it from the unfaithful servant to punish him, and gives it to him that was eminently faithful to reward him.” This is “rightly dividing the word of truth,” and wisely distinguishing between the throne of grace and that of justice. Dr. John Heylin, a judicious Arminian, in his discourse on 1 Tim. iv, 10, is as candid as Mr. Henry in the above-quoted note ; for he stands up for God’s sovereignty and the doctrine of partial grace, as much as Mr. Henry does for God’s equity and the doctrine of impartial justice. After pointing out in strong terms the error of those who, by setting aside the doctrines of justice, “sap* the foundation of all religion, which is the moral character of the Deity,” he adds :— “Nor, on the other hand, dot they less offend against the natural prerogative, I mean the absolute sovereignty of God, who deny him the free exercise of his bounty, as they seem too much inclined to do who are backward to believe the great disparity among mankind with regard to a future state, which revelation always supposes. His mercy is over all his works, but that mercy abounds to some much more than to others, according to the inscrutable ‘counsel of his own will.’ Nor is there a shadow of injustice in such wnequal distribution of his favours. ‘The term favours implies freedom in bestowing them; else they were not favours, but debts. The almighty Maker is master of all his pro- ductions. Both matter and form are his: all is gift, all is bounty ; nor may the lizard complain of his size, because there are crocodiles ; nor is the worm injured by the creation of an eagle.” I shall conclude this section by producing the sentiments of two persons, whose authority is infinitely greater than that of Mr. Henry and * He means the rigid Calvinists. + He means the rigid Arminians, 294 . EQUAL CHECK. [PART Dr. Heylin. Who exceeds St. Paul in orthodoxy? And yet what Cal- Vinist ever maintained the doctrines of grace more strongly than he does? “ By the grace of God,” says he, “I am what I am,” 1 Cor. xv, 10. “ By grace you are saved [that is, admitted into the high state of Christian salvation] through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the «gift of God :” [a special gift, which God has kept back from far the greatest part of the world ;] “ not of works, lest any man should boast,” Eph. ii, 8.“ At this time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works, other- wise grace is no moré grace,” Rom. xi, 5,6. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,” or made us partakers of the glorious privileges of Christians, which he has denied to millions of the human race,” Tit. ii, 5. “He is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe ;” for he saves «Christians with” a special salvation, which is called “the great salva- tion,” 1 Tim. iv, 10; Heb. iii, 3. Christ indeed “is not the propitiation for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John ii, 2. Nevertheless, he is especially our Mediator, our passover or paschal Lamb, and “the High Priest of our Christian profession, in whom God hath chosen us Christians before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy” above all people: ‘having predestimated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, to the praise of the glory of his grace :” a high adoption, which is so superior to that to which the Jews had been predestinated in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, that St. Paul spends part of his Epistle to the Ephesians in asserting the honour of it, and in extolling the glory of the peculiar grace given unto us in Christ. And if you exclaim against this Divine partiality, the apostle - silences you by a just appeal to God’s sovereignty: see Rom. ix, 20. But was St. Paul Calvinistically partial? Did he so contend for the doctrines of grace, as to cast a veil over the doctrines of justice? Stands he not up for the latter, as boldly as he does for the former? What Arminian ever bowed before the throne of Divine justice more deeply than he does in the following scriptures? “God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love,” Heb. vi, 10. “I have fought the good fight, &c. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day, 2 Tim. iv, 7, 8. These passages strongly support the doctrines of justice, but those which follow may be considered as the yery summit of Scripture Arminianism. ‘ Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doth, the same shall he receive of the Lord,” Eph. vi, 8. “ What- soever ye do, do it heartily, &c, knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that does wrong shall receive [adequate punishment] for the wrong which he hath done,” Col. ili, 23, &@c. “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that which he hath done, whether it be good or bad,” 2 Cor. v, 10. “In the day of wrath and revelation of his righteous ‘judgment, God will render to every man according to his deeds; eternal life to them who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, honour, and immortality ; but indignation and wrath to them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey un- > THIRD. |] THE RECONCILIATION. 295 righteousness, &e ; for [before the throne of justice] there is no respect of persons with God, ” Rom. li, 5, &c. Should it be asked how these seemingly contrary doctrines of grace and justice can be reconciled, I reply, They agree as perfectly to- gether as the first and second advent of our Lord. At his first coming he sustained the gracious character of a Saviour; and at his second coming he will sustain the righteous character of a J udge. Hear him explaining the mystery, which is hid from the rigid Calvinists and the rigid Arminians. Speaking of his first coming, he says :—“[ came not to judge the world, but to save the world,” by procuring for mankind different talents of initial salvation: a less number for the heathens, more for the Jews, and most for the Christians, who are his most pecu- liar people: “for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world ; but that the world through him might be saved,” John xii, 47; iii, 17. ‘The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost,” Luke xix, 10. ‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain,” John xv, 16. Here are doctrines of grace! But did our Lord so preach these doctrines as to destroy those of jus- tice? Did he so magnify his coming to save the world, as to make nothing of his coming to judge the world?) No: hear him speaking of his second advent: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another, [them that have done good from them that have done evil,] and these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal,” Matt. xxv, 31, 32,46. “Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be,” Rev. xxii, 12. “For the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his [the Son of man’s] voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good unto the resurrection of life: and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation,” John v, 28, 29. Here are doc- trines of justice! And the man who says that such doctrines are not as Scriptural as the above-mentioned doctrines of grace, may as well deny the succession of day and night. Dr. Watts, im his excellent book entitled, Orthodory and Charity United, gives us a direction which will suitably close the preceding appeal to the Scriptures :—“ Avoid,” says he, “the high flights and ex- tremes of zealous party men, &c. You will tell me, perhaps, that Scripture itself uses expressions as high upon particular occasions, and as much leaning to extremes as any men of party among us. But remember, then, that the Scripture uses such strong and high expres- sions not on one side only, but on both sides, and infinite wisdom hath done this more forcibly to impress some present truth or duty: but while it is evident the holy writers have used high expressions, strong figures of speech, and vehement turns on both sides, this sufficiently instructs us that we should be moderate in our censures of either side, and that the calm, doctrinal truth, stript of all rhetoric and figures, lies nearer to the middle, or at least that some of these appearing extremes are more reconcilable than angry men will generally allow. If the apostle charges the Corinthians, ‘So run that ye, may obtain,’ 1 Cor. [parr ix, 24; and tells the Romans, ‘It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God who showeth mercy,’ Rom. ix, 16; we may plainly infer that our running and his merey—our diligence and Divine grace are both necessary to salvation.” From all these scriptures it evidently follows: (1.) That as God is ’ both a Benefactor and a Governor, a Saviour and a Judge, he has both a throne of grace, and a throne of justice. (2.) That those believers are highly partial who worship only before one of the Divine thrones, when the sacred oracles so loudly bid us to pay our homage before both. (3.) That the doctrines of grace are the statutes and decrees issuing from the former throne: and that the doctrines of justice are the statutes and decrees issuing from the latter. (4.) That the princi- pal of all the doctrines of grace is, that there is an election of grace: and that the principal of all the doctrines of justice is, that there is an election of justice. (5.) That the former of those elections is uncon- ditional and partial; as depending merely on the good pleasure of our gracious Benefactor and Saviour ; and that the latter of those elections is conditional and impartial; as depending merely on the justice and equity of our righteous Governor and Judge: for justice admits of no partiality, and equity never permits a ruler to judge any men but such as are free agents, or to sentence any free agent, otherwise than ac- cording to his own works. (6.) That the confounding or not properly distinguishing those two elections, and the reprobations. which they draw after them, has filled the Church with confusion, and is the grand cause of the disputes which destroy our peace. And (lastly) that to restore peace to the Church, these two elections must be fixed upon their pro- per Scriptural basis, which is attempted in the following section. 296 EQUAL CHECK. SECTION III. Eight pair of opposite propositions, on which the opposite doctrines of grace and justice are founded,:and which may be considered as the basis of Bible Calvinism and Bible Arminianism, and as a double key to open the mysteries of election and reprobation. Scripture ground of Catvrinism, Scripture ground of ARMINIANISM, and the doctrines of GRACE. and the doctrines of susTICE. Proposition I. Proposrrron I, Gop is original, eternal, and un- bounded life, light, love, and purity ; and therefore, wherever these bless- ings are found, in any degree, they originally come from him, the over- flowing fountain of all that is ex- cellent in the natural, moral, and spiritual world. THERE is no death, darkness, free wrath, or sin in God: and therefore these evils, wherever they are found, originally flow from in- ferior agents, whose free will may become the fountain of all evil; for when free agents choose first the evil of sin, God is obliged in jus- tice to choose next the evil of pun- ishment. Thus moral evil draws natural evil after it. SS — << = a a tn iti at ie a ae THIRD.] Doctrines of grace. II. God is an infinitely wise Ben- efactor, full of goodness and GRAcE. IIL. It seems highly inconsistent with the wisdom of a Creator and Benefactor, to make all his crea- tures of the same size and rank, _ and to deal out his bounties to them in the same measure. ‘To say that he should do it, is as absurd as to affirm that his goodness requires him to make every insect as big as an elephant, and every spire of grass as tall as an oak. IV. For want of considering the preceding, self-evident proposiions, and their necessary consequences, the heated advocates for the doc- trines of justice have erred, either by denying, or by not fully granting these two undeniable truths: (1.) All good comes originally from God’s free grace and overflowing fulness. (2.) God, as a sovereign benefactor, may do what he pleases with his own. Nor should our “ eye be evil because he is good,’ and displays his superabounding goodness toward some men, more than he does toward others. V. The grand mistake of the rigid Arminians consists then in not frankly ascribing to God all the original goodness, and gracious sovereignty which belong to him as the sovereign author and first parent of all good. VI. Would you get clear of the error of rigid Arminians, not only assert God’s grace and good- ness, insisting that he is the first cause and eternal parent of ALL good, natural and spiritual, temporal and eternal, but boldly stand up also for his free grace and exube- THE RECONCILIATION. 297 Doctrines of justice. II. God is an infinitely wise Go- vernor, full of equity and sustIcE. III. It seems highly inconsistent with the equity of a Governor and a Judge to decree that millions of rational creatures shall be born ina graceless, sinful, and remediless state, that he may display his’ righteous sovereignty by passing a sentence of death and eternal tor- ments upon them, for being found in the state of remediless corruption, in which his irresistible decree hag placed them. IV. For want of considering the preceding, self-evident propositions, and their unavoidable consequences. the heated advocates for the doc- trines of grace have erred, by directly or indirectly maintainmg these two capital untruths: (1.) Some real evil can originally flow from that part of God’s predestina- tion which is generally called “ab- solute reprobation,” or “ predestina- tion to eternal death.” (2.) God, as a sovereign, may absolutely ordain some of his rational creatures to eternal death, before they have personally deserved it : or, which is all one, he may so pass by unborn” children as to msure their continu- ance in sin, and their everlasting damnation. V. The grand mistake of the rigid Calvinists consists then in di- rectly ascribing to God some ori- ginal evil, and a reprobating sove- reignty, which is‘irreconcilable with the goodness of a Creator, and the equity of a Judge. VI. Would you, on the other hand, get clear of the error of rigid Calvinists, not only maintain in general that God is just, but confi- dently assert that he utterly dis- claims a sovereignty which dis- penses rewards and punishments from a throne of "justice, otherwise 298 Doctrines of grace. rant goodness ; maintaining that he has the most unbounded right to dispense the peculiar bounties of his grace, without any respect to our works. For the children [Esau and Jacob] not being yet born, nei- ther having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to [the] election [of superior grace | might stand, not of works, but of him%hat [arbitrarily chooseth and] calleth ; it was said, [not the one is absolutely ordained to eternal death, and the other absolutely ordained to eternal life ; but] “ the elder shall serve the younger :” the younger shall have a_ superior blessing. And in this respect “ it is not at all of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God, who most freely and absolutely showeth mercy, or favour,” Rom. ix, 11, 12,16. Hence it appears, that to deny a partiat election of distinguishing grace, is equally to fly in the face of St. Paul and of reason. VII. When we consider the elec- tion of partial grace, and the harm- less reprobation that attends it, we may boldly ask, with St. Paul, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto [superior] honour, and* another unto [comparative] * To understand Rom. ix, we must EQUAL CHECK. [PART Doctrines of justice. than according to works: witness — his own repeated declarations :—«[ _ said indeed that thy house, &c, — should walk before me for ever: but — now be it far from me: for them — that honour me, I will honour ; and — they that despise me shall be lightly — esteemed,” 1 Sam. ii, 30. Again: “If the wicked man will turn from — all his sins, he shall surely live, d&e But when the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, &c, — in his sin that he hath sinned shall — he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? Are not your ways unequal? There- fore I will judge you, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord. Repent, &c, for I have no pleasure in the death of him that — dieth,” Ezek. xviii, 21, &c. Hence it appears, that with respect to the — election and reprobation of justice, God’s decrees, so far as they affect our personal salvation or damna- tion, are regulated according to our personal righteousness or sin, that is, according to our works. : VII. When we consider the elec- tion of impartial justice, and the — fearful’ reprobation that answers to it, we may say, with St. Peter, «If ye call on the Father, who without — respect of persons judgeth accord- ing to every man’s work, pass the - time of your sojourning here in remember that the apostle occasionally speaks of the election and reprobation of justice ; although his first design is to establish the election of grace, and the harmless reprobation which answers to it. When he speaks of Jacob and Esau, he contends for the election of grace: and when he brings in Pharaoh and “the vessels of wrath,” who, by their obstinate unbelief, have provoked vindictive wrath to harden them, or to give them up to the hardness of their hearts, he speaks of the election of justice. The passage to which this note refers, is the apostle’s transition from the one election to the other, and may be applied to both: I have applied it here to the election of grace. But if you apply it torthe election of justice, the meaning is: hath not the Go- — vernor and Judge of all the earth authority over all mankind, as being their sove- reign and lawgiver ? Can he not fix the terms on which he will reward or pun- ish his subjects? The terms on which he will give them more grace, or take from — them the talent of grace which they have buried, and leave them to the rigour of THIRD. |] Doctrines of grace. dishonour?” Cannot God ordain, that of two unborn children, the one (as Jacob) shall be appointed to superior blessings, and (in this sense) shall be more loved ; while the other (as Esau) shall be de- prived of those blessings, and in this sense shall be less loved, or comparatively hated? “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, and Esau haye [I hated,” Rom. ix, 13. When we speak of the same elec- tion, we may say, as the master of the vineyard did to the envious labourer, ‘Is thine eye evil, because the Master of the unwerse is good?” Matt. xx, 15. VIII. From the preceding pro- positions it evidently follows, that when God is considered as electing and reprobating the children of men from his throne of grace, his elec- tion and reprobation are partial and unconditional. THE RECONCILIATION. _of him,” Acts x, 34. 299 Doctrines of justice. fear,” 1 Pet. i, 17. “God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is cecepted We may add with Christ, “In the day of judg- ment, men shall give account of their words. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned,” Matt. xu, 36, 37. And we may humbly expostulate with God, as Abraham did: “That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked : and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee : shall not the Judge of all the earth do right 1” Gen. xvii, 25. VIII. From the preceding pro- positions it evidently follows, that when God is considered as electing and reprobating the children of men from his throne of justice, his eleey tion and reprobation are impartial and conditional. Having thus laid down the rational and Scriptural ground of Bible Calvinism, which centres in the Partian election of grace,—and of Bible Arminianism, which centres in the mparrrat election of justice, I shall show the nature, excellence, and agreement of both systems in the following essays, which, I trust, will convert judicious Arminians to Seripture Calvinism, and judicious Calvinists to Scripture Arminianism. SECTION IV. Bible Calvinism and Bible Arminianism are plainly stated and equally vind.cated in two essays, the first on the doctrines of partial grace, and the second on those of impartial justice—Those opposite doctrines are shown to be highly agreeable to reason and Scripture, and perfectly consistent with each other. On the eight pair of balanced propositions, which are produced in the preceding section, I rest the two essays which follow. I humbly recom- mend the first to rigid Arminians ; because it contains a view of Bible Calvinism, of the doctrines of grace, and of the absolute, unconditional, his law? Can he not appoint that obedient believers shall be saved, or elected to eternal salvation; and that his mark of judicial reprobation shall be fixed upon all obstinate unbelievers, as Pharaoh and his host certainly were ? 300 EQUAL CHECK. . [PaRT and partial election, to which they perpetually object. And I earnestly recommend the seconp essay to rigid Calvinists, because it contains a view of Bible Arminianism, of the doctrines of justice, and of the judi- cial, conditional, and impartial election, against which they are unreason. ably prejudiced. | : BIBLE CALVINISM. ' ESSAY THE FIRST. Displaying the doctrines of partial grace, the capital error of the Pela. gians, and the excellence of Scripture Calvinism. Tur doctrines of partial grace rest on these scriptures :—I will be [peculiarly] gracious to whom I will be [peculiarly] gracious; and I will show special mercy, on whom I will show special mercy,” Exod. xxxilil, 19. “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mime own?” Matt. xx, 15. These precious doctrines subdivide themselves into a partial election, and a partial reprobation ; both flowing from a free, wise, and sovereign race, which is notoriously respective of persons. The partial election and reprobation of free grace is the gracious and wise choice, which God (as a sovereign and arbitrary benefactor) makes, or refuses to make, of some persons, Churches, cities, and nations, to bestow upon them, for his own mercy’s sake, more favours than he does upon others. It is the partiality with which he imparts his talents of nature, providence, and grace, to his creatures or servants; giving five talents to some, two talents to others, and one to others; not only with- out respect to their works, or acquired worthiness of any sort, but fre- quently in opposition to all personal demerit. Witness the thieves, between whom our Lord was crucified, who were the only dying men that Providence ever blessed with the invaluable talents or gracious opportunities of the company and audible prayers of their dying Saviour. From this doctrine of election it follows, that when God freely elects a man to the receiving of one talent only, he freely reprobates him with respect to the receiving of two, or five talents. According to this election, although God never leaves himself without the witness of some favour, by which the basest and vilest of men, who have not yet sinned out their day of salvation, are graciously distin. guished from beasts and devils; and although, therefore; he is really gracious to all; yet he is not equally gracious: for he gives to some persons, families, Churches, and nations, more power and opportunity to do and receive good, more means of grace, yea, more excellent means, more time to use those means, and more energy of the Spirit m the use of them, than he gives to other persons, families, Churches, and nations. With respect to the election of grace, therefore, there is THIRD.] BIBLE CALVINISM. 301 g great partiality in God, and so far is this partiality from bemg in any degree caused by any natural or evangelical worth, that it is itself the first cause of all natural excellences, and evangelical worthiness. Hence it appears, that the doctrine of the Pelagians destroys the doc- trines of partial grace: the capital error of those who inconsiderately oppose Calvinism, consisting in denying the gracious, electing, and reprobating partiality of God; and in supposing that the reasons of God’s election and reprobation are always taken from ourselves; that God never elected some men in Christ, merely “after the counsel of his © own absolute will;” and that the doctrine of a gratuitous election and reprobation is both unscriptural and horrible. Having thus stated the doctrine of grace, and the opposite error of Pelagius, I encounter that famous champion of the rigid free willersfnot with a sling and a few stones, but with the Bible and some plain quota- tions from it, which will establish and illustrate the gratuitous election and reprobation, into which the doctrine of partial grace is subdivided. I have already observed, in the Scripture Scales, that “the election of [partial] grace” is taught in that part of the parable of the talents, where it is said, that the master chose and “called his own servants, and delivered unto them unis [not THEIR] goods; freely giving to one FIVE talents, to another Two, and to another ons,” Matt. xxv, 14, 15. Tn this free distribution of the master’s gobds to the servants, we see a striking emblem of God’s partiality. Should a Pelagian deny it, and say that God does not deal out his talents of grace with Calvinian freeness, but according to the several abilities of his servants, 1 reply, by asking the following questions: (1,) How came these servants to be? (2.) How came they to be his ser- vants? And, (3.) How came they to have every one wis several ability ? Was this several ability acquired merely by dint of unassisted, personal industry? If you reply in the affirmative, you absurdly hold that God casts all his rational creatures in the same mould, that they are all exactly alike both by nature and by grace, and that they alone “ make themselves to differ,” as often as there is any difference. If you reply in the negative, you give up the ground of Pelagianism, and grant that God of his rich, undeserved goodness, gives to “ every one his several primary abilities” of nature and grace: and when he does this, what does he do, but display a primary election and reprovation of grace ; seeing he distributes these natural and gracious abilities in as distin- guishing a manner as five are distinguished from one; arbitrarily re- probating from four talents the persons, families, Churches, and nations which he elects only to one talent. This scripture, “Learn not to think of men above what is written, that not one of you be puffed up: for who maketh thee to differ,” with respect to the first number of thy talents? “Which of them is it that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?” 1 Cor. iv, 6,7. This one scrip- ture, [ say, like the stone which sunk into Goliah’s forehead, is sufficient, one would think, to bring down the gigantic error of Pelagius. But if that stone be not heavy enough to do the wished-for execution, I will choose two or three more out of the brook of truth, which flows from the throne of God. St. James points me to the first: “ Every good gift is 302 EQUAL CHECK. . [Part from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,” James i, I am indebted for the others to our Lord’s forerunner, and to our Lor himself. “John said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. Toone answered, Thou couldest haye no power all, except it were given thee from above,” John ili, 27; xix,11. If the Pelagian error stands it out against these weighity declarations, I shall draw “the sword of the Spirit, “and aim the following strokes that fashionable and dangerous doctrine :— Why was Adam elected to the enjoyment of human powers? Was it not God's free electing love which raised him to the sphere of a ra- tional animal; that exalted sphere, from which all other animals are reprobated? Was it not distinguishing favour which “ made him but a little lower than the angels?” Let the Pelagians tell us what uncreated Adam did to merit the election which raised him aboye the first horse? Or what the first horse had done to deserve his being everlastingly shut out of heaven, and reprobated from all knowledge of his Creator? Why was the lark elected to the blessing of a towering flight, and of sprightly songs, from which the oyster is so abundantly reprobated ;—the poor oyster, which is shut up between two shells, without either legs or wings, and so far as we know equally destitute of ears and eyes? If a disciple of Pelagius think that I demean my pen by proposing these questions, to prove ; theygratuitous and absolute election and repro- bation, which are so conspicuous in the world of nature; I will rise to his sphere, and ask him what he did to deserve the honour of being elected to the superiority of his sex—an honour this, from which his mother was absolutely reprobated; and if he has a rich father, who gave him a liberal education, I should be glad to know what good works he had done, before he was providentially elected to this blessing, from which the bulk of mankind are so eminently reprobated. Can we not trace the footsteps of an electing or reprobating Proyi- dence all the earth over, with respect to persons and places? Why is one man elected to sway a sceptre, when another is only elected to handle an axe, a spade, a file, or a brush? Why were Abraham, Job, and the rich man, mentioned Luke xvi, elected to a plentiful fortune, when poor Lazarus, a notorious reprobate of Providence, lay starving at the door of merciless plenty? Why does a noble sot idle away his life in a palace, while an industrious, sober mechanic, with all his care, can hardly pay for a mean lodging in a garret? Why is one man elected to enjoy the blessings of the five senses, the advantage of a strong: con- stitution, and the prerogative of beauty; while another is born blind or deaf, sickly, or deformed? What have these poor creatures done to deserve this misfortune? And if God can dispense his providential blessings with such apparent partiality, why should it be thought strange that he should be partial in the distribution of his spiritual favours? May not our heavenly Benefactor have daisies and crocuses, as well as — and roses, in the garden of his Church? May he not, in the buildi of his temple, use plain free stone, as well as sapphires, amethysts, an pearls? And why should we think that it is unjust in God to have moral instruments of a different shape and sound in his grand, spiritual — concert, when David could (without violation of any right) predestinate some of his musicians to praise God with trumpets, shawms, and loud — F] THIRD.] BIBLE CALVINISM. 303 ‘cymbals, when others were appointed to do it only upon a harp, a lute, and a pipe? St. Paul compares believers, who are the members of Christ’s mysti cal body, to the various parts which compose the human frame; and wisely observes, that though our uncomely parts (the feet for example) are reprobated from the honour put upon the head, they are, neverthe- less, all useful in their places. His illustration is striking, and woula help Pelagian levellers to see their mistakes, if they would consider it without prejudice. “There are diversities of gifis” under all the infe- rior dispensations of God’s grace, as well as under the Gospel of Christ, to which the apostle’s simile immediately refers: “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For the Spirit divides his gifts of partial grace to every man severally as he will. The body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand or the eye, 1 am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body?” Is it absolutely reprobated from the bodily system? On the other hand, “‘if the whole body were an eye, where were the ear? And if the whole were ear, where were the nose? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him,” that is, according to the good pleasure, counsel, and wisdom of his electing or reprobating will. If the Pelagians will contend for their.error on a religious ground, 1 meet them there, and ask, What good thing did Adam to deserve that God should plant for him “ the tree of life in the midst of the garden,” and should lay upon him no other burden for his trial, than abstaining from eating of the fruit of one tree? Would not God have been gra- cious, if he had suspended the judicial*reprobation of our first parents on their refusing to abstain from all food every other day, for a thou- sand years? Who does not see free grace in the appointment of so easy a term, by submitting to which he might have made his gratuitous election sure, and secured the remunerative election of justice? Again: when judicial reprobation had overtaken the guilty pair, what did they do to deserve that the execution of the sentence should not instantly take place in all the fierceness of the threatened curse? And how many good deeds did they muster up, to merit the Gospel of redeeming grace ? the precious promise that “the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head?” “Verily,” says the apostle, “he [the Redeemer] took not on him the nature of angels: but he took on him the seed of” a man, viz. Abraham, and became “the son of man,” though he is “ the everlasting Father.” Is there no partiality of grace in the mystery of the incarnation? Was it mere equity, which dictated that the Son of God should come “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” to save sinful man; and not “in the likeness of sinful” spirit, to save fallen angels? But supposing (not granting) that this partiality in favour of mankind, sprang merely from the peculiar excusableness of their case; I ask, Why did the sons of Cain deserve to be begotten of a marked murderer, who brought them up as sons of Belial; while the children of Seth were providentially elected into the family of a pious man, who brought them up as sons of God? _ But if we will see the election and reprobation of partial grace, together with the glory of distinguishing predestination, shining in their 304 EQUAL CHECK. (parr eatest lustre, we must take a view of the “covenants of promise,” which God made at different times with favoured men, families, Churches, and nations ; peculiar covenants, which flowed every one from a pecu- liar election of grace. 5 Was it not of free, distinguishing grace, that God called Abraham, — and raised himself a Church in a branch of his numerous family? — Could he not as well have called to this honour Abimelech, king of Gerar, Melchisedec, king of Salem, or Job, the perfect man in the land - of Uz? Or could he not have said to the father of the faithful, Not in Isaac, but in Ishmael, or in the sons of Keturah, thy last wife, “shall — thy” peculiarly covenanted “seed be called?” ~ Nay, what did Abraham do to be justified as a smner? Was he not fully justified in this sense, merely by receiving God’s free gift through faith? ‘The point is important, for it respects not only Abraham’s gra-— tuitous justification as a sinner, but also the free justification of every other sinner, who does not spurn the heavenly gift. Dwell we then a moment upon St. Paul’s question, concerning Abraham’s justification as a sinner. ‘“ What shall we say then? If Abraham were justified by works [as a sinner] he hath whereof to glory ;* but not before God. * «With fear” of offending any of my brethren, ‘and with trembling,” lest I should injure any doctrine of grace, I will venture to propose here a few ques- tions, the decision of which I leave to the candour of those who are afraid of making one part of the Scripture contradict another. Granting that a sinner, as such, can never have any thing to glory in, unless it be his sin, his shame, and condemnation, I ask, Is there not a sense, in which a believer may rejoice or glory in his works of faith? And may not such a rejoicing or glorying be truly evangelical? What does St, Paul mean, when he says, ‘‘ Let every [be- lieving] man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing [or] glorying in himself, and not in another?” Gal. vi, 4. Did St. John preach self righteous- ness, when he wrote, ‘‘ Hereby [by loving our neighbour in deed and in truth] we shall assure our hearts before him,” that is, before God? ‘ For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things, [that make for our condemnation, better than we do.] Beloved, if our heart [or conscience] condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God, [that is, before God.] And whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight,” 1 John iii, 9, &c. If all such glorying is Pharisaical, who was, to the last, a greater Pharisee than the great apostle, who said, ‘‘ Our rejoicing [or glorying] is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in godly sincerity, &c, we have had our conversation in the world ?” 2 Cor. i, 12. If St. Paul was guilty for living, how much more for dying full of this glorying? And is it not evident he did, from his own dying speech? ‘J am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. Ihave fought—I have finished—I have kept—henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day,” 2 Tim. iv, 7, 8. Does not St. John exhort us to attain the height of the confidence in which St. Paul died, when he says, ‘‘ Look to your. selves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we re- ceive a full reward?” 2 John 8. Does not St. Paul represent spiritual men as” persons who have ‘God's Spirit bearing witness together with their spirit, [and ‘vice versa,’ who have their spirit or conscience, bearing witness together with God’s Spirit] that they are the children of God?” Rom. viii, 16. And is it right to abolish the office of conscience, by turning out of the world all comfortable consciousness of having done that which is right in the sight of God, and by discarding all tormenting consciousness of having done the contrary, under the - frivolous pretence that our Lord, in his parabolical account of the day of judg ment, represents the generality of good and wicked men as not being yet pro- perly acquainted with this Christian truth, that whatever good or wrong we do to . 7 THIRD. | BIBLE CALVINISM. 305 For what says the Scripture? Abraham believed God [when God freely called him to receive grace, or more grace] and it was counted to him for righteousness,” Rom. rv, 1, &c. Now, if “ Abraham believed God,” it is evident that God offered him- the least of our fellow creatures, Christ will reward or punish, as if it were done to himself? Alas! if the generality of Christians do not yet properly know this important truth, which is so clearly revealed to them, is it surprising to hear our Lord intimate that the Jewish, Mohammedan, and heathen world will wonder when they shall see themselves rewarded or punished according to that deep say-' ing of St. Paul, ‘‘The head of every man is Christ?” Whence it follows, that whatever good or evil is done to any than, (but more especially to any Christian: is done, in some sense, to a member of Christ, and consequently to Christ him- self! How deplorable is it to see good men cover an Antinomian mistake by an appeal to a portion of Scripture, which our Lord spoke to leave Antinomianism no shadow of covering! Should it be said that the evangelical glorying, for which I plead after St. Paul, is subversive of his own doctrine, because he says, ‘‘ He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord:” I answer, That we keep this Gospel precept, when we principally glory in the Lord himself, and when we subordinately glory in nothing but what is agreeable to the Lord’s word, and in the manner, and for the ends which the Lord himself has appointed. When the apostle szys, ‘* He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord,” he no more supposes that it is wrong to glory, as he did, “in the testimony of a good conscience,” than he supposes that it is wrong in a woman to be married to a man as well as to Christ, because he says, “‘If she marrieth, let her marry in the Lord.” Such a conclusion would be as absurd as the following Antinomian inferences :—‘‘ God will have mercy and not sacrifice, and therefore we must offer him neither the sacrifice of our praises, nor that of our persons.” ‘Christ said to Satan, ‘The Lord thy God only shalt thou serve; and therefore it is a species of idolatry in domestics to serve their masters.” May God hasten the time when such sophistry shall no more pass for orthodoxy! Should it be farther objected, that St. Paul says, ‘‘God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of Christ!” Gal. vi, 14: I reply, That it is unreasonable not to give evangelical latitude to that expression, because, if it be taken ina literal and narrow sense, it absolutely excludes all glorying in Christ’s resurrec- tion, ascension, and intercession; a glorying this, which the apostle himself in- dulges in, Rom. viii, 34. However, that he could, in a subordinate sense, glory in something beside the cross of Christ, appears from his own glorying in his labours, sufferings. infirmities, revelations, and converts; as well as in his preach- ing the Gospel in Achaia without being burthensome to the people. But all this subordinate glorying was “‘in the Lord, through whom” he did and bore all things, and ‘to whom” he referred all inferior honours. And therefore when he said, that ‘the righteous Judge” would give him ‘‘a crown of righteousness” for having **so run as to obtain it,” he, no doubt, designed to cast it at the feet of Him, in whose cross he principally gloried, and whose person was his “all in all.” ** But all this glorying was before men, and not before God.” So it is said: but I prove the contrary by reason and Scripture: (1.) By ‘“‘reason.” Next to the cross of Christ, what St. Paul chiefly gloried or rejoiced in, was “the testi- mony of his conscience,” 2 Cor. i, 12. Now I ask, Had the apostle this joy and glorying only when he was in company? Did he not enjoy it when he was alone? if you say that he had it only in company, you represent him as a vile hypocrite, who could change the testimony of his conscience, as easily as he did his coat orcompany. And if you grant that he had this rejoicing when he was alone, you give up the point; for reason tells us, that all the rejoicing and glorying, which an enlightened man has in his own conscience, when he is alone, must be before od; because an enlightened conscience is a court, at which none is pre- sent but God, and witere God always presides. _ 2. By “Scripture.” Paul himself exhorts the Thessalonians so to ‘‘ walk” as to ‘please God,” 1 Thess. iy, 1. Now the joyous testimony of our conscience that we walk so as to please God, must, in the nature of things, be a testiniony “*before” God. St. Peter represents our present salvation as consisting in “the Vou. IL. 20 self first to Abraham, that Abraham might believe in him. Therefore a free election, calling, and gift (for an offer from God is a gift on his part, whether we receive what he offers or not) a free gift, I say, pre ceded Abraham’s faith. His very belief of any justifying and saving truth proves that this truth, in which he believed, was freely offered and given him, that he might believe in it; yea, before he possibly could believe in it. To deny this is as absurd as to deny that God freely gives us eyes and light before we can see. Abraham, therefore, who was so eminently justified by the works of faith as an obedient believer, was initially accepted or justified as*a sinner of the Gentiles by mere grace, and before he could make his calling and acceptance sure by believi ing and obeying: for the power to believe and obey always flows — from the first degree of our acceptance, a free gift this, which is “come upon all men to justification,” Rom. v, 13, though, alas! most men re- fuse it through unbelief, or throw it away through an obstinate contin- uance in sin. Abraham, therefore, by receiving this free gift through faith, was fully pees, as @ sinner, and went on from faith to faith, — till, by receiving and embracing the special grace, which called him to. | a covenant of peculiarity, he became the father of all those who em- — brace the special callings and promises of God, under the patriarchal, — Mosaic, and Christian dispensations of Divine grace. | I have said that through faith Abraham was fully justified as a sinner, © because our full justification as sinners implies two things: (1.) God’s — freely justifymg us; and, (2.) Our freely receiving his justifying grace. | Just as being fully knighted implies two things: (1.) The king’s con- descending to confer the honour of knighthood upon a gentleman ; and, (2.) That gentleman’s submitting to accept of this honour. To conclude this digression : the > free and full justification of a sinner | by faith alone, or by a mere receiving of the gratuitous, justifying merey | 306 . EQUAL CHECK. _ [parr : of God, is a most comfortable, reasonable, and Scriptural doctrine, which St. Paul strongly maintains, where he says, “'To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness,” Rom. iv, 5. When Luther therefore held forth #his glorious truth, which the Church of Rome had so greatly obscured, he ~ did the work of a reformer, and of an apostle. Happy would it haye ~ lbeen for the Protestant world, if he had always done it as St. Paul and ‘St. James; and if, adding the doctrines of justice to the doctrines of _grace, he had as impartially enforced the judicial justification of a believer _by the works of faith, as the apostle does in these words, “ Not the hearers — of the law [of nature, of Moses, or of Christ] are just before God, but .the doers shall be justified—in the day when God shall judge the secrets — of men, according to my Gospel,” Rom. ii, 13, 16, yea, and in the day ‘when God shall try the faith of believers, that he may justly praise or .answer of a good conscience toward God,” that is, ‘‘before God,” 1 Pet. iii, 21. And St. John cuts up the very root of the objection, where he declares, that, by © the consciousness of our love to our neighbour, ‘‘ we assure our heatts before *God,” that ‘if our hearts condemn us not, then we have confidence toward God ;” — and that if we abide in Christ by walking zs he also walked, “we shall have con fidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming,” 1 John 3 ii, 6, 28; iii, 18, — .&c. How -surprising is it, that an objection, which is so contrary to reason, Scrip. _ b ture, and the experience of the apostles, should be as confidently prodeced by > ~Protestants, as if it contained the marrow of the Gospel! 4 HIRD.] : BIBLE CALVINISM. 307 blame them, reward or punish them. And how can he do this justly, without having respect to their own works, that is, to their tempers, words, and actions, which are the works of their own hearts, lips, and hands? This important doctrine Luther sometimes overlooked, although St. James strongly guards it by these anti-Solifidian words, “« Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac, &c? Ye see then how that by works a belzeving man is justified, and not by faith only,” James ii, 21, 24. But a sinner, considered as such, can never be justified otherwise than by mere favour.. Nor can* St! Paul’s doctrine be too strongly insisted upon to “the praise of the glory of God’s grace,” and to the honour of “the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe ; for there is no difference: for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ,” Rom. iii, 21, &c. Here we see that, to the complete justification of a sinner, there go three things: (1.) Mercy or free grace on God’s part, which mercy, (together with his justice satisfied by Christ, and his faithfulness in keepimg his Gospel promises,) is sometimes called “ the righteousness of God.” (2.) Redemption on the Mediator’s part. And, (3.) Faith on the sinner’s part. And if an interest in the “ redemption that is in Jesus Christ,” namely, in his meritorious incarnation, birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession, is what is commonly called “ Christ’s imputed righteousness,” I do not see why any Christian should be offended at that comprehensive phrase. In this Scriptural sense of it, nothing can be more agreeable to the tenor of the Gospel than to say, “ All have sinned,” and all sinners who are received to Divine favour, “ are justified freely by God’s grace” or mercy, through Christ’s merits and satisfaction ; or (if you please) through his imputed righteousness ; or to speak in St. Paul’s language, “ through the redemp- tion that is in Jesus Christ.” For my part, far from finding fault with this comfortable, evangelical doctrine, I solemnly declare, that to all etegnity I shall have nothing to plead for my justification as a simmer— absolutely nothing, but, (1.) God’s free grace in giving his only begotten Son “to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” (2.) Christ’s meritorious life, death, and intercession, which abundantly avail for the chief of sinners. . And, (3.) The Gospel charter, which graciously offers mercy through Christ to the chief of sinners, and according to which I am graciously endued with a power to forsake sin by repentance, and to receive Christ and his salvation by faith. And therefore to all eternity I must shout. Free grace! and make my boast of imputed righteousness.* * Some of my readers will possibly ask why I plead here for the good sense of that much controverted phrase, ‘‘ The imputed righteousness of Christ,” when, in my Second Check to Antinomianism, I have represented our Lord as highly disapproving, in the day of judgment, not only the plea of a wicked Arminian, who urges that ‘‘ God is merciful, and that Christ died for all;” but also the plea of a wicked Solifidian, who begs to be justified merely by the imputed righteousness of Christ, without any good works. I answer: (1.) I no more designed to ridicule the above-stated doctrine of imputed righteousness, than to expose the doctrine of God’s mercy, or that of general redemption. And I am truly sorry, if by not sufficiently explaining myself I have given to my readers any just occasion to despise these precious doctrines of grace, or any one of them. (2.) J only wanted 308 EQUAL CHECK. : I ivarr And, indeed, While Jesus’ blood, through earth and skies, Mercy, free, boundless mercy cries, What believer can help singing, “ Jesus, thy blood and righteousness, My beauty are, my glorious dress ; *Midst flaming worlds, in these array’d, With joy shall I lift up my head.” To return: the same grace which called Abraham, rather than Terah his father, or Lot his nephew ; this same distinguishing grace, I say, chose and called Isaac to the covenant of peculiarity, from which Ishmael, his elder brother, was reprobated: a special calling, which had been fixed upon before the birth of Isaac, and therefore could no ways be procured by his obedience. In full opposition to Isaac’s design, the same distinguishing grace called Jacob rather than Esau, to inherit — the promises of the peculiar covenant made with Abraham and Isaac. « For the children not being yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, [to merely gratuitous favours, | might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, [of arbitrary ‘and partial grace,] it was said, The elder shall serve the younger.” Nor can it be said that this partial preferring of Jacob had its rise in God’s foreseeing that Esau would sell his birthright, for the above-quoted passage is flatly contrary to this notion: beside, Jacob himself, by Divine appointment, transferred to Joseph’s youngest son the blessing which naturally belonged to the eldest. “Joseph said to his father, Not so, my father :” be not partial to my younger son. “ This is the first-born, put thy right hand upon his head :” he hath not sold his birthright like Esau. “But his father refused, and said, I know it, my son. He [Manasses] shall be great; but truly his [younger] brother [ Ephraim] shall be greater than he,” Gen, xlviii, 18, 19. A clear proof this, that the reprobation of grace is quite consistent with an election to inferior blessings. * Nor was the calling of Moses less special than that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Was it not God’s free, predestinating grace which to guard against the abuse of evangelical principles, and to point out the absurd consequences of the spreading opinion, that ‘‘ God will justify us in thé great day merely by Christ’s imputed righteousness, without the works of faith, or without any regard to personal righteousness and inherent holiness.” This tenet, which is the very soul of speculative Antinomianism, leaves the doctrine of justice neither root nor branch. At this unscriptural notion only I levelled the blow, which has given so much groundless offence to so many persons, whom I honour for their piety, love for the resemblance they bear to the holy Jesus, and commend for their zeal in maintaining the doctrines of grace, so far as they do it without injuring the doctrines of godliness and justice. And I am glad to have this opportunity of explaining myself, and assuring my Calvinist brethren that I would lose a thousand lives, if [ had them, rather than asperse the blood and righteous- ness of my Saviour, or ridicule the Christian covenant, which is ordered in all — things and sure, and on the gracious terms of which (as well as on the Divine mercy which fixed them, the infinitely meritorious obedience which procured them, and the atoning blood which seals them) I entirely rest all my hopes of salvation in time, in the day of judgment, and to all eternity. And that this is Mr. Wesley’s sentiment, as well as mine, is evident from his reconciling sermon on imputed righteousness | THIRD.] BIBLE CALVINISM. 309 so wonderfully preserved him in his infancy, and so remarkably ordained him at Mount Horeb to be the deliverer of the Israelites, and the visible mediator of the Jewish covenant? Can we help seeing some distin- guishing grace in the following declaration: “I will do what thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name : I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee?” I cannot conceive with what eyes Pelagius cculd read the Scriptures. For my part, I see a continued vein of distinguishing favour running through the whole. Does the Lord want a man of peculiar endowments to finish the tabernacle? He says to Moses, “See, I have called by name Bezaleel, the son of Uri, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God,” Exod. xxxi, 2,3. Does he want a captain for his people, and a man to be Moses’ successor? Caleb himself is reprobated from that honour, and the Lord says, “Take thee Joshua, the son of Nun.” ‘The same distinguishing grace manifests itself in the special calling of Barak, Gideon, Samson, Samuel, Saul, David, So- lomon, Elisha, Jehu, Daniel, Cyrus, Nehemiah, Esther, Esdras, Judas Maccabeus, and all the men whom the Lord, by his special grace and power, raised up to instruct, rule, punish, or deliver his people. I have observed that, in the very nature of things, a gratuitous and personal reprobation follows the gratuitous and personal election which I contend for. Is not this assertion incontestable? While Jacob and the Israelites were peculiarly loved, were not Esau and the Edomites comparatively hated? When God will show a special, distinguishing favour, can he show it to all? Does not reason dictate that if he showed it to all, it would cease ta be special and distinguishing? If God had made his covenants of peculiarity with all mankind, would they not have ceased to be peculiar? Once more : if God could, without impropriety, show more favour to the Jews than to the Gentiles, and to the Christians than to the Jews; I ask, Why cannot he also, without impropriety, show more favour to one Jew, of to one Christian, than he does to another? By what argument can you prove that it is wrong in God to do personally, what it is granted on all sides he does nationally? If you can, without injustice, give a crown to an English beggar, while you give only sixpence to a poor Irishman; why may you not give ten shillings to another English beggar, supposing your generosity prompts you to show him that special favour? And may not God, by the rule of proportion, give you ten talents of grace to improve, while he gives your Christian brother only five ; as well as he can bestow five talents upon your fellow Christian, while he gives a poor Mohammedan one talent only ? Can any thing be more glaring than the partiality which our Lord describes in these words: “Wo unto thee, Chorazin; wo unto thee, Bethsaida ; for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in thee, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes?’ Luke x, 13. Who can read these words with a grain of candid attention, and refuse his assent to the fol- lowing proposition? (1.) God was notoriously partial to Chorazin and Bethsaida; for he granted them more means of repentance, and more vowerful means, and for a longer season, than he did to Tyre and \ 310 EQUAL CHECK. [paRr Sidon. (2.) If God had been as gracious to the two heathenish cities as he was to the two Jewish towns, Tyre and Sidon “would have repented—a great while ago”—in the deepest and most solemn manner, — “sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” And, (3.) The doctrine of neces. or irresistible grace, is unscriptural ; and the doctrines of impartial jus- tice are never overthrown by the doctrines of partial grace; for not- withstanding God’s distinguishing favour, which wrought wonders to bring Chorazin and Bethsaida to repentance, they repented not; and — our Lord says in the next verse, “ But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you,” Who | have resisted — such distinguishing grace. For want of understanding the partiality of Divine grace, and the nature of the harmless reprobation, which flows from this\harmless par- tiality, some of God’s faithful servants, who have received but one or two talents, are tempted to think themselves absolute reprobates; as often, at least, as they compare their case with that of their fellow ser- vants, who have received more talents than they: while others, who have been indulged with peculiar favours, and have sinned, or idled them away, consider themselves as peculiar favourites of Heaven, upon whom God will never pass a sentence of judicial reprobation. Hence arise the despairing fears of some believers, the presumptuous hopes of others, and the spread of the mistaken doctrines of grace. By the same mis- take, rash preachers frequently set up God’s peculiar grants to some of his upper servants, as a general standard for all the classes of them, and pass a reprobating sentence upon every one who does not yet come up to this standard ; to the great offence of the judicious, to the grief of many sincere souls, whom God would not have thus grieved, and to the countenancing of Calvinian reprobation. A plain appeal to matter of fact will throw light upon all the precea- ing remarks. Are not many true Christians evidently reprobated, with respect to some of the special favours which our Lord conferred on the woman of Samaria, Zaccheus, Levi, (afterward St. Matthew,) and St. Paul? How few have been called in so extraordinary, abrupt, ‘and cogent a manner as they were! Nay, how many strumpets, extor- tioners, busy worldlings, and persecutors in all ages, have been hurried into eternity, without having received the special favours, from which we date the conversion of those four favourites of free grace ! Has not God in all ages shown the partiality of his grace, by giving more of it to one man than to another !—to persecuting Saul, for exam- ple, than to thousands of other sincere persecutors, who thought, as well as he, that they did God service in dragging his saints to sis and to death? Did not the Lord show Jess distinguishing merey to Zimri and Cosbi than to David and Bathsheba? Less to Onan than to the inces tuous Corinthian, and the woman caught in adultery? Less to the forty-two children, who mocked the bald prophet, than to the more guilty sons of Jacob, who went about to kill their pious brother, sold him into Egypt, and covered their cruelty with hypocrisy and lies? Did he not give less time to repent to drunken Belshazzar tlan he did to proud Nebuchadnezzar? Did he not hurry Ananias and Sapphira into eternity, with a severity which he did not display toward Cain, Solomon, Peter, and Judas? Did he show as much long suffering to t THIRD.| BIBLE CALVINISM. 311 Eli and his sons, or to King Saul and his unfortunate family, as he did to David and his ungodly house? Was he as gracious to the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath, or to him who conveyed the Babylonish garment into his tent, as he was to Gehazi, and to King Ahab, whom he spared for years after the commission of more atrocious crimes? Did not Christ show less distinguishing love to Zebedee than to his sons? ‘Less to the woman of Canaan than to Mary Magdalene? Less to Jude, Bartholomew, and Lebbeus, than to Peter, James, and John? How soon, how awfully did God destroy Nadab and Abihu, for offering strange fire? Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, for resisting Moses? Uzzah, for touching the ark? And the prophet of Judah, for eating bread in Bethel; when nevertheless he bore for months or years with the wickedness of Pharaoh, the idolatry of Solomon, the witchcrafts of bloody Manasses, and the hypocrisy of envious Caiaphas? Is not this unequal dealing of Divine patience too glaring to be denied by any uuprejudiced person ? Does not this partiality extend itself even to places and cities?) Why did God reprobate Jericho, and elect Jerusalem? “Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose out of all the tribes of Israel to put his name there,” 1 Kings xiv, 21. Do we read less than nineteen times this partial sentence, “'The place which the Lord shall choose,” even in the book of Deuteronomy? Could not God have chosen Babylon, Bethle- hem, or Bethel, as well as the city of the Jebusites? Why did he make “Mount Zion his holy hill?” Why did he “love the gates of Zion, more than all the dwellings of Jacob?” Is there neither election nor reprobation in these words of the psalmist? “ Moreover he refused [reprobated] the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not [passed by] the tribe of Ephraim: but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion, which he loved,” Psa. Ixxviii, 67,68. Again: why did the angel, who troubled the pool of Bethesda, pass by all the other pools of Jerusalem? Why did our Lord send the lepers to the pool of Siloam, rather than to any other? And why were Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, reprobated with respéct to the power of healing Naaman’s leprosy, when - Jordan was elected to it? Was it not because God would convince the Syrians of his partiality to his peculiar people, and to their country ? But is this partiality confined to Judea and Syria? Or to Egypt and Goshen? May we not see the footsteps of an electing, partial provi- dence in this favoured island? Why is it a temperate country? , Could not God have placed it under the heaps of snow which cover Iceland, or in the hot climates, where the vertical sun darts his insufferable beams upon barren sands? Could he not have suffered it to be enslaved by the Turks, as the once famous isle of Crete now is? And to le in popish darkness, as Sicily does? Or in heathenish* superstitions, as the large islands of Madagascar and Borneo do? * Mr. Addison gives us this just view of our gratuitous election, in one of the Spectators. I shall transeribe the words of that judicious and pious writer :— “The sublimest truths, which among the heathens only here and there one, of brighter parts, and more leisure than ordinary, could attain to, are now grown familiar to the meanest inhabitants of these nations. Whence came this sur- prising change: that regions formerly inhabited by ignorant and savage people, should now outshine ancient Greece in the most elevated notions of theology and 312 EQUAL CHECK. [Parr . Who does not see the partiality of sovereign grace in the sparing of | some nations, cities, and Churches? Did not God reprobate the dis- — obedient Amalekites sooner than the disobedient Jews? Why are former utterly destroyed, when the latter are yet so wonderfully pre- — served? Did not God bear less with Ai, Nineveh, and Carthage, than he does with London, Paris, and Rome? Less with the fen tribes, which formed the kingdom of Israel, than with the two tribes which formed the kingdom of Judah? Why does the Lord bear longer with the Church of Rome than he did with the Churches of Laodicea and Constantinople? [s it merely because the Church of Rome is less corrupted? Nay,why does he bear so long with this present evil world, when, comparatively speaking, he destroyed the antediluvian world so soon? And why are the Europeans, in general, elected to the blessings of Christianity, from which the rest of the world is generally reprobated; most nations in Asia, Africa, and America, being indulged with no higher religious advantages than those which belong to the religions of Confucius, Mohammed, or uncultivated nature ? If God’s partiality in our favour is so glaring, why do not all our Gospel ministers try to affect us with a due sense of it? May I ven- ture to offer a reason of this neglect? As the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment by their odious nature frequently reflect a kind of unjust shame upon a pure marriage bed, which, according to God’s own declaration, is truly honourable ; so the wanton election and horrid reprobation, that form the modern doctrines of grace, have, I fear, poured an undeserved disgrace upon the pure election, and the wise reprobation, which the Scriptures maintain. Hence it is, that even judicious divines avoid touching upon these capital doctrines in public, lest minds defiled with Antinomianism should substitute their own un- holy notions of election, for the holy notions which the Scriptures convey. ‘This evil shame is a remain of Pelagianism, or of false wis- dom. ‘The abuse of God’s favours ought not to make us renounce the right use of them. Far then from being wise above what is written, let us with the prophets of old make a peculiar use of the doctrine of partial grace, to stir up ourselves and others to suitable gratitude. How powerful is the following argument of Moses! “The Lord thy God hath chosen thee, to be a special people to himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. ‘The Lord thy God did not set his love upon thee, nor choose thee, because ye were more in number than any people, (for ye were the fewest of all people,) but because the Lord loved you, &c. He had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day, &c. ‘He is thy praise, and he is thy God, who hath done for thee these great and wonderful things,” Deut. vii, 6, &c; x, 15,21. “For what nation is there so great, who have God so nigh unto them as the Lord our God is in all things which we call upon him for? Ask now of the days that are past: ask from the one side of heaven to the other, whe. morality? Is it the éffect of our own parts and industry? Have our common mechanics more refined understandings than the ancient philésophers? It is owing to the God of truth, who came down from heaven, and condescended to be himself our teacher. It is as we are Christians, that we possess more excellent and Divine truths than the rest of mankind.” ———— THIRD. ] BIBLE CALVINISM. 313 ther there hath been any such thing as this great thing is. Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard? Or hath God assayed to take him a nation from the midst * another nation, by signs and wonders, &c? Unto thee it was showed hat thou mightest know [with peculiar certainty] that the Lord he is God,” Deut. iv, 7, 32, &c. Does not the psalmist stir up the Lord’s chosen nation to gratitude and praise, by the same motive of which the anti-Calvinists are ashamed? “ He showeth his word to Jacob, his statutes to Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation. As for his judgments, they [the heathen] have not known them. Praise ye the Lord, O ye seed of Abraham, ye children of Jacob his chosen,” Psalm exlii, 19, 20; cv, 6. Nay, does not God himself stir up Jerusalem, (the holy city become a harlot,) to repentance and faithfulness, by dwelling upon the greatness of his distinguishing love toward her? How strong is this exposiulation ! How richly descriptive of God’s partiality toward that faithless city ! “Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem, Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan. Thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite. Thou wast cast out in the open field to the loathing of thy person in the day that thou wast born; and when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thy blood, I said to thee, Live. I entered into a covenant with thee: I put a beautiful crown upon thy head: thou didst prosper into a kingdom, and thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty, for it was perfect through my comeliness which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord,” Ezek. xvi, 3, &c. If this could be said to Jewish Jerusalem, how much more to Protestant London ! Should rigid Arminians still assert that there is absolutely no respect of places and persons with God, I desire the opposers of God’s gra- cious partiality to answer the following questions :—-When the apostle says, “The time of heathenish ignorance God winked at, but now explicitly commandeth [by his evangelists] all men every where to repent,” Acts xvii, 30, does he not represent God as being partial to all those men, to whom he sends apostles, or messengers, on purpose to bid them repent? And does not the Lord show us more distinguishing love, than he did to all the nations, which he “suffered to walk in their own ways, without the Gospel of Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, [founded upon a special Gospel message,] and being without God in the world? Acts xiv, 16; Eph. ii, 12. Again: when St. Paul observes that “God spake in time past to the fathers by the prophets ; but hath, in these last days, spoken to us by his Son,” Heb. i, 1, 2; is it not evident that he pleads for the partiality of distinguishing grace; intimating that God has favoured us more than he did the fathers? And has not our Lord strongly asserted the same thing, where he says, “ Blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear: for verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them?” Matt. xiii, 16, 17. Once more: what is the Gospel of Christ, from first to last, but a glorious blessing flowing from distinguishing grace; a blessing from 314 EQUAL CHECK. [parr which all mankind were reprobated for four thousand years, and from which the generality of men are to this day cut off by awful, providen. tial decrees? When the Pelagians, and rigid Arminians, therefore, are ashamed to shout the partiality of God’s free, distinguishing grace toward us, (Christians,) are they not “ashamed of the Gospel of Christ,” and of the election of peculiar grace, by which we are raised so far above the dispensations of the Jews and heathens? A precious and exalted election — or predestination, in which St. Paul and the primitive Christians could never sufficiently glory, (as appears by Eph. i, ui, iil,) and of which it — is almost as wicked to be ashamed, as it is to be ashamed of Christ him- self. Nay, to slight our election of grace,—our election in Christ, is to be ashamed of our evangelical crown, which is more inexcusable, than to blush at our evangelical cross. Hence it appears that the genuine tendency of Pelagius’ error, toward — which rigid Arminians lean too much, is to make us (Christians) fight against Gcod’s distinguishing love to us; or, at least, to hide from us “the riches of the peculiar grace, wherein God hath abounded toward Us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in him- self, when he predestinated us, according to the counsel of his grace, and the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his pecu- liar grace, wherein he made us accepted in the Beloved, [and his dis- pensation,] that we should be to the praise of his glory ;” that is, that we (Christians) should “ show forth the praises” of his distinguishing mercy, and glorify him for bestowing upon vs those evangelical favours, from which he still reprobates so many myriads of our fellow creatures. ' O Pelagianism, thou wretched levelling system, how can we, Chris- tians, sufficiently detest thee, for thus robbing us of the peculiar com- forts arising from the election of grace, which so eminently distinguishes us from Jews, Turks, and heathens! And how can we sufficiently decry thee, for robbing, by this means, our sovereign Benefactor of “the praise of the glory of his grace!’ Were it not for Pelagian unbelief, which makes us regardless of the comforts of our gratuitous election in Christ, and for whims of Calvinian reprobation, which damp or destroy these comforts, many Christians would triumph in Christ; and, “re- joicing with joy unspeakable and full of glory, in the vocation where. with they are called, they would thank God for his unspeakable gift.” They would shout electing love as loudly as Zelotes, but not im the unnatural, unscriptural, barbarous, damnatory sense in which he does it. They would not say, “Why me, Lord? Why me? Why am I absolutely appointed to eternal justification and finished salvation, while most.of my neighbours (poor creatures!) are absolutely appointed to eternal wickedness, and finished damnation?’ But with charitable and wondering gratitude, they would cry out, “ Why us, Lord? Why us? Why are we (Christians) predestinated and elected to the blessings of the full Gospel of Christ, from which Enoch, the man who walked with thee, Abraham, the man whom thou calledst thy friend, Moses, the man who talked with thee face to face, David, the man after thy own heart, Daniel, the man greatly beloved, and John the Baptist, the man who excelled all the Jewish prophets, were every one reprobated ? ‘ THIRD.] © BIBLE CALVINISM. 315 In such evangelical strains as these should Christians express before God their peculiar gratitude for their peculiar election and calling : and then running to each other, with hearts and mouths full of evangelical congratulations, they should say as the apostle did to Timothy, “God hath saved us [Christians] and called us with a holy [Christian] calling ; not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us [Christians] in Christ Jesus before the world began, [when God planned the various dispensations of his grace,] but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel of Christ—a precious, perfect Gospel, with which God hath blessed us, as well as our neighbours, who are ungrateful enough to “put it from them,” 2 Tim. i, 9, 10. In a word, they should all say to their brethren in the election of [Christian] grace, “ Blessed be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ, in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice ; receiving the end of your [Christian] faith, even the [Christian] salva- tion of your souls : of which salvation the prophets inquired, and searched diligently, who prophesied of the [Christian] grace that should come unto you: unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us [Christians] they did minister the things which are now reported unto you, by them that have preached the Gospel unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into,” 1 Peter i, 8, é&zc. “ Unto him,” therefore, that so peculiarly “loved us,” as to elect and call us into his Christian reformed Church, “ which he hath purchased with his own blood ;” pecfiarly redeeming it from heathenish ignorance, Jewish bondage, and popish superstition—* unto him,” I say, that thus “loved us, [reformed Christians, ] and washed us from our sins,” not by the blood of lambs and heifers, as Aaron washed the Jews, “but by his own blood, and hath made us [who believe] kings and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever!” Rey. i, 5,6; Acts xx, 28. But while reformed Christians express thus their joy and gratitude for their election to this. peculiar salvation, they should not forget to guard this comfortable doctrine in as anti-Solifidian a manner as St. Paul and St. Peter did, when they said to their fellows elect, “If every transgression and disobedience [against the Gospel of Jewish salvation | received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape if wE neglect so great salvation, as that which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord Jesus,” and his apostles! “ Wherefore the rather, brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling” in Christ, who is “ the Apostle and High Priest of our profession” or dispensation, “ give diligence to make your [high] calling and [distinguishing] election sure; for, if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” into the aggravated ruin which awaits the “neglecters of so great salvation,” Hebrews ii, 2, 3; iii, 1; 2 Peter i, 10. Should a rigid Arminian say, “I cannot reconcile your doctrine of partial grace with Divine goodness and equity, and therefore I cannot receive it; why should not God bear with all men as long as he did with Manasses? With all nations as long as he did with the Jews? And 316 EQUAL CHECK. * [parr with all Churches as long as he does with the Church of Rome Py answer :— he Mercy may lengthen out her cords on particular occasions to display her boundless extent. But if she did so on all occasions, she would countenance sin, and pour oil on the fire of wickedness. If God dis- played the same goodness and long suffering toward all sinners, Churches, and nations, then all sinners would be spared till they had committed — as many atrocious crimes as Manasses, who filled Jerusalem with blood and witchcraft. All fallen Churches would be tolerated, till they had poisoned the Gospel truth with as many errors as the Church of Rome ~ imposes upon her votaries. And all corrupted nations would not only be preserved till they had actually “sacrificed their sons and daughters to devils ;” but also till they had an opportunity to “kill the Prince of life,” coming in person to “gather them as a hen gathers her brood under her wings.” So universal a mercy as this would be the greatest cruelty to myriads of men, and instead of setting off Divine justice, would fora time lay it under a total eclipse. Beside, according to this impartial, this levelling scheme, God would have been obliged to make all men kings, as Manasses; all Churches Christian, as the Church of Rome ; and all people his peculiar people, as the Jewish nation. But even then distinguishing grace would not have been abolished: unless God had made all men archangels, all Churches like the triumphant Church, and all nations like the glorified nation which inhabits the heavenly Canaan. So monstrous are the ab- surdities which result from the levelling scheme of the men who laugh at the doctrine of the Gospel dispensations ; and of those who will not allow Divine sovereignty and’supreme wisdom to dispense unmerited favours as they please; and to deal out their talents with a variety which, upon the whole, answers the most excellent ends ; as displaying best the ex- cellency of a government, where sovereignty, mercy, and justice wisely agree to sway their common sceptre ! Should a Pelagian leveller refuse to yield to these arguments, under pretence that “they lead to,the Calvinian doctrines of lawless grace, free wrath, and absolute reprobation ;” I answer this capital objection five different: ways :— 1. The objector is greatly mistaken: for, holding forth the gratuitous reprobation of partial grace, as the Scriptures do, is the only way to open the eyes of candid Calvinists, to keep the simple from drinking into their plausible error, and to rescue the multitude of passagesj on which they found their absolute, gratuitous predestination to eternal life and eternal death. I say it again, rigid Calvinism is the child of con- fusion, and lives merely by sucking its mother’s corrupted milk. Would you destroy the brat, only kill its mother: destroy confusion: “ divide the word of God aright :” and thus lead the rigid Predestinarians to the truth—the delightful truth, whence their error has been derived “ by the mistake or sleight of men, and by the cunning craftiness whereby the spirit of error lies in wait to deceive,” and you will destroy the Antino- mian election, and the cruel reprobation which pass for Gospel. In order to this, you strike at those serpents with the swords of your mouths, and cry out, “Absurd! unscriptural! horrible! diabolical!” But, by this means, you will never kill one of them: there is but one method to ‘THIRD.] * BIBLE CALVINISM. 317 extirpate them: hold out the partial election and reprobation maintained by the sacred writers. Throw your rod, like Moses, amidst the rods of the magicians. Let it first become a serpert, which you can take up with pleasure and safety: display the true partiality of Divine grace: openly preach the Scripture election of grace ; and boldly assert the gratuitous reprobation of inferior grace. So shall your harmless ser- -pent swallow up the venomous serpent of your adversaries. The true reprobation shall devour the false. Bigoted Calvinists will be confounded, hide themselves for fear of the truth: and candid Calvinists will see the finger of God, and acknowledge that your rod is superior to theirs, and that the harmless reprobation of inferior grace, which we preach, has fairly swallowed up the horrible reprobation of free wrath which they contend for. Be neither ashamed nor afraid of our serpent—our reprobation. Like Christ, it has not only the “wisdom of the serpent,” but also the “innocency of the dove :” you may handle it without danger: nay, you may put it into your bosom: and, instead of stinging you with despair, and filling you with chilling horrors, it will warm your soul with admi- ration for the manifold wisdom and variegated goodness of God: it will make you sharp sighted in the truth of the Gospel, and in the errors of overdoing evangelists. In the light of this truth you will, every where, See a glorious rainbow, where before you saw nothing but a dark cloud. When our serpent has had this blessed effect, you may take it out of your bosom for external use, and it will become a rod fit to chastise the errors of Pelagius and Augustine—of Calvin and Socinus. But use it with such gentleness and candour that all the spectators may see you do not deal in free wrath, and that there is as much difference between the gratuitous reprobation, which Calvin and Zanchius hold forth, and the gratuitous reprobation, which our blessed Lord and St. Paul maintain, as there is between the blasted dry rod of Korah, and the blossoming, fra- grant rod of Aaron; between a fire which gently warms your apartment, and one which rapidly consumes your house ; between the bright morn- ing star, inferior in light to the sun, and a horribly glaring comet, which draws its fiery tail over the earth to smite it with an eternal curse, and to drag, with merciless necessity, a majority of its frightened inhabitants to everlasting burnings. 2. Our gratuitous reprobation is not a reprobation from all saving grace, as that of the Calvinists, but only from the superior blessings of saving grace. It is therefore as contrary to Calvinian reprobation, as initial salvation is contrary to insured damnation. It is perfectly con- sistent with the “ free gift which is to come,” in various degrees, “upon all men to justification.” We steadily assert, with Christ and St. Paul, that “the saving grace of God hath appeared to all men,” and that all the reprobates of superior grace, that is, all who are refused three, four, or five talents of grace receive two, or at least one talent of true and saving grace. There never was a spark of Calvinian free wrath in God against them. They are all redeemed with a temporal redemption. They have all an,accepted time, and a day of initial salvation, with sufficient means and helps to “work out their own efernal salvation,” according to their Gospel dispensation. We grant that God does not bestow upon them so many of his gratuitous favours as he does on his 318 EQUAL CHECK. [part " peculiar people. But if he give them less, he requires the less of near : for he is too just to insist upon the improvement of five — from the | servants on whom he has bestowed but one talent. ‘a To understand this perfecily, distinguish between the two Gospel — axioms, or, if you please, between the doctrines of grace, and the doc- trines of justice. According to the former, God, with a partial hand, bestows upon us primary and merely gratuitous favours. And, accord- ing to the latter, he, with an impartial hand, imparts to us secondary and remunerative favours. God’s primary, and merely gratuitous favours, depend entirely on his partial grace: so far all Christians should agree with Calvin, and hold with him the doctrine of grace. But God’s secondary, remunerative favours depending on his rewarding grace, conditional promise, and distributive justice, depend of consequence in some degree on our free agency ; for our free will, by making a bad or good use of God’s primary favours, secures to us his righteous punish. ments, or gracious rewards, that is, his secondary favours. And hereim all Christians should agree with Arminius. By thus joining the peculiar excellencies of Calvinism and Arminianism, we embrace the whole Gospel, and keep together the doctrines of grace and justice, which the partial ministers of the two modern gospels rashly tear asunder. 3. Many of the persons who have been reprobated from superior favours by partial grace, have been eternally saved by improving their one talent of inferior favour ; while some of those who had a large share in the election of distinguishing grace, are condemned for the non- improvement or abuse of the five talents which that grace had richly bestowed upon them. Who, for example, will dare say that Melchise- dec, Esau, Jonathan, and Mephibosheth, are damned because they were reprobated with respect to the peculiar favours which God bestowed ~ upon Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon? Or that Judas, Ananias, and Sapphira are saved, because they were all three chosen and called to the highest blessings which distinguishing grace ever bestowed upon mortals,—the blessings of the new covenant, which is the best covenant of peculiarity ; and because Judas was even chosen and called to the high dignity of the apostleship, in this excellent covenant ? 4, We all know how fatal Calvinian reprobation must prove to those who are its miserable subjects. A man may be seized by the plague and live. But if that fatal decree, as drawn by some mistaken theolo- gists, seize on ten thousand souls, not one of them can escape: their hopes of salvation are sacrificed for ever. But the gratuitous election and reprobation, which the Scripture maintains, are attended with as favourable circumstances, as the elections and reprobations mentioned’ in the following illustrations :— While the sun is alone elected to gild the day, the moon, though reprobated from that honour, is nevertheless elected to silver the night, in conjunction with stars of different brightness. The “holy place” of the temple was reprobated, with respect to the glory of the “holy of holies :” it contained neither the cherubim, nor the mercy seat, nor the ark of the covenant; but yet it was elected to the henour of containing the golden altar, on which the incense was burned. The “ court of the priests” was reprobated from the honour of containing the golden altar, but yet it was freely elected to the honour of containing the brazen altar, ty THIRD.] BIBLE CALVINISM. 319 . on which the sacrifices were offered. As for the “court of the Gen. tiles,” though it was reprobated from all these honourable peculiarities, yet it was elected to the advantage of leading to the brazen altar: and the Gentiles, who worshipped in this court, not only heard at a distance the music of the priest, and discovered the smoke, which ascended from the burnt offerings; but, when they looked through the open gates, they had a distant view of the brazen altar, of the fire which descended from heaven upon it, and of the lamb, which was daily consumed in that fire. And therefore they were no more absolutely reprobated from all interest in the daily sacrifice, than Caiaphas was absolutely elected to an imamissible interest in the daily oblation, in which his near attend- ance at the altar gave him the first right. Once more: the tribe of Levi was elected to the honour of doing the service of the sanctuary; an honour from which eleven tribes were reprobated. And, in that chosen tribe, the family of Aaron was elected to the priesthood and high priest- hood: peculiar dignities, from which the sons of Moses himself were all reprobaied. Now if it would be absurd to deduce Calvinian reprobation, and unavoidable damnation, from these elections; is it reasonable to deduce them, as the Calvinists do, from a gratuitous election to the dis- tinguishing blessings of the Jewish and Christian covenant ? 5. The difference between the partial reprobation which the Holy Ghost asseris, and that which Calvin maintains, is so important, that I beg leave to make the reader sensible of it by one more illustration. God’s partial reprobation, which flows from his inferior favour, and not from free wrath, may be compared, (1.) To the king’s refusing a regi- ment of foot the advantage of riding on horseback—a free prerogative, which he grants to a regiment of dragoons. And, (2.) To his denying - to common soldiers the rank of captains; and to captains, the rank of colonels. But Calvin’s partial reprobation, which flows from free wrath, and has nothing to do with any degree of saving grace, may be com- pared to the king’s placing a whole regiment of marines in such dread- ful circumstances by sea and land, that all the soldiers, and officers, shall be sooner or later necessitated to desert, and to have their bras blown out for desertion; a distinguishing severity this, which will set off the distinguishing favour which his majesty bears to a company of favourite grenadiers, on whom he has absolutely set his everlasting love, and who cannot be shot for desertion, because they are tied to their colours by necessity,—an adamantine chain, which either keeps them from running away, or irresistibly pulls them back to their colours as often as they desert. Thus all the marines wear the badge of absolute free wrath; not one of them can possibly escape being shot; and the grenadiers wear the badge of absolute free grace ; not one of them can possibly be shot, let them behave in ever so treacherous a manner for ever so long atime. But, alas! my-illustration fails in the main point. When a soldier, who has been necessitated to desert, is shot, his punish- ment is over in a moment: but when a reprobate, who has been neces- sitated to continue in sin, is damned, he must go into a fire unquench. able, where “the, smoke of his torment shall ascend for ever and ever.” By these various answers candid Arminians will, I hope, be con- vinced, that, although Calvinian reprobation is unscriptural, irrational, 320 EQUAL CHECK. ba. and cruel, the gratuitous election and reprobation maintained in preceding pages is truly evangelical, and, of consequence, perfect consistent with the dictates of sound reason and, pure morality, — \ fy BIBLE ARMINIANISM. ESSAY THE SECOND. Displaying the doctrines of impartial justice, the capital error of the Calvinists, and the excellence of Scripture Arminianism. oft Tue doctrines of impartial justice rest on these scriptures :—“I unto you, that to every one who hath [to a good purpose] more shall be given: and from him [the slothful servant] who hath not [to a good Bore even that he hath shall be taken away from him,” Luke xix, 26. “Cursed is he that perverteth judgment,” Deut. xxvii, 19. These awful doctrines subdivide themselves into an impartial election, and an impartial reprobation ; both flowing from Divine justice, which is always irrespective of persons. The impartial election and reprobation of justice is the righteous and wise choice, which God, as an equitable and unbribed Jupex, makes, or refuses to make, of some persons, Churches, cities, and nations, judi- cially to bestow upon them, for Christ’s sake, gracious rewards accord- ing to his evangelical promises: or judicially to inflict upon them, for — righteousness’ sake, condign punishments, according to his reasonable — threatenings ; solemn promises and threatenings these, which St. Paul sums up in these words :—* God, in the revelation of his righteous judg- ment, will render to every man according to his deeds. ‘To them who, ~ by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, &c, eternal life: but to them that do not obey the truth, but obey wnrighteousness, he will render indignation and wrath: tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doth evil, of the Jew [and Christian] first,” as having re- ceived more talents than others ; “and also of the Gentile ; [or heathen :] but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew [and Christian] first,” as being God’s peculiar people, “and also to the heathens. For,” with regard to the doctrines of justice, “there _ is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without the law, [of a peculiar covenant,] shall also perish without the law, fof a peculiar covenant :] and as many as have sinned under the law, [of a peculiar covenant,] shall be judged by the law,” of the peculiar covenan they were under, whether it were “the law of Moses, or the law of Christ. For not the hearers, but the doers of the law shall be justified — in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men according to my a Gospel.” And lest some should object that the heathens, having neither the law of Moses nor that of Christ, cannot be judged according to their works, the apostle intimates that they are under the law of the human — THIRD. ] BIBLE ARMINIANISM. 321 nature, which law is written upon every man’s conscience, by a beam of “the true light, that enlightens every man that comes into the world. For when the heathens,” says he, “which have not the law, do by nature, [assisted by the general light above mentioned,] the things con- tained in the written law [of Moses or of Christ, ] these, having not the written law, are a law unto themselves; and show the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another,” as a pledge and earnest of the condemnation or justification which awaits them before the throne of justice, Rom. ii, 5, 16. And let none say that this is St. James’ legal doctrine, into which St. Paul had slided unawares, through “the legality which cleaves to our nature ;” for the evangelical prophet is as deep in it as the herald of free grace. Hear Isaiah :—“Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with them; for they shall eat the fruit of their doings: wo to the wicked, it shall be ill with him; for the reward of his hands shail be given him,” Isa. iii, 10,11. If Isaiah be accused of haying imbibed this anti-Solifidian doctrine, like legal Ezekiel, I reply, that our Lord himself was as deep in it as Ezekiel and St. James; witness his last charge :— * Behold, [ come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter into the heavenly city of God: tor without are dogs, &c, [all manner of evil workers,] and whosoever loveth or maketh a lie,” Rev. xxii, 12,15. The “few names in Sardis which have not defiled their garments, shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy,” Rev. in, 4, “Watch ye, &c, that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man,” Luke xxi, 37. The election of justice is then nothing but the impartiality with which God makes choice of his good and faithful servants, rather than of his wicked and slothful servants, to bestow upon them the temporal and eternal rewards of goodness and faithfulness, according to their works ; when he “cometh and zeckoneth with them,” about the talents which his free grace hath bestowed upon them, Matt. xxv, 19. Nor is the reprobation of justice any thing but the impartiality with which God, as a righteous dispenser of his punishments, reprobates from his rewards of grace and glory his wicked and unfaithful servants, who do not use, or who vilely abuse the talents which his free grace hath entrusted them with. When God “commands the servants, to whom he hath given his pounds, to be called to him, that he may know how much every man has gained by trading,” in order to bestow his evangelical rewards with equity ; according to the election of justice, he makes choice of the servants who have gained something with their pounds, rather than of the servant who has slothfully “laid up his pound in a napkin.” And according to the reprobation of justice, he reprobates from all rewards, and appoints to a deserved punishment the unprofitable and slothful ser- vant, rather than the faithful and diligent servants, who have improved their Lord’s gifts. Once more: according to the election of justice, God elects and calls to a double reward his servants who have given Vor. Il. 21 ‘ 322 EQUAL CHECK. [Pak double diligence to make their gratuitous election sure. Thus he elects to the honour of “being ruler over TEN cities,” the man whose pound “had gained Ten pounds,” rather than the man whose pound had only” gained five pounds, and who, by the rule of equitable proportion, is only placed over five cities, Luke xix, 15, &c. And, according to the repro- bation of justice, in the day of judgment it shall be more intolerable for unbelieving Chorazin and Bethsaida, than for Sodom and Gomorrah ; and for unbelieving London and Edinburgh, than for Chorazin and Bethsaida; because they bury more talents, resist brighter light, and sin against richer dispensations of Divine grace, Matt. x, 15. With regard to the election and reprobation of justice, “ there is abso. lutely no respect of persons with God :” and evangelical worthiness, which dares not show its head before the throne of God’s partial grace, may lift it up with humble confidence before the throne of Christ’s remunera- tive justice. Hence it is that St. Paul, who so strongly asserts in Rom. ix. that, before the throne of partial grace, “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God who showeth merey,” or favour, when, and in what degree he pleases, does not scruple to say, when he is going to appear before the mediatorial throne of Divine justice, “ The time of my departure is at hand: I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day: when he shall render eternal life to them who seek for glory, by patient continuance in well doing,” 2 Tim. iv, 6, &c; Rom. ii, 7. The doctrine of proper merit, or merit of condignity, is unscriptural, irrational, and wild. ‘The bare thought of it might make an innocent angel blush before his Creator, and should fill a reprieved sinner with the greatest detestation. And yet the doctrine of improper or evangelical worthiness is of so great importance, that if you take it away, you eclipse ‘God’s distributive justice ; you destroy the law of Christ, and all the conditional promises and threatenings in the Bible ; you demolish all the doctrines of personal rewards and punishments, together with the judg- ment seat of Christ; and upon their ruins you raise an Antinomia Babel, whose dreadful foundation is finished, or necessary damnation fo the millions of Calvin’s absolute reprobates ; while its airy top is finished, or necessary salvation for all his absolute elect. Hence it appears that the mistake of heated Calvin is exactly contrary to that of heated Pelagius. Pelagianism throws down the throne of God’s partial grace, and rigid Calvinism leaves no foundation for the throne of his impartial justice. The former of these modern gospels shackles God our Benefactor; and the latter pours infamy upon God our Judge. It fixes upon him the astonishing inconsistency of finally judging mén according to their works, and yet of finally justifying ther without any regard to their works ; and by this mean it indirectly give: the lie to our Lord himself, who says, “In the day of judgment by thy words thou shalt be justified or condemned.” Having thus described the impartial election and reprobation of justice, for which the Calvinists substitute a partial election of lawless grace in Christ, and a partial reprobation of free wrath in Adam ; I support the doc- -trines of justice by the following appeals to Scripture and matter of fact -— THIRD. | BIBLE ARMINIANISM. 323 Search the Scriptures, for they bear testimony to the equity of God, our rewarder and punisher. If he praises and rewards one man rather than another, this difference flows from the holiness of his nature. which makes “his judicial ways equal.” He “loves righteousness and hates iniquity ;” and therefore he judicially «chooses the man that is godly,” while he judicially reprobates the man that is ungodly. If a veil, as thick as that which is upon the Jews, were not upon us when we read the Scriptures, would we not confess that God’s judicial reprobation _impartially turns upon our not receiving the truth, and not living up to it, that is, upon our voluntary unbelief, and the unnecessitated disobe- dience which flows from it? Does not the experience of all ages confirm this assertion? When creating grace had gratuitously elected and called Adam to the enjoy- ment of a paradisiacal kingdom, did not impartial and remunerative justice put the stamp of Divine approbation upon his faith and obedience, by equitably continuing him in that kingdom till he sinned? And did not impartial justice seal him with the seal of reprobation, when he had sinned? Hear the reprobating decree :—“ Because thou hast hear- kened to the voice of thy wife, &c, cursed is the ground for thy sake. Tuererore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden,” Genesis iii, 17, 23. When redeeming grace had reprieved him, and his posterity, did Divine approbation and reprobation €alvinistically fasten upon their children? Did not the judicial difference, which God made between Cain and Abel, spring merely from the personal faith of Abel, and the excellence of his sacrifice? Hear Moses and St. Paul :—« The Lord had respect to Abel and his offering: but to Cain and his offering he had not respect. For by rarrn Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” Thus the Lord had respect to Cornelius and his charity. “His prayers and alms came up for a memorial before God :” but to the Pharisees, their prayers and alms “he had not respect :” for, by faith in his light, Cornelius offered more excellent prayers and alms than the Pharisees. “By which he,” like Abel, “ obtained witness that he was righteous and accepted :”’ God, by the angel, “ testifying” of his gifts. “ And, by it, he, being “dead, yet speaketh” to all Solifidians, who would banish the election and reprobation of justice out of the world. Righteous Seth succeeds righteous Abel: his children do the works of God, and are, of consequence, the elect of his justice, as well as of his grace. But as soon as these pious sons of God begin to draw back, and to follow the worldly ways of the daughters of men, they begin to rank among the reprobates of justice, and are involved in their dreadful punishment. Through the apostasy of these sons of God, “the earth was soon corrupt before God:” and yet “Noah was a just man, perfect in his generation, and Noah walked with God.” Therefore when a decree of judicial reprobation went forth against “the world of the ungodly,” a decree of judicial election was made in his favour: “and the Lord said to Noah, Come thou, and all thy house, into the ark; for thee I have seen righteous before me in this generation,’ Gen. vii; 1. Ham, the father of Canaan, shared in the election which saved Noah ; but, by his flagrant violation of the fifth commandment, he soon brought upon him- aelf a judicial reprobation. 324 EQUAL CHECK. . [Part A degree of vindictive reprobation passes against Sodom, but the sacred historian, who informs us of it, sets his pen, ‘like a bar of brass, against — the Calvinian doctrine of free wrath : nay, God himself condescends to speak in our language on that awful occasion. ‘The Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom is great, I will go down now, and, [before I judicially ; reprobate it,] I will see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, and if not, I will know,” Gen. xviii, 20. So far is the Lord from judicially reprobating his creatures otherwise than according to works, that is, according to evangelical worthmess or unworthiness. Agreeably to the same doctrine of justice, God showed favour to righteous Lot, rather than to the wicked inhabitants of Sodom, For “ it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham,” and his cogent plea: (“ Wilt thou [reprobate and] destroy the righteous with the wicked? That be far from thee, to do after this manner! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ?”) “And accordingly God sent Lot out of the “tnidst of the overthrow.” His wife shared in this election of justice, for the angels “laid hold upon her hand,” and extended to her the same favour which they did to her husband. But as soon as she looked back, and broke the command. ment, “ Look not behind thee,” she forfeited her election: reprobation laid hold on her, and she became a monument of God’s judicial impar- tiality. Aithoush God’s distinguishing grace shines in his calling Abraham to be a father of his peculiar people ; yet the election of justice soon goes hand in hand with the election of grace. How striking are these anti Solifidian passages! I will perform the oath which I sware to Abraham thy father, &c, pecause that Abraham obeyed my voice, and. kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws,” Gen xxvi, 3,5. Did notyGod judicially elect that faithful patriarch to the rewards of grace, when he said, “ By myself have I sworn; BECAUSE thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, because thou hast obeyed my voice?” Gen, xxii, 16, 18. Do not these scriptures prove that if Abraham had not made his election of peculiar favour sure, by obeying God’s voice, he would have forfeited that election as well as Saul and Judas ? But to return to the election of justice: does not this election extend, m some degree, even to the children of the godly? When God had said to Abraham, according to the reprobation of inferior grace, “ Cast out the bond woman and her son” Ishmael, did he not say also, aceord- ing to the election of justice, “ For Ishmael I have heard thee : behold, I have blessed him—because he is thy seed ?” Gen. xvii, 20 ; xxi, 13. And is not the decree of this remunerative election openly written by David, where he says, “Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord: his seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed ?” A striking instance of the impartial reprobation of justice we have in the Amorites and Israelites, the two nations to which God, according to the election of special favour, successively gave the good land of Canaan. God’s justice would not absolutely reprobate the Amorites from it, till they had sinned out their day of national salvation, or squandered away all the time which he had allotted them for national repentance. “I 4 po YHIRD.] . BIBLE ARMINIANISM. 325 brought thee out of Ur to give thee this land,” said Goa to Abraham, but thy posterity shall not immediately inherit it, “for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full,” Gen. xv, 16. And God was exactly as equitable to’ the corrupted Israelites, as he had been to the corrupted Canaanites ; for he would not drive the Jews out of the land of Canaan, till they were quite ripe for that national reprobation. Hence it is, that our Lord, by nationally sparing them, suffered them also to “ fill up the measure of their iniquities,” Matt. xxui, 32. To return: God says to Abraham, “ I will judge the oppressive nation, whom the Israelites shall serve ;” and accordingly he judicially repro- bates Rahab and the dragon—Egypt and Pharaoh. But is Rahab struck with any plague, is the river turned into blood, before its waters have been mixed with the briny tears, and tinged with the innocent blood of the children of God’s people? Is Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea, or hardened, before he has hardened his own heart, by setting his seal to the most cruel decrees, and by drowning the helpless posterity of Joseph, who had been the deliverer of his kingdom? Proceed to the book of Numbers, and you see at large the awful account, which St. Jude and St. Paul sum up in thee words :—* I will put you in remembrance that the Lord having saved the people out of the land of Egypt,” through obedient faith, “ afterward destroyed them that believed not,” Jude 5. For “ our fathers did all drink of the spirit- ual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ.” But, because they did not all secure the gracious rewards of justice, notwithstanding their election of grace, “ with many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness” by the plague, by serpents, ‘by the destroyer. <“‘ Now all these things happened to them,” the elect of distinguishing grace, “ and they are written for our admonition,” lest we should not make our election of justice sure by the works of faith : “ Wherefore let him that thinketh he sufficiently standeth,” by the elec- tion of partial grace, “ take heed lest he fall” into sin, which draws after it the reprobation of impartial justice, 1 Cor. x, 1, &c. As a proof that, with respect to the election: of justice, God is no respecter of persons, I produce Moses and Aaron, the great prophet and the high priest of the Jewish dispensation. They are both elected and called to inherit the land of Canaan; but not making this calling and election sure, they are both reprobated with respect to that inheritance. The adult Israelites share their reprobation. Of several hundred thou- sand, none but Caleb and Joshua make their election to that favour sure. Joshua and a new generation of Israelites obey; Jordan is parted: Jericho and her wicked inhabitants are destroyed. But Rahab and her friends, although they were Canaanites, are elected to partake of a peculiar deliverance, because “ she had received the messengers” with hospitable kindness, James ii, 25. On the other hand, Achan, one of those who were interested in the covenant of peculiarity, hides the wedge of gold, and the reprobation which Rahab’s hospitality had averted lights on him for his covetousness. She is blessed as a daughter of Abraham, and he is destroyed as a cursed Canaanite. _ After Jozqua’s death, God’s chosen people corrupted themselves. “ And the angel of the Lord came and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you into the land, which I sware to your > 826 EQUAL CHECK. . [parr fathers: and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.” Here is the election of grace! “ But ye have not obeyed my voice. Where- fore I also said, I will not drive out the inhabitants of the land before — you. They forsook the Lord, and served Baal. And the anger of the Lord was hot against them: whithersoever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them for evil, as the Lord had sworn unto them,” Judges ii, 1, 15. Here is the reprobation of justice ! I have already mentioned how Phinehas’ zeal procured his election to the highest dignity in the Church militant, and how Eli’s remissness caused his reprobation from that dignity, and entailed degradation and wretchedness upon his family. As for Saul, “ when he was little in his ——— _ own sight, God gratuitously made him the head of the tribes of Israel.” _ But when he grew proud and disobedient, “ God judicially rejected or reprobated him from being king.” In his days the Kenites were — predestinated to be delivered from death, “ because they showed kind- ness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt:” while the Amalekites, their neighbours, were appointed for utter destrue- tion, because “ they laid wait for Israel in the way, when he came up from Egypt,” 1 Sam. xv, 2, 6. Although the Lord balled David, rather than Jonathan, to the crown of Israel, ‘according to the election of grace ;"he nevertheless preferred David to his brother Eliab according to the election of justice! “Samuel,” says the historian, “ looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the Lord’s anointed is before him: but the Lord said, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature, because I have refused [reprobated] him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth, for the Lord looketh on the heart; to this man will I look, who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word,” 1 Sam. xvi, 6, 7, and Isa. Ixvi, 2. And therefore when Saul was rejected, Samuel said to him, “ God hath chosen a man after his own heart ; a neighbour that is better than thou,” 1 Sam. xv, 28. “ Solomon loved the Lord, and said to him, Thou hast showed unto my father great mercy, according as he walked before thee in upright, ness of heart, d&c, and now, O Lord, I am but a little child, &e, give therefore thy servant an understanding heart. And the speech pleased the Lord: and God said to him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and not riches, &c, lo, ] have given thee a wise and understanding heart, and [ have also given thee [or elected thee to receive] that which thou hast not asked, both riches and honour,” 1 Kings iii, 3, &e. Here we see young Solomon, by the power of assisted free will, trading so wisely with his one talent of initial wisdom, as to increase in wisdom above all his contemporaries. And yet when he was old, and had got ten talents of wisdom, he “ hid them,” not indeed “ in a napkin,” but ‘in the lap of — the strange, idolatrous women whom he had collected. A demonstration this, that man is endued with freedom of will, and that, as free grace did (pm I not necessitate Solomon to choose wisdom in his youth, neither did free wrath necessitate him to choose folly in his old age. To return: Divine mercy gently holds out her sceptre to some men — whom the Calvinists generally consider as absolute reprobates, while Divine justice awfully brandishes her sword against other men whom the Calvinists consider as absolute elect. Take a proof or two of the former part of this proposition. : THIRD.] BIBLE ARMINIANISM. 327 Cain’s countenance falls; anger, the parent of murder, is conceived in his envious heart: but God addresses him with the gentleness of a father, and the mildness of a friend. The wretch, notwithstanding, imbrues his hand in his brother’s blood: but the goodness and patience of God endure yet daily, and secure the frighted murderer a long day of grace, by threatening a sevenfold punishment to the man that should slay him. Wicked Ahab repents in part, and God in part reverses the decree of his judicial reprobation. “'The word of the Lord came to Elijah, saying, Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? I will not bring the evil in his days upon his house.” What is such a decree as this, but a judicial reprobation, tempered by a judicial election? Take one or two proofs of the latter part of the proposition. David numbers the people to indulge his vanity, and God gives him the choice of the decrees of reprobation from his special favour. He sins in the matter of Uriah: a decree of death goes forth against his child, and of slaughter against his family. Hezekiah’s heart is lifted up: he looks at his wealth with self complacence, and a decree of poverty and captivity is made against his house. What were these severe judgments, but the marks and effects of a judicial reprobation from the peculiar favour which God had for these pious kings ? : I have observed in the former Essay how partial grace favoured bloody Manasseh, in lengthening out his day of grace: but his election of grace did not hinder the election and reprobation of justice from having their free course. ‘Take first an account of this reprobation : “ And the Lord spake, &c, saying, Because Manasseh hath done these abominations, é&c, therefore behold I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem, that whosoever heareth it, both his ears shall tingle,’ &c. Take next an account of Manasseh’s judicial election: “ When he was in affliction, he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed to him, and he heard his supplication, [reversed in part the decree of his judicial reprobation,] and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. His prayer also, and how God was entreated of him, &c, behold they are written, &c. Amon did eyil as did Manasseh his father, but humbled not himself, as Manasseh had humbled himself,” 2 Chron. xxxiii, 12-23. The New Testament gives us the same views of God’s righteous reprobation. Judas, one of those whom “the Father had given to Christ,” John xvii, 12,— Judas, whom Christ himself had chosen or elected, John vi, 70,—Judas, for whom he designed one of the twelve brightest thrones in glory, Matt. xix, 28,—Judas “ by transgression fell,” and was lost, or to speak according to the Hebrew idiom, became a “ son of perdition,” Acts i, 25; John xvii, 12. “He loved cursmg more than blessing,” and it judicially “ entered like oil” into his bones. The decree of reprobation, which had prophetically gone forth, according to God’s foresight of his crime, now goes forth judicially. He is his own execu- tioner, and another fills his vacated throne. Herod does not give glory to God. A decree of reprobation overtakes him, and worms eat him up. Regardless of the starving poor, the rich farmer fills his barns, and the rich glutton his belly, and a decree similar to that which sealed drunken Belshazzar’s doom is made against them. “The Jewish builders reject 328 EQUAL CHECK. [PART the corner stone,” and Christ says, “ The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.’ The master of the vineyard comes three years to seek fruit on his fig tree : but, finding none, he judicially reprobates the barren nuisance at last. And patience, which suspends a year the execution of the sentence, offers to seal herself the decree of reprobation, if the tree continues barren to the end of the year of reprieve. ‘The wicked servant beats his fellow servants: the foolish virgins provide no supply of oil: the uncharitable will not give drink to the thirsty; and therefore they all fall a righteous sacrifice to Divine justice. The Gospel feast is provided, and “ all things are now ready.” Multitudes of*men are chosen and called to come to the feast, but their frivolous excuses engage the king to reprobate them. Hear the decree of their judicial reprobation, taken down by three sacred writers :—* I: say unto you, that none of those men which were bidden [and refused to come in time] shall taste of my supper,” Luke xiv, 24. “The wedding is ready, but they which were. bidden were not worthy,” Matt. xxii, 8. “I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do always err in their heart, &c. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest,’ Heb. iii, 10. These decrees breathe nothing but just wrath kindled by an obstinate contempt of free grace. From these, and the like Scripture examples, a it is evident, that a personal reprobation of justice is an awful and true — doctrine ; and that a personal, Calvinian reprobation of free wrath is as unscriptural as it is, cruel and absurd. Who can read the Scriptures without prejudice, and not see that the election and reprobation of partial favour yield to the election and reprobation of impartial justice? Although God chose and called Abraham out of distinguishing grace, did he not extend his mercy far beyond the little circle of that narrow calling and election? Did he set his love upon the father of the faithful and his posterity in such a manner that there was nothing but blind mercy for the favoured seed of Abra- ham, Isaac, and Jacob, and nothing but free wrath, and Calvinian repro- bation, for all who were reprobated with respect to that election? ~ What shall we say of conscientious Abimelech, venerable Melchisedec, patient Job, and his pious friends, for whom “God was entreated?” — What of Bethuel, Rebekah’s father? What of Asenath, an Egyptian — woman, the wife of Joseph? What of prudent Jethro, and his daughter, — the wife of Moses? What of the submissive Gibeonites, whose part God so eminently took, against the children of Israel and the house of Saul? What of loving Ruth, a daughter of Moab? What of the inquisitive queen of Sheba, and the Sidonian widow, who had charity enough to share her last morsel with Elijah, a hungry and desolate stranger? What of grateful Naaman, the Syrian, whom the prophet sent away in peace, when he entailed a curse upon Gehazi, the lying Israelite? What of humbled Nebuchadnezzar, who was restored to his former greatness, in as wonderful a manner as patient Job, and penitent Manasseh? What of the wise men, who came from the east; and the treasurer of Queen Candace, who came from the south, to worship in Judea? What of the importunate woman of Canaan, the zealous woman of Samaria, and the charitable Samaritan, who had compassion on the wounded man, the “poor creature,” whom the elect priest had SS “THIRD. | BIBLE ARMINIANISM. 3829 reprobated, and whom the chosen Levite had passed by? Had God absolutely no respect to their repentance, faith, and charity? Was there never a “well done! thou good and faithful servant,” for any of them? Shall “a cup of cold water,” given in Christ’s name, have its reward; and shall not the oil and the wine of the non-elect Samaritan, given in the name of humanity, divinity, mercy, love, truth, and right- eousness, (six of Christ’s sweetest names,) shall not, I say, that “ wine and oil” have their reward? Hath God forgotten to be gracious? Hath he shut up his remunerative kindness in displeasure? Is there nothing but vindictive free wrath for all that are not interested in the peculiar “covenants of promise,” made with Abraham, Moses, and “the High Priest of our profession?” And nothing but flaming love for Nadab, Ahihu, Korah, Dathan, Abiram, Demas, Hymeneus, Philetus, Alexander, and Diotrephes, who so eminently shared in the Jewish and Christian covenants of peculiarity ? 4 If you say, with St. Paul, “All are not trwe Israelites who are of Israel,” you grant what we contend for: you allow that all are not the elect of God’s impartial justice, who are the elect of his partial favour; and that finally the scale will turn for the retribution of eternal life or eternal death, according to the elec- tion or reprobation of impartial justice, and not according to the election of partial grace, and the reprobation of free wrath. Who had ever a larger share in the election of partial grace than David? And yet, who ever maintained the election and reprobation of justice more strongly than he? Does he not still ery to all the world, from the walls of Jerusalem, “Verily, there is a reward for the righteous, [of whatever family, tribe, or religion he be :] doubtless there is a God that judgeth the earth?” Does not every body know, that to judge the earth is to justify, or condemn all its inhabitants, according to their works? And when God finally justifies or condemns, what does he do but declare that the godly are evangelically worthy of walking with him in white, and of following him to fountains of living water ; and that the ungodly are every way worthy to depart with the devil, and follow him into the lake of fire ? I have observed that the election of partial grace extends to cities and nations ; and so does the reprobation of impartial justice. Take one or two remarkable instances of it. According to the election of distin- guishing favour, God “chose Jerusalem to put his name there.” But when Jerusalem showed herself absolutely unworthy of his judicial elec- tion, he reprobated her in righteousness. Hear the awful decree :—“I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons. The houses of Jerusalem shall be defiled as Tophet,” Jer. ix, 11; xix, 13. The mild Jesus, after a last effort to “ gather her children, as a hen gathers her brood,” with a flood of tears, pronounces the final sentence of her judi- cial reprobation: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the pro- phets,—there shall not be left in thee one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” The gratuitous election, and the judicial reprobation of Jerusalem, are typical of the gratuitous election of the Israelites, and of their judi- cial reprobation. An account of their gratuitous election is set before the reader in the Essay on Scripture Calvinism. Here follows an 330 EQUAL CHECK. (PART account of their righteous reprobation :—* And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently to the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe all his commandments, that the Lord will set thee on "high: all these blessings shall overtake thee; the Lord shall establish thee a holy people to himself, as he hath sworn to thee. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken, &c, that all these curses shall overtake thee, &c. The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly, because of all the wickedaess of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me,” Deut. xxviii, 20, Again: ‘See, I have set before thee life and good, and death ana evil, in that I command thee to love the Lord thy God, that thou mayest live. But if thine heart turn away, &c, I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish,” Deut. xxx, 15, &c. Here are the decrees of God’s judicial election and reprobation. According to these decrees, David says to his elect son, “ Solomon, my son, serve the God of thy father with a willing mind. If thou seek him, he will be found of thee : but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever. Take heed now, for the Lord hath chosen thee to build a house,” &c, 1 Chron. xxviii, 9. According to these decrees, “‘ Because of all the provocations, &c, the Lord said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city Jerusalem, which I haye chosen, and the panes of which I said, My name shall be there,” 2 Hings Xxiil, 26, 27. It is only to defend the election and reprobation of justice that St. Paul says, “God hath not cast away his [believing, obedient] people whom he foreknew,” that is, foreapproved as believing, and obedient : for, as there were seven thousand believing and obedient Jews, upon whom impartial justice smiled in the days of Jezebel, under the Jewish election of partial grace; “even so at this present time,” adds the apostle, ‘‘ there is a remnant” of such Jews under the Christian election of partial grace. That is, a number of Jews make their Christian elec. tion sure, not by the works of the Mosaic law, but by obedient faith in Christ. And even these obedient believers, in conjunction with the con- verted Gentiles, the apostle keeps in their duty by threatening them with reprobation of impartial justice. ‘‘ Because of unbelief,” says he, “they [the unbelieving Jews] were broken off, [that is, judicially reprobated,] and thou [Christian believer] standest by faith. Be not high minded, but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches ; [so inflexible is his justice !] take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God: on them that fell [the Jews elected through distinguishing grace] severity; but toward thee [a Christian, elected by distinguishing faveur] goodness, if thou continue in his good. ness, by continuing in the faith of Christ ; otherwise thoushalt also be cut off,” notwithstanding thy Christian election of distinguishing grace. « And they,” notwithstanding their present reprobation of justice, which is occasioned by their unbelief, “if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in:” that is, if they make their Christian calling and election of grace sure by the obedience of faith, they shall be numbered among — the rewardable elect, the elect that do not perish, the elect of justice as well as of grace, Rom. xi, 1-23. The apostle frequently speaks the same anti-Calvinian language : take THIRD.] BIBLE ARMINIANISM. ' 331 one or two more instances of it: “The end of those things is death,” that 1s, final reprobation from life. “But, &c, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end [of this fruit is a judicial election to] everlasting life: for the wages of sin is death,” that is, a judicial reprobation from life, “but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ :” an invaluable gift, which the Redeemer has procured, and which shall be judicially bestowed upon obedient, persevering believers, as the king’s’ purses and plates, which are the mere gifts of his majesty, are equitably bestowed upon them that so run as to obtain the prize. And, therefore, “so run,” says the apostle, “that ye may obtain an incorruptible crown. Be followers of me: I so run, &c, lest I myself should be cast away,” according to the reprobation of justice, 1 Cor. ix, 24, &c. The election and reprobation of partial grace depend entirely upon the wisdom and sovereignty of God. The great “ Potter hath power over the clay, to make of the same lump vessels to honour, or to comparative dishonour,” just as he pleases. As a supreme Benefactor, he had a right to raise the Jews above all nations, by calling them at the third hour into his enclosed vineyard. He could, without injustice, call the Corinthians at the sixth hour, and the English at the ninth hour. And if he call the Hottentots at the eleventh hour, they shall be entitled to the blessings of the richest election of grace, which are represented by the penny of the parable, as much as if they had been called as early as Abraham was; and had borne the burden and heat of the day as long as St. Paul and Cranmer did. I repeat it, with respect to the privileges _ of the covenants of promise made with the Jews and the Christians, which privileges our Lord sometimes calls his pence, and sometimes his talents ; they are ours as soon as we are called, if we do but answer _the call by going into the Lord’s vineyard or field. This is what Christ condescends to call our hire for going into his Church militant—our hire bestowed according to the election of prevenient grace. But our eternal reward shall be given according to a very different rule, namely, ac- cording to the election of impartial justice. ‘To secure this reward, we must not only go into the Lord’s field, when we are called; but we must sow as we are directed. “Be not deceived,” says the apostle when he stands up for the doctrines of justice ; as God does not necessitate man by Calvinian decrees of finished reprobation, and then mock him by Ar- minian offers of salvation: so he “is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh [naturally and judicially] reap corruption and destruc- tion: [the word has this double meaning in the original.] But he that soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting,” both by natural and judicial consequence. “ For the moral earth, which bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God :” (“ Come, ye blessed, inherit the kingdom, &c, for I was hungry, and ye gave me meat.”) But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected [reprobated] and is nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burned,” according to the fearful sentence, “Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, for I was hungry and ye gave me no meat,” &c, Gal. vi, 7; Heb. vi, 7; Matt. xxv, 34, &c. Well then might our Lord and St. Paul charge us to escape the repro- bation, and secure the election of justice. How awful and anti-Calvinian 332 " EQUAL CHECK. | Part are their directions! “Watch and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these ¢errible things, and to stand rewardable before the Son of man,” Luke xxi, 36. ‘“ Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord: knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the al of the inheritance,” Col. iii, 24. of From these and a multitude of such scriptures it appears, that when the Calvinists overlook the impartial election and reprobation of distri- butive justice, they betray as much prejudice as the rigid Arminians do, when they deny the partial election and reprobation of distinguishing grace. ‘There is, however, some difference between the extensiveness of their errors. If rigid Arminianism rejects the partial election and reprobation of distinguishing grace, it strenuously maintains the right. eous election and reprobation of impartial justice; and, by this means, — it preserves one half of the doctrines of the Bible in all their purity, namely, the doctrines of justice. But rigid, downright Calyinism equally spoils the doctrines of grace and the doctrines of justice : for it turns the holy doctrines of special grace into Solifidian doctrines of lawless grace: and, wiih respect to the doctrines of impartial justice, it totally de- molishes them by allowing but of one eternal, absolute, partial, and personal election, which necessarily binds Christ’s righteousness, and finished salvation, upon some men; and of one eternal, absolute, partial, and personal reprobation, which necessarily fastens Adam’s unrighteous- ness, with finished damnation, upon all the rest of mankind. Now, according to these doctrines of partial grace and free wrath, it is evident that justice can no more be concerned in justifying or condemning, rewarding or punishing men under such circumstances, than you could be equitably concerned in crowning some men for swimming, and in — burning others for ginking; supposing you had first bound the elected — swimmers fast to an immense piece of cork, and tied a huge mill stone about the neck of the sinking reprobates. Hence it appears, that, although a Bible Christian may hold Pelagius’ election and reprobation of justice, he can neither hold Calvin’s one election of lawless grace, nor his one reprobation of free wrath. But, while I bear my plain testimony against rigid Calvinism, I beg — the reader to make a difference between that system and the good men who have embraced it. With joy I acknowledge that many Calvinist ministers have done much good in their generation. But whatever good they have done, was not done by their errors, but by the Gospel truths which they inconsistently mixed with their errors, and by God’s over- ruling their mistakes. The doctrines of distributive justice belong no more to rigid Calvinism, than to Nero’s private system of policy: but. as good magistrates, even under Nero’s authority, steadily punished vice, — and rewarded virtue ; so good men, who have the misfortune to be involved in rigid Calvinism, inconsistently deter men from sin by preach- ing the terrors of a sin-revenging God, and by pointing out the rewards of grace and glory, which await the faithful. Add to this, that by still holding out the law of God to the unawakened, though that kind of preaching is absurd upon their system, yet they do good, because, so far, they preach the doctrines of justice. And by preaching a “rule of life” to believers, they now and then meet with professors ingenuous enough to follow that rule. For, as there are even ia Billingsgate per- —————— ee THIRD. | BIBLE ARMINIANISM. 333 sons cleanly enough to wash their hands, although their neighbours should constantly assure them that they can never get one speck of dirt off ; that the king must do it all away himself in the day of his power; that, in the meantime, his majesty sees no dirt upon their hands, because he looks at them only through the hands of the prince of Wales, which are as white as snow, and the cleanness of which his majesty is pleased to impute to their dirty hands ; and beside, that dirt will work for their good; will display the strength of their consti‘ution ; will set off, by and by, the cleansing virtue of soap and water ; and'Wwill make dirty people sing louder at court, when the king’s irresistible power, and their own deadly sweats, shall have cleansed their hands: as there are cleanly persons, I say, who would wash their hands notwithstanding such dirty hints as these; so there are some sincere souls among every denomina- tion of Christians, who hate sin, and depart from it, notwithstanding all that some mistaken theologists may say, to make them continue in sin, in order that the graces of humility and of faith in the atoning blood, may be abundantly exercised. Again: the rigid Arminians are greatly deficient in exalting God’s partial grace, and the rich election which flows to Christian believers from this grace. Now when the Calvinists preach to Christians a gra- tuitous election of distinguishing grace, though they do not preach it aright, yet they say many things which border upon the truth, and by which God sometimes raises the gratitude and comforts of some of his people ; overruling Calvin’s mistakes to their consolation, as he over- ruled to our comfort the high priest’s dreadful sentence: “ Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people.” Never did a prophet preach the atonement more clearly than Caiaphas does in these words. Just so do pious Cal- vinists preach the election of grace, and in the same manner is their preaching overruled to the comfort of some. But alas! if this confused method of preaching election be indirectly helpful to a few, is it not directly pernicious to multitudes, whom it tempts to rise to the presumption of “ Mr. Fulsome,” or to sink to the despair of Francis Spira? Beside, would not doubting Christians be sufficiently cheered by the Scriptural doctrine of our election, as it is held forth in the Essay on Scripture Calvinism? Are those liquors best, which are made strong and heady by intoxicating and poisonous ingredients? Cannot the doctrine of our gratuitous electioa in Christ be comfortable, unless it be adulterated with Antinomianism, fatalism, Manicheism, and a reprobation, which necessarily drags most of our friends and neighbours into the bottomless pit? And might we not so preach our judicial elec'ion by Christ, and so point out the greatness of the helps, which the Gospel affords us to make our election sure, as to excite the careless to diligence without driving them upon the fatal rocks, wi‘h which the Solifidian Babel is surrounded ? From the preceding remarks it follows, that the error of rigid Cal- vinists centres in the denial of that evangelical liberty, whereby all men, under various dispensations of grace, may, without necessity, choose life in the day of their initial salvation. And the error of rigid Arminians consists in not paying a cheerful homage to redeeming grace, ‘or all the liberty and power which we have to choose life, and to ‘work righteous- 334 EQUAL CHECK. _ [Part ness since the fall. Did the followers of Calvin see the necessary con- nection there is between the freedom of our will, and the distributive justice of God our Judge, they would instantly renounce the errors of Calvinian necessity, and rigid bound will. And did the rigid followers of Arminius discover the inseparable union there is, since the fall, be- tween our free agency to good, and the free redeeming grace of God our Saviour, they would readily give up the errors of Pharisaical self sufficiency and rigid free will. To avoid equally these two extremes, we need only follow the Serip- ture doctrine of free will restored and assisted by free grace. According to this doctrine, in order to repent, believe, or obey, we stand in need of a talent of power “to will and to do.” God, of his good pleasure, gives us this talent for Christ’s sake ; and our liberty consists in not being necessi‘ated to make a good or bad use of this talent, to the end of our life. But we must remember that, as this precious talent comes entirely from redeeming grace, so the right use of it is first of redeeming grace, and next of our own unnecessitated, though assisted free will; whereas the wrong use of it is of our own choice only ; an unnecessitated choice, which constitutes us legally punishable, as our right, unnecessitated choice of offered life (through God’s gracious appoimtment) constitutes us evangelically rewardable. Hence it follows that our accepted time, or day of salvation begun, has but one cause, namely, the mercy of God in Christ: whereas our continued and eternal salvation has two causes. The first of which isa primary and proper cause, namely, “the merey of God in Christ ;” the second is a secondary or improper cause, or, if you please, a con- dition, namely, “the works of faith.” Nor do some Calvinists seruple, any more than we, to call these works a cause, improperly speaking. Only, like physicians, who write. their prescriptions m Latin, to keep their ignorant patients in the dark, they call it Causa sine qua non ; that is, in plain English, a cause, Which, if it be absent, absolutely hinders an effect from taking place. ‘Thus a mother is not the primary cause of her child’s conception, but causa sine gua non; that is, such a cause as, if it had been wanting, would have absolutely prevented his being conceived. If the Calvinists will speak the truth in Latin, I will speak it in plain English. And therefore, standing up still as a witness of the marriage between prevenient free grace, and obedient free will; (an evangelical marriage this, which I have proved in the Scripture Scales ;) I assert, upon the arguments contained in these two Essays, that our eternal sal- vation depends, first, on-God’s free grace, and secondly, on our practical submission to the doctrines of grace and justice; or, if you please, on our making our election of grace and justice sure by faith and its works. To be a little more explicit: our day of saivation begun is merely of free grace, and prevents all faith and works ; since all saving faith, and all good works, flow from a beginning of oe salvation. But this is not the case with our continued and eternal salvation: for this salvation ; depends upon the concurrence of two causes; the first of which is pre- venient and assisting free grace, which I beg leave to call the father cause; and the second is submissive and obedient free will, which [ | take the liberty to call the mother cause. And I dare say that ihe Pe- - THIRD.] BIBLE ARMINIANISM. ) 335 lagians will as soon find on earth an adult man who came to the world without a father; and that the Calvinists will as soon find one who was born without a mother, as they will find an adult person in heaven, who came there without the concurrence of free grace and free will, which I beg leave to call the paternal and maternal causes of our eternal salva- tion. And therefore, while the rigid Arminians and the rigid Calvinists make two partial, solitary, barren gospels, by parting mercy and justice, free grace and free will, let. Bible Christians stand up, in theory and practice, for the one entire Gospel of Christ. Let them marry pre- venting and assisting free grace with prevented and assisted free will ; so shall they consistently hold the two Gospel axioms, and evangelically maintain the doctrines of grace and justice, which are all suspended on the partial election and reprobation of distinguishing grace, and on the impartial tlection and reprobation of remunerative justice. Till we do this, we shall spoil the Gospel, by confounding the dis- pensations of Divine grace; we shall grieve those whom God has not grieved, and comfort those whom God would not have comforted; we shall involve the truth in clouds of darkness; and availing ourselves of that darkness, we shall separate what God has joined, and join what he has separated ; causing the most unnatural] divisions and monstrous mixtures, and doing in the doctrinal world what the fallen Corinthian did in the moral, when he tore his mother from his father’s bosom, and made her his own incestuous wife. In a word, we shall tear the impariial elec- tion of justice from the partial election of grace ; and according to our Pelagian or Augustinian taste, we shall espouse the one, and fight against the other. If we embrace only the election of impartial justice, we shall propagate proud, dull, and uncomfortable Pelagianism. And if we embrace only the election of partial grace, we shall propagate wanton Antinomianism, and wanton cruelty, or absolute election to, and absolute reprobation from eternal life. We shall generate the conceits of finished salvation and finished damnation, which are the upper and lower parts of the doctrinal syren, whom Dr. Crisp mistock for the Gos- pel; the head and the tail of the evangelical chimera, which Calvin supposed to have sprung from “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” But, if we equally receive the election of grace and that of justice, we shall have the whole truth, as it is in Jesus—the chaste woman, who stands “in heaven clothed with the sun, and having the moon [Pelagian changes and Calvinian innovations] under her feet.” Nor will candid Christians be offended at her having two breasts, to give her children “the sincere milk of the word ;” and two arms, to defend herself against Pelagianism and Calvinism, the obstinate errors which attack her on the right hand and on the left. She has put forth her two arms in these two Essays ; and, if her adversaries do not resist her, as the Jews did Stephen by stopping their ears, it is to be hoped that some of them will impartially renounce the errors of heated Pelagius and heated Augustine, and will honour Christ both as their Saviour and their Judge, by equally em- bracing the doctrines of grace and the doctrines of justice. 336 EQUAL CHECK. - [Parr SECTION V. or. Inferences from the two Essays. Me. Ir the preceding Essays on Bible Calvinism and Bible Arminianism are agreeable to Scripture and reason, 1 may sum up their contents m some inferences, the justness of which will, I humbly hope, Tecommnienlm itself to the reader’s good understanding and candour :— I. The doctrine of a gratuitous, partial, and personal election wil reprobation is truly Scriptural. So far Calvinism is nothing but the Gospel. On the other hand, the doctrine of a judicial, impartial, and — conditional election and reprobation is perfectly Scriptural also: and so far Arminianism is nothing but the Gospel. For, as light flows from the sun, so Bible Calvinism does from the first Gospel axiom, (our sal- vation is of God,) and as a river flows from its source, so Bible Arminian- ism does from the second Gospel axiom, (our destruction is of ourselves.) Confounding these two axioms and elections, or denying one of them, has greatly injured the doctrines of grace and justice, darkened all the Gos- pel dispensations, and bred the misunderstandings which formerly sub- sisted between the followers of Augustine and those of Pelagius, and now subsist between the Calvinists and the Arminians. If. It is absurd to ridicule the doctrine of a twofold election, under pretence that it flows from what some people are pleased to call “ the flights of my romantic pen ;” since the full tide of Seripture eviden flows in two channels ; an election of partial grace, according to whi God grants or denies his primary favours, as a SOVEREIGN BENEFACTOR 3 and an election of impartial justice, according to which he bestows rewards or inflicts punishments, as a SUPREME JUDGE. Iil. Nor does this doctrine deserve to be called new, since it is so manifestly found in the oldest book in the world. An objection drawn from the seeming noyelty of these observations, would be peculiarly — unreasonable in the mouth of a member of the Church of England; be- cause she indirectly points out the distinc*ion which I contend for. That our reformers had some insight into the doctrine of a partial election of grace in Christ, and of an impartial election of justice through Christ, appears, I think, from the standard writings of our Church. — The beginning of her seventeenth article evidently countenances our unconditional election of grace in Christ, while the latter part secures the doctrines of our conditional election of justice through Christ. Few Calvinists will be so prejudiced as to deny that our Church guards the doctrines, and consequently the election of justice in this important para-— graph :—“‘ Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise ~ as they are generally set forth in Holy Scripture.” Now the Pr mises being generally set forth in a conditional manner in God’s word, — itis evident that our Church, in giving us this caution and charge, intends ~ to secure the conditionality of the election of justice; the ae of this election being inseparably connected with the conditionality « God’s promises ; just as the conditionality of the reprobation of justice — is inseparably connected with the conditionality of God’s threatenings. In conformity to this doctrine our Church assures us, in her homily — on good works, “If he [the elected thief] had lived, and not regarded = THIRD. | RECONCILIATION. 337 faith and the works thereof, he would have lost his salvation again :” or, which comes to the same thing, he would have forfeited his election of partial grace, by losing the election of impartial justice. Our liturgy speaks the same language ; witness that prayer in the office of baptism: “ Grant that these children [or persons] now to be baptized, &c, may eyer remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” That is, grant that these persons, who are now admitted into thy Christian Church, according to the election of grace in Christ, may so believe and obey, zs never to forfeit the privileges of this election, but may ever share in the privileges of thy faithful chil- dren who are elect in every sense of the word; the obedient being the only persons who keep their part in the election of grace, and secure a share in the election of justice. Such complete elect are the “sheep” which “hear Christ’s voice, and follow his” steps. ‘None shall pluck them out of his hands.” - The talent of their election of grace shall never be taken from them: they ‘shall all hear these cheer- “ing words; “ Well done, thou good and faithful servant!” They shall all “ enter into the joy of their Lord,” and eternally share in the double privileges of the election of grace and justice. IV. The gratuitous, partial election and reprobation, which the Scrip- tures maintain, chiefly refer to the three grand covenants which God has made with man, and to the greater or less blessings which belong to these covenants. The first of these covenants takes in all mankind; for it was made with spared Adam after the fall, and confirmed to preserves Noah after the flood; and every body knows that Adam and Noah are the two general parents of all mankind. The second of these cove- nants was made with Abraham, ratified to Isaac and Jacob, ordained in the hands of Moses, and ordered in all things, and peculiarly insured to Dayid. This covenant takes in the first peculiar people of God, or the Jewish nation; and includes more particularly David and his family, of which the Messiah was to be born. The third of these covenants was made with Christ, as “the Captain of our salvation,” and “ the High Priest of our profession,” or dispensation ; and takes in God’s “ most peculiar people,” or the Christian Church. The first of these three covenants is general. ‘The other two are covenants of peculiarity, the former of which is frequently called, in Scripture, the old covenant, or the Old Testament, while the latter is spoken of by the name of the new covenant, or New Testament. The two first of these covenants were sealed with the blood of sacrificed beasts or circumcised men, but the last was sealed with the blood of the Lamb of God. Hence our Lord termed it “the new covenant in my blood,” Luke xxi, 20, calling his blood, “my blood of the New Testament,” Matt. xxvi, 28. Hence also the apostle observes, that “ Jesus was made a surety of a better Testament,” and that “ he is the Mediator of the New Testament,” which is far superior to that which “ was ordained by angels in the hand of Moses,” the mediator of the Old Testament: see Heb. vii, 22; ix, 15; xu, 24; 2 Cor. iii, 6; Gal. iii, 19. V. These three grand covenants give birth to Gentilism, Judaism, and Christianity ; three Divine religions, or dispensations of grace, from the confounding of which partial divines have formed the schemes of reli- gion, which I beg leave to call rigid Arminianism, and rigid Calvinism. Vou. Il. 22 338 EQUAL CHECK. [parr VI. The error of rigid Arminians, with respect to those three grand covenants, consists in not sufficiently distinguishing them, and in not maintaining, with sufficient plainness, that they are all covenants of redeeming grace; that Judaism is the old covenant of partial, redeem. ing grace ; ‘and that Christianity is the new covenant of partial, redeem. ing grace. . ‘ Vil. The error of rigid Calvinists consists in confounding the cove. nants of creating and redeeming grace, and in reducing them all to two: the one a covenant of non-redemption, which they call “the law ;” and the other a covenant of particular redemption, which they call “the Gospel.” 'To form the first of these unscriptural covenants, they jumble — the Creator’s law, given to innocent man in paradise, with the Re- deemer’s law, given to the Israelites on Mount Sinai. Nor do they see that these two laws, or covenants, are as different from each other, as a covenant made with sinless man, without a priest, a sacrifice, and a mediator, is different from a covenant made with sinful man, an “ordained in the hand of a Mediator,” with an interceding priest, and atoning sacrifices, Gal. iii, 19. Secondly, they suppose that all men— now born into the world are under this imaginary law, that is; under this unscriptural, confused mixture of the Adamic law of innocence, and of the Mosaic law of Sinai: an error this, which is so much the more glaring, as no man, except Christ, was ever placed under the covenant of innocence, since the Lord entered into a mediatorial covenant with fallen Adam: and no man has been put under the law, or covenant of Moses, from the time that covenant was “abolished, and done away in Christ,” 2 Cor. iii, 7, 14, which happened when Christ said, “It is finished,” and when “the veil of the temple,” a type of the Jewish dis- pensation, ‘ was rent from top to bottom.” So capital an error, as that of the rigid Calvinists about the law, could — not but be productive of a similar error about the Gospel. And there- fore when they had formed the merciless covenant which they call the law, by confounding the precept and curse of the law ef innocence, with the precept and curse of the law of Moses, abstracted from all media- torial promises ; when they had done this, I say, it was natural enough for them to mistake and confound the promises of the three grand covenants, which I have just mentioned; I mean the one general covenant of grace, made with Adam and Noah; and the two particular covenants of grace, the former of which was “ ordained in the hands of Moses, the servant of God ;” and the latter in the hands of * Christ, the only begotten Son of God.” Hence it is, that overlooking the promises of the general covenant of grace, and considering only the promises of Judaism and Christianity, which are two grand covenants of peculiar grace, the rigid Calvinists fancy that there is but* one covenant of grace: that this covenant is particular; that it was made with Christ only ; that it was a covenant of unchangeable favour on the part of th at * Zelotes will possibly laugh at the insinuation that there is more than or covenant of grace. If he does, I will ask him if a covenant of grace is not the same thing as a covenant of promise; and if St. Paul does not expressly mention ““the covenants of promise,” Eph. ii, 12, and a ‘* better covenant,” which was | ‘established upon better promises” than the first [particular] covenant of hee mise? Heb. viii, 6, 7. WTHIRD.] RECONCILIATION. 339 Father, of eternal redemption on the part of the Son, and of irresistible sanctification on the part of the Holy Ghost; that some men, called the elect, are absolutely and eternally interested in this covenant; that other men, called the reprobates, are absolutely and everlastingly excluded from it; that finished salvation, through Christ, is the unavoidable lot of the fortunate elect, who are supposed to be under the absolute bless- ing of a lawless Gospel; and that finished damnation, through Adam, is the unavoidable portion of the unfortunate reprobates, who are sup- posed to be, from their mother’s womb, under the absolute, irreversible, everlasting curse of a merciless law, and of an absolutely Christless covenant. Vill. We may say to rigid Calvinists, and rigid Arminians, what God said once to the Jewish priests: “Ye have been partial in the law,” Mal. ii, 9. Nor is it possible to reduce their two partial systems to the genuine and full standard of the Gospel, otherwise than by con- sistently guarding the Calvinian doctrines of grace, by the Arminian “doctrines of justice ; and the Arminian doctrines of justice, by the Calvinian doctrines of grace: when these two partial gospels are joined in a Scriptural manner, they do not destroy, but balance and illustrate each other. ‘Take away from them human additions, or supply their deficiencies, and you will restore them to their original importance. They will again form the spiritual “weights of the sanctuary,” which are kept for public use in the sacred records, as I humbly hope I have made appear in the Scripture Scales. IX. To guard the Gospel against the errors of the rigid Calvinists, and the rigid Arminians, we need then only show that God, as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, has a right to be, and actually is partial in the distribution of grace ; but that as Lawgiver, Governor, and Judge, he is, and ever will be, impartial in the distribution of justice : or, which comes’ to the same thing, we need only restore the doctrine of God’s various laws, or covenants of grace, to their Scripture lustre. Rigid Calvinism will be lost in Bible Arminianism, and rigid Arminianism will be lost in Bible Calvinism, as soon as Protestants will pay a due regard to the following truths: (1.) God, for Christ’s sake, dissolved, with respect to us, the covenant of paradisiacal innocence, when he turned man out of a forfeited paradise into this cursed world, for having broken that coyenant. Then it was that man’s Creator first became his Redeemer ; then mankind were placed under the first mediatorial covenant of pro- mise. ‘Then our Maker gave to Adam, and to all the human species, which was in Adam’s Joins, a Saviour, who is called “the seed of the woman,—the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,’ who was to make the paradisiacal covenant honourable by his sinless obedience. (2.) Accordingly, ‘ Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man ;” purchasing for all men the privileges of the general covenant of grace, which God made with Adam, and ratified to Noah, the second general parent of mankind. (38.) Christ, according to the peculiar pre- destination and election of God, peculiarly tasted death for the Jews, his first chosen nation and peculiar people ; purchasing for them all the privileges of the peculiar covenant of grace, which the Scriptures call the old covenant of peculiarity. (4.) That Christ, according to the most peculiar predestination and election of God, most peculiarly tasted \ 340 EQUAL CHECK. | [part death for the Christians, his second chosen nation and most. peculiar people; procuring for them the invaluable privileges of his own most precious Gospel, “by which he has brought life and immortality to meridian light ;” and has richly supplied the defects of the Noahic and Mosaic dispensations ; ; the first of which is noted for its darkness; and the second for its veils and shadows. And lastly, that with respect 0 these peculiar privileges, Christ is said to have peculiarly “ given him. self for the’ Christian Church, that he might cleanse it with the bap- tismal washing of water by the word,” Eph. v, 26; peculiarly “pur. chasing it by his own blood,” Acts xx, 28; and delivering it from heathenish darkness, and Jewish shadows, that it might be “ redeemed from all iniquity,” and that his Christian people might be a “ peculiar people to himself, zealous of good works,” even above the Jews who “fear God,” and the Gentiles who “ work righteousness,” Tit. 11, 14. X. As soon as we understand the nature of “the covenants of pro- mise,” and the doctrine of the dispensations of Divine grace, we have a key to open the mystery of God’s gratuitous election and reprobation, We can easily understand, that when a man is elected only to the general blessings of Gentilism, he is reprobated from the blessings peculiar to Judaism and Christianity ; and that when he is elected to the blessings of Christianity, he is elected to inherit the substance of all the covenanted blessings of God, because the highest dispensation takes in the inferior ones; as the authority of a colonel includes that of a lieutenant and a captain; or as meridian light takes in the dawn of day and the morning light. XL. Our election from Gentilism or Judaism to the blessings of Chris tianity, is an election of peculiar grace. It is to be hoped, that few Arminians are so unreasonable as to think that God might not haye deprived us of New Testament blessings, as he did Moses; and of Old Testament blessings, as he did Noah; leaving us under the general covenant of Gentilism, as he did that patriarch. " XII. When God gratuitously elected and called thé Jews to be his peculiar people, and chosen nation, he reprobated all the other nations, that is, all the Gentiles, from that honour; an unspeakable honour this, which the Jews thought God had appropriated to them for ever. But when Christ formed his Church, he elected to its privileges the Gentiles as well as the Jews; insomuch that, to enter into actual serie of preaching of the Gospel of Christ, nothing more is required of him, t an to “make his free calling and election sure,” by “the obedience of faith.” That God had a right to extend his election of peculiar to the believing Gentiles, and to reprobate the unbelieving Jews, is the poimt which St. Paul chiefly labours in Rom. ix. And that the privileges’ of this election, which God has extended to the Gentiles, are immensely great, is what the apostle informs us of in the three first chapters of h Epistle to the Ephesians. a XIII. Our election to Christianity, and its peculiar blessings, being entirely gratuitous, and preceding every work of Christian obedience; ‘nothing can be more absurd and unevangelical, than to rest it upon works of any sort. Hence it is, that when St. Paul maintains the tial election of richest grace, he says, speaking of the Jews, “ There is” THIRD. ] RECONCILIATION. g 341 [among them] a remnant according to the election of grace.” That is, «“ There is a considerable number of Jews, who, like myself, make their gratuitous calling and election to the blessings of Christianity sure through faith.” For wherever there were Jews and Gentiles, the Jews had the honour of the first call: so far was God from absolutely repro- bating them from his Christian “covenant of promise!” If you ask, why the apostle calls this election to the blessings of Christianity “the election of grace,” I answer, that it peculiarly deserves this name, because it is both peculiarly gracious, and amazingly gratuitous. And therefore, adds the apostle, “if thas election is by mere grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more mere grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more of mere grace: otherwise work is no more work,” Rom. xi, 5, 6.*. XIV. If the rigid Arminians are culpable for being ashamed of God’s evangelical partiality, for overlooking his distinguishing love, and for casting a veil over his election of grace; the rigid Calvinists are not less blamable, for turning that holy election into an unscriptural and abso- lute election, which leaves no room for the propriety of making our “ election sure,” and is attended with an unscriptural and absolute repro- bation, as odious as free wrath, and as dreadful as insured damnation. This merciless and absolute reprobation is the fundamental error of the rigid Papists, as well as of the rigid Calvinists. Take away this popish principle, “ There is no salvation out of the Church: a damning reprobation rests upon all who die out of her pale;” and down comes persecuting popery. There is no pretext left to force popish errors upon men by fire, faggo‘s, or massacres; and the burning of heretics gives place to the charity which hopeth all things. Again: take away this principle of the rigid Calvinists, “'There is absolutely no redemption, no salvation, but for a remnant according to the new covenant, and the election of God’s partial grace; an absolute reprobation, and an un- avoidable damnation, rest upon all mankind beside ;” take away, I say, this principle of the rigid Calvinists, and down comes unscriptural Cal- yvinism, with all the contentions which it perpetually begets. XV. The rigid Papists, who set up themselves as defenders of the doctrines of justice, and yet hold popish reprobation, are full as incon- sistent as the rigid Calvinists, who come forward as defenders of the doctrines of grace, and yet hold Calvinian reprobation: for popish and Calvinian reprobation equally confound the Gospel dispensations, and leave Divine justice and grace neither root nor branch, with respect to all those who die unacquainted with Christianity, that is, with respect to far the greatest part of mankind. * My light and theological accuracy have, I hope, increased gince I wrote the sermon on these words. I did not then clearly see that the election of grace, of which the apostle speaks in this verse, is our gratuitous election to the blessings of Christianity as it is opposed to Judaism, and not merely as it is opposed to the Adamic covenant of works. I had not then sufficiently considered these words of St. John :—‘ The law [that is, the Jewish dispensation] came by Moses, but grace and truth [that is, a more gracious and brighter dispensation] ‘‘ came by Jesus Christ.” Hence it follows, that this expression, ‘‘ the election of grace,” when a sacred writer speaks of the Jewish and of the Christian dispensations, which St. Paul does throughout this part of his Epistle to the Romans, means a gratuitous election to Christianity, or to the peculiar blessings of the Gospel of Christ. 342 EQUAL CHECK. _ [PART XVI. To conclude: Milton says somewhere, “There is a certain scale of duties, a certain hierarchy of upper and lower commands, which for want of studying in right order, all the world is in confusio What that great man said of the scale of duties and commands, may with equal propriety be affirmed of the scale of evangelical truths, and the hierarchy of upper and lower Gospel dispensations. For want of studying them in right order, all the Church is in confusion. The most effectual, not to say the only way of ending these theological disputes of Christians, and destroying the errors of levelling Pelagianism, Anti- nomian Calvinism, confused Arminianism, and reprobating popery, is to restore primitive harmony and fulness to the partial gospels of the day; which can be done with ease, among candid and judicious inquirers after truth, by placing the doctrine of the dispensations in its Seripture light ; and by holding forth the doctrines of grace and justice in all their evangelical brightness. This has been attempted in the two Essays from which these inferences are drawn. Whether the well-meant attempt shall be successful with respect to one, is a question, which thy reason and candour, gentle reader, are called upon to decide. SECTION VI. The plan of a general reconciliation and union between the moderate Calvinists and the candid Arminians. By the junction of the doctrines of grace and justice, which, I bonds is effected in the two Essays on Bible Calvinism and Bible Arminianism, the Gospel of Christ recovers its original fulness and giory, and the two Gospel axioms are equally secured: for, on the one hand, the absolute sovereignty and partial goodness of our Creat r and Redeemer shine as the meridian blaze of day, without casting the east shade upon his truth and equity: you have an election of free grace, without a reprobation of free wrath. And, on the other hand, the impartial justice of our Governor and Judge appears like an unspotted sun, whose brightness is perfectly consistent with the transcendent splendour of free grace and distinguishing love. The elect receive “the reward of the inheritance” with feelings of pleasing wonder and shouts of humble praise. Nor have the reprobates the least ground to say, that the Judge of all the earth does not do right, and that they are lost merely because irresistible power necessitated them to sin by Adam without remedy, that they might be damned by Christ without possibility of escape. ‘Thus the gracious and righteous ways of God with man are equally vindicated, and the whole controversy terminates in the following conclusion, which is the ground of the reconciliation, to which moderate Calvinists and — candid Arminians are invited. Bible Calvinism and Bible Arminianism are two essential opposite — parts of the Gospel, which agree as perfectly together as two wings of a palace, the opposite ramparts of a regular fortress, and the different — views of a fine face, considered by persons who stand, some on the right and some on the left hand of the beauty whe draws their attention, THIRD.] RECONCILIATION. 343 Rigid Calvinists* and rigid Arminians* are both in the wrong ; the former in obscuring the doctrines of impartial justice, and the latter in clouding the doctrines of partial grace : but moderate Calvinists* and candid Armi- nians* are very near each other, and very near the truth; the difference there is between them being more owing to confusion, want of proper explanation, and misapprehension of each other’s sentiments, than to any real, inimical opposition to the truth, or to one another. And therefore, they have no more reason to fall out with each other, than masons who build the opposite wings of the same building ; soldiers, who defend the opposite sides of the same fortification ; painters, who take different views of the same face ; or loyal subjects, who vindicate different, but equally just claims of their royal master. Since there is so immaterial a difference between the moderate Cal- vinists and the candid Arminians, why do they keep at such distance from each other? Why do they not publicly give one another the night hand of fellowship, and let all the world know that they are brethren, and will henceforih own, love, help, and defend each other as such? * Rigid Calvinists are persons who hold the Manichean doctrine of absolute necessity, and maintain both an unconditional election of free grace in Christ, and an unconditional reprobation of free wrath in Adain. Moderate Calvinists are men who renounce the doctrine of absolute necessity, stand up for the election of free grace, and are ashamed of the reprobation of free wrath. Rigid Arminians are persons who will not hear of an unconditional election, make more of free will than of free grace, oppose God’s gracious sovereignty, deny his partiality, and condemn Calvinism in an unscriptural manner. Candid Arminians are people who mildly contend for the doctrines of justice, and are willing to hear with candour what the judicious Calvinists have to say in defence of the doctrines of race. e In my Preparatory Essay, I have expressed myself as one, who sometimes doubts whether Arminius did see the doctrine of election in a clear light. It may be proper to account here for a degree of seeming inconsistency into which this transient doubt has betrayed me. Having been long ill, and at a distance from my books, I have not lately looked into Arminius’ Works; nor did I ever read them carefully through, as every one should have done, who positively condemns or clears him. And if I have somewhere positively said, that he was not clear in the doctrine of election, I did it, (1.) Because I judged of Arminius’ doctrine by that of the Arminians, who seem to me to be in general (as I had been for years) unacquainted with the distinction between the election of grace and that of jus- tice. (2.) Because, at the synod of Dort, the Arminians absolutely refused to debate first the point of election, which the Calvinists wanted them to do. Whence I concluded that Arminius had not placed that point of doctrine in a light strong enongh to expel the darkness which rigid Calvinists had spread over it. And, (3.) Because it is generally supposed that Arminius leaned to the error of Pelagius, who did not do justice to the election of grace. Mr. Rayle, for ez2mple, in his life of Arminius, says, ‘*‘ Arminius condemned the Supralapsarian Beza, and afterward acknowledged no other election than that which was grounded on the obedience of sinners to the call of God by Jesus Christ.” If this account of Mr. Bayle be just, it is evident that Arminius, as well as Pelagius, admitted only the election of justice. However, a candid clergyman, who has read Arminius, assures me that in some parts of his writings, he does justice to the unconditional election of grace. And indeed this election is so conspicuous in the Scriptures, that it is hard to conceive it should never have been discovered by so judicious a divine as Arminius is said to have been. The difficulty in this matter is not to meet and salute the truth now and then, but to hold her fast, and walk steadily with her, across all the mazes of error. The light of evangelists should not break forth now and then, as a flash of lightning does out of a dark cloud; but it should shine constantly, and with increasing lustre, as the light of the eclipsed sun. 344 EQUAL CHECK. PARP That no essential difference keeps them asunder, I prove by the follow ing argument :— itt If candid Arminians will make no material objection to my Essay of Bible Calvinism ; and if judicious Calvinists will not condemn my Essay on Bible Arminianism as unscriptural, it is evident that the differendil between them is not capital, and that it arises rather from want of light — to sec the whole truth clearly, than from an obstinate enmity to any a terial part of the truth. Nor is this a sentiment peculiar to myself: I hold it in common vi some of the most public defenders of the doctrines of grace and justice. The Arminians will not think that Mr. J. Wesley is partial to the Cal- — vinists, and the professing world is no stranger to Mr. Rowland Hill’s zeal against the Arminians. Nothing can be more opposite than the ~ religious principles of these two gentlemen. Nevertheless, they both — agree to place the doctrines which distinguish pious Calvinists from pious Arminians, among the opinions which are not essential to genuine, vital, practical Christianity. Mr. Wesley, in his thirteenth Journal, page 115, says, in a letter to a friend, “ You have admirably well.expressed what I — mean by an opinion, contradistinguished from an essential doctrine. — Whatever is compatible with love to Christ, and a work of grace, i term an opinion, and certainly the holding particular election and final perse- verance is compatible with these.” What he adds in the next sage is perfectly agreeable to this candid concession: “ Mr. H— and Mr. N— hold this, and yet I believe these have real Christian experience. But if so, this is only an opinion: it is not subversive [here is clear proof to the contrary] of the very foundations of Christian experience. It is com- patible with love to Christ, anda genuine work of grace ; yea, many hold it, at whose feet I desire to be found in the day of the Lord Jesus. If then I oppose this with my whole strength, I am a mere bigot still.” As Mr. Wesley candidly grants here that persons may hold the Calvinian opinions which Mr. Hill patronizes, and yet be full of love to Christ, and have a genuine work of grace on their souls; so Mr. Hill, in his late publication, entitled, A Full Answer to the Rev. J. Wesley’s Remarks, page 42, candidly acknowledges that it is possible to hold Mr. Wes- ley’s Arminian principles, and yet to be serious, converted, and sound in Christian experience. His words are: “ As for the serious and con- verted part of Mr. Wesley’s congregation, as I by no means think it necessary for any to be what are commonly called Calvinists, in order that they may be Christians, I can most solemnly declare, however they — may judge of me, that I love and honour them not a little; as I am sat- isfied that many who are muddled in their judgments are sound in their experience.” These two quotations do honour to the moderation of the — popular preachers from whose writings they are extracted. May i the pious Arminians and Calvinists abide by their decisions! So shal they find that nothing parts them but unessential opinions; that they are — joined by their mutual belief of the essential doctrines of the Gospel; and therefore, that if they oppose each other with their whole strength, they are “ mere bigots sill.” To conclude this reconciling argument : if there be numbers of holy souls, who are utter strangers to the peculiarities of rigid Calvinism and rigid Arminianism ; if both the Calvinists and the Arminians can pro- THIRD.] RECONCILIATION. 345 duce a cloud of witnesses, that their opinions are consistent with the most genuine piety, and the most extensive usefulness; if there have been many excellent men on both sides of the question, who (their oppo- nents being judges) have lived in the work of faith, suffered with the patience of hope, and died im the triumph of love ; and if, at this very day, we can find, among the clergy and laity, Calvinists and Arminians, who adorn their Christian profession by a blameless conduct, and by constant labours for the conversion of sinners, or the edification of saints, and who, the Lord being their helper, are ready to seal the truth of Christianity with their blood ; if this, I say, has been, and is still the case, is it not indubitable that people may be good Christians, whether they embrace the opinions of Calvin, or those of Arminius ; and by con- sequence, that neither rigid Calvinism nor rigid Arminianism are any essential part of Christianity ? And shall we make so much of nonessentials, as, on their account, to damp, and perhaps extinguish the flame of love, which is the most important of all the essentials of Christianity? Alas! what is all faith good for: yea, all faith adorned with the “knowledge of all doctrines and mysteries,” if it be not attended by charity? It may indeed help us to “speak with the tongues of men and angels,” to preach like apos- tles, and talk like seraphs; but, after all, it will leave us mere cyphers, or at best a “sounding brass,” a pompous nothing in the sight of the God of love. And therefore, as we would not keep ourselves out of the kingdom of God, which consists in “love, peace, and joy;” and as we would not promote the interests of the kingdom of darkness, by carrying the fire of discord in our bosoms, and filling our vessels with the “ waters of strife,” which so many foolish virgins prefer to the “ oil of gladness,” let us promote peace with all our might. Let us remem- ear that, “in all Churches of the saints, God is the author of peace ; that his Gospel is the Gospel of peace ;” that “he hath called us to peace; and that the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.” Let us “study to be quiet; following peace with all men ;” and “ pursuing especially those things which make for peace in the household of faith :” nor let us turn from the blessed pursuit, till we have attained the blessing offered to peace makers. “The kingdom” of love, peace, and joy, “suffereth violence :” it cannot be taken and kept, without great and constant endeavours. The violent alone are able to conquer it; for it is taken by the force of earnest prayer te God, for his blessing upon our overtures of peace ; and by the vehemence of importunate requests to our brethren, that they would grant us an interest in their forgiving love, and admit us, for Christ’s sake, to the honour of union, and pleasure of communion with them. It is an important part of “the good fight of faith working by love,” to attack the unloving prejudices of our brethren, with a meek- ness of wisdom which turneth away wrath; with a patience of hope which a thousand repulses cannot beat off; with a perseverance of love which taketh no denial; and with an ardour of love which floods of contempt cannot abate. May God hasten the time when all the soldiers of Christ shall so learn and practise this part of the Christian exercise, as to overcome the bigotry of thew brethren! Nor let us think that this is impossible: for if the love of Christ has conquered us, 346 EQUAL CHECK. - [PaRT why should we despair of its conquering others? And if the unjust judge, who neither feared God, nor regarded man, was nevertheless: overcome by the importunity of a poor widow, why should we doubt o overcoming, by the same means, our fellow Christians who fear Ge rejoice in Christ, regard men, and love their brethren? Let us only convince them by every Christian method, that we are their brethren indeed, and we shall find most of them far more ready to return our love, than we have found them ready to return our provocations indifference. | Should it be asked, What are those Christian methods, by which we could persuade our Calvinian or Arminian brethren, that we are their brethren indeed? I answer, that all these methods centre in these few Scriptural directions :—“ Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” Love your opponents, though they should « despitefully use you.” “Bless them,” though they should “ curse you.” “ Pray for them,” though they should “persecute you.” Wait upon them, and salute them as brethren, though they should keep at as great a distance from you, as if you were their enemies: “for if ye show love to them who show love to you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publi- © cans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only,” who kindly salute you, “ what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so?” But treat them as God treats us: so shall you “be the children of your Father, who is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise, and sendeth his rain upon us all. Be ye therefore perfect, even as he is perfect.” No bigot ever observed these Gospel directions. And it is only by observing them that we can break the bars of party spirit ; and — pass from the close confinement of bigotry, into the “ glorious liberty” of brotherly love. These scriptures were probably before the eyes of a laborious minis- ter of Christ, when he drew up, some years ago, a plan of union among — the clergymen of the Established Church, who agree in these essentials: “(1.) Original sin. (2.) Justification by faith. (3.) Holiness of heart and life; provided their life be answerable to their doctrines.” This plan is as follows :—*“ But what union would you desire among these? — Not a union of opinions. They’ might agree or disagree, touching — absolute decrees on the one hand, and perfection on the other. Not a union in expression. These may still speak of the imputed righteous- ness, and those of the merits of Christ. Not a union with regard to outward order. Some may still remain quite regular ; some quite irre- gular ; and some partly regular, and partly irregular.” Not a union of societies. Some who do not see the need of discipline, may still labour without forming any society at all: others may have a society, whose — members are united by the bands of a lax discipline. And others, who have learned by experience that professors can never be kept long together without the help of a strict discipline, may strengthen their union with those who are like minded, by agreeing to observe such — rules as appear to them most conducive to the purposes of Divine and — brotherly love. “But these things being as they are, as each is per- suaded in his own mind, is it not a most desirable thing that we should — first remove hinderances out of the-way? Not judge one another, not envy one another? Not be displeased with one another’s gifts or sue- THIRD.] RECONCILIATION. 347 cess, even though greater than our own? Never wait for one another’s halting ; much less wish for it, or rejoice therein? Never speak dis- respectfully, slightly, coldly, or unkindly of each other? Never repeat each other’s faults, mistakes, or infirmities; much less listen for and gather them up? Never say or do any thing to hinder each other’s usefulness, either directly or indirectly? Is it not a most desirable thing, that we should, secondly, love as brethren? Think well of, and honour one another? Wish all good, all grace, all gifts, all success, yea, greater than our own, to each other? Expect God will answer our wish, rejoice in every appearance thereof, and praise him for it? Readily believe good of each other, as readily as we once believed evil? Speak respectfully, honourably, kindly of each other? Defend each other’s character: speak all the good we can of each other: recom- mend one another, where we have influence: each help the other on in his work, and enlarge his influence by all the honest means we can?” 1 do not see why such a plan might not be, in some degree, admitted by all the ministers of the Gospel, whether they belong to, or dissent from, the Establishment. I would extend my brotherly love to all Christians in general, but more particularly to all Protestants, and most particularly to all the Protestants of the Established Church, with whom I am joined by repeated subscriptions to the same articles of religion, by oaths of canonical obedience, by the same religious rites, by the use of the same liturgy, by the same prerogatives, and by the fullest share of civil and religious liberty. But God forbid that I should exclude from my brotherly affection, and occasional assistance, any true minister of Christ, because he casts the Gospel net among the Presby- terians, the Independents, the Quakers, or the Baptists! If they will not wish me good luck in the name of the Lord, I will do it to them. So far as they cordially aim at the conversion of sinners, I will offer them the right hand of fellowship, and communicate with them in spirit. They may excommunicate me, if their prejudices prompt them to it: they may build up a wall of partition between themselves and me; but “in the strength of my God,” whose love is as boundless as his immensity, and whose mercy is over all his works, “I will leap over the wall ;” being persuaded that it is only daubed with untempered mortar, and made of Babel materials. Should not Christian meekness, and ardent loye bear down party spirit, and the prejudices of education? The king tolerates and protects us all, the parliament makes laws to imsure,tole- ration and quietness, peace and mutual forbearance ; and shall we, who make a peculiar profession of the “faith which works by love,” and binds upon us the new commandment of laying down our lives for the brethren ; shall we, I say, be less charitable and more intolerant than our civil governors, who, perhaps, make no such profession? Let bigot- ed Jews and ignorant Samaritans dispute whether God is to be wor- shipped on Mount Moriah, or on Mount Gerizim; let rigid Churchmen say, that a parish church is the only place where Divine worship ought to be performed, while stiff dissenters suppose that their meeting houses are the only bethels in the land; but let us, who profess moderation and charity, remember the reconciling words of our Lord, “The hour cometh, and now is, when true worshippers shall worship God every where, in spirit and in truth. For the Father seeketh such catholic amd 348 EQUAL CHECK. [parr spiritual persons to worship him ;” and not such partial and formal de. ' votees as the Jews and Samaritans were in the days of our Lord. But to return to our plan of reconciliation: might not some additions be made to Mr. Wesley’s draught ; for it is from a letter published in his thirteenth Journal, that I have extracted the preceding sketch of. union. Might not good men and sincere ministers, who are bent upon inheriting the seventh beatitude, form themselves into a society of reconcilers, whatever be their denomination, and mode of worship? Interest brings daily to the royal exchange a multitude of merchants, — ready to deal with men of the most opposite customs, dresses, religions, and countries ; and shall not the love of peace, and the pursuit of love, have as great an effect upon the children of light, as the love of money, and the pursuit of wealth have upon the men of the world? There isa society for promoting religious knowledge among the poor ; some of its members are Churchmen, and others dissenters: some are Calvinists, and others Arminians ; and yet it flourishes, and the design of it is hap- pily answered. Might not such a society be formed for promoting © peace and love among professors? Is not charity preferable to know- ledge? And if it be well to associate, in order to distribute Bibles and Testaments, which are but the letter of the Gospel, would it not be better to associate, in order to diffuse peace and love, which are the spirit of the Gospel? There is another respectable society for promoting the Christian faith among the heathen; and why should there not be a society for promoting unanimity and toleration among Christians? Ought not the welfare of our fellow Christians to lie as near our hearts as that of the heathen? There are in London, and other places, asso- ciations for the preventing and extinguishing of fires. As soon as the mischief breaks out, and the alarm is given, the firemen run to their fire engines; and without considering whether the house on fire be inhabited by Churchmen or dissenters, by Arminians or Calvinists, they venture their lives to put out the flames; and why should there not be associations of peace makers, who, the moment the fire of discord breaks | out in any part of our Jerusalem, may be ready to put it out by all the methods which the Gospel suggests? Is not the fire of hell, which con- sumes souls, more to be guarded against than that fire which can only destroy the body ? Should it be asked what methods could be pursued to extinguish the fire of discord, and kindle that of love ; I reply, that we need only be as wise as the Shaideen of this world. Gomeies we then how they pro- ceed to gain their worldly ends ; and let us go, and do as much to gain our spiritual ends. +d Many gentlemen, some laymen and others clergymen, some Church. men and others dissenters, wanted lately to procure the repeal of our articles of religion. Notwithstanding the diversity of their employments, principles, and denominations, they united, wrote circular letters, drew up petitions, and used all their interest with men in power to bring about their design. Again: some warm men thought it proper to blow up the fire of discontent in the breasts of our American fellow subjects. How did they go’ about the dangerous work? With what ardour did they speak and write, preach and print, fast and pray, publish manifestoes and make them circulate, associate, and strengthen their associations, and at | : THIRD.] RECONCILIATION. 349 last venture their fortunes, reputations, and lives, in the execution of their warlike project! Go, ye men of peace, and do at least half as much to carry on your friendly design. Associate, pray, preach, and print for the furtherance of peace. When ye meet, consult about the means of removing what stands in the way of a fuller agreement in principle and affection, among all those who love Christ in sincerity ; and decide if the following queries contain any hint worthy of your attention :— Might not moderate Calvinists send with success circular letters to their rigid Calvinian brethren ; and moderate Arminians to their rigid Arminian brethren, to check rashness, and recommend meekness, and moderation, and love? Might not the Calvinist ministers, who patronize the doctrines of grace, display also the doctrines of justice, and open their pulpits to those Arminian ministers who do it with caution? And might not the Arminian ministers who patronize the doctrines of justice, make more of the doctrines of grace, preach as nearly as they can like the judicious Calvinists, admit them into their pulpits, and rejoice at every opportunity of showing them their esteem and confidence? Might not such moderate Calvinists and Arminians as live in the same towns, have from time to time a general sacrament, and invite one another to it, to cement brotherly love, by publicly confessing the same Christ, by jointly taking him for their common head, and by acknow- ledging one another as fellow members of his mystical body? Might not some of the ministers, on these occasions, preach to edification on such texts as these :—“ Christ asked him, What was it that ye disputed about among yourselves by the way! But they held their peace ;” for by the way they had disputed, “who should be the greatest :” and he said unto them, “If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; forsoIT am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done unto you. Receive ye one another as Christ also received us. Yea, him that is weak in the faith receive you, but not to doubtful disputations. Let us not judge one another any more: but Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. Let us follow after those things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another: holding the head, from which all the body having nourishment, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon Aaron’s head, and like the dew upon Mount Sion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, and life for evermore.” Could not the society have corresponding members in various parts of the kingdom, to know where the flame of discord begins to break out, that by means of those mighty engines, the tongue, the pen, or the press, they might, with all speed, direct streams of living water, floods of truth and kindness, to quench the kindling fire of wrath, oppose the waters of strife, and remove whatever stands in the way of the fire of love? And if this heavenly fire were once kindled, and began to spread, might it not, in a few years, reach all orders of professors in Great Britain, as the 350 EQUAL CHECK. contrary fire has reached our brethren on the continent? If we doubt the possibility of it, do we not secretly suppose that Satan is stronger to promote discord and contention, than Christ is to promote concord and unity? And, in this case, where is our faith? And where the love which “thinketh no evil,” and “hopeth all things?” If one or tw warm men have kindled on the continent so great a fire, that neither our fleets nor our armies, neither the British nor the German forces em. 4 ployed in that service, have yet been able to put it out; what will not twenty or thirty men, burning with the love of God and of their neigh. bour, be able to do in England? We may judge of it by what twelve fishermen did one thousand seven hundred years ago. Arise then, ye sons of peace, ye sons of God, into whose hands’these sheets may fall. Our Captain is ready to lead you to the conquest of the kingdom of love. Be not discouraged at the smallness of your number, nor at the multi- tude of the men of war, who are ready to oppose you. Jesus is on your side: he is our Gideon. With his mighty cross he has smitten the foundation of the altar of discord: pull it down. Break your nar- row pitchers of bigotry. Hold forth your burning lamps: let the light of your love shine forth without a covering. Ye loving Calvinists, fall upon the necks of your Arminian opponents : and ye loving Arminians, — be no more afraid to venture among your Calvinian antagonists. You will not find them cruel Midianites, but loving Christians : methinks that — your mingled lights have already chased away the shades of the night of partiality and ignorance. You see that you are brethren; you feel it: and, ashamed of your former distance, you now think you can never make enough of each other, and testify too much your repentance, for having offended the world by absurd contentions, and vexed each other by inimical controversies. The first love of the Christians revives: you are “all of one heart and of”—but I forgot myself: I antedate the time of love, which I so ardently wish to see. The Jericho of bigotry, which I desire to compass, is strong: the Babylon of confusion and division, I would fain demolish, is guarded by a numerous garrison, which thousands of good men think it their duty to reinforce. It may not be improper therefore to make one more attack upon these accursed cities, and to insure the success of it by proper directions. SECTION VII. / Some directions how to secure the blessings of peace and brotherly love. « Do allthings without disputings,” says St. Paul, “that ye may be blame- less and harmless, the sons of God without rebuke. Be at peace among yourselves ; and if it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men:” but especially with your brethren in Christ. “Nor quench tne Spirit,” by destroying its most excellent fruits, which are peace and love. And that we may not be guilty of this crime, the apostle exhorts us~ to “avoid contentions,” and assures us, that God will “render indignation to _ them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth.” It highly concerns — ns, therefore, to inquire how we shall escape the curse denounced against THIRD.) RECONCILIATION. 351 the contentious, and live peaceably with our fellow professors. And if we ought to do “all that lieth in us,” in order to obtain and keep the blessing of peace; surely we ought to follow such directions as are agreeable to Scripture and reason. I humbly hope that the following - are of this number. Dirzerion I. Let us endeavour to do justice to every part of the Gospel; carefully avoiding the example of those injudicious and rash men, who make a wide gap in the north hedge of the garden of truth, mm order to mend one in the east or south hedge. Let every evangelical doctrine haye its proper place in our creed, that it may have its due effect on our conduct. Consideration, repentance, faith, hope, love, and obedience, have each a place on the scale of Gospel truth. Let us not breed quarrels by thrusting away any one of those graces, to make more room for another. While the philosopher exalts consideration alone; the Carthusian, repentance ; the Solifidian, faith; the mystic, love ; and the moralist, obedience; thou, man of God, embrace them all in their order, nor exalt one to the prejudice of the rest. Tear not Christ’s seamless garment, nor divide him against himself. He de- mands our reverential obedience as our King, as much as he re- quires our humble attention as ‘our Prophet, and our full confidence as our Priest. It is as unscriptural to magnify one of bis offices at the expense of the others, as it would be unconstitutional to honour George Til. as king of Ireland, and to insult him as king of England or Scotland. And it is as provoking to the God of truth and order to see the stewards of his Gospel mysteries make much of the dispensation of the Son, while they overlook the dispensation of the Father, and take little notice of the dispensation of the Holy Ghost, as it would be provoking to a parent to see the persons, whom he has entrusted with the care of his three children, make away with the youngest, and starve the eldest, in order to enrich and pamper his second son. Where moderation is wanting, peace cannot subsist: and where partiality prevails, contention will soon make its appearance. II. Let us always make a proper distinction between essential and ‘circumstantial differences. The difference there is between the Chris- tians and the Mohammedans is essential: but the difference between us and those who receive the Scriptures, and believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is in general about non-essentials: and therefore such a difference ought not to hinder union; although in some cases it may. and should prev ent a close communion. Ifwe fancy that every div ersity of doctrine, discipline, or ceremony, is a sufficient reason to keep our brethren at arm’s length from us, we are not so much the followers of the condescending Jesus, as of the stiff and implacable professors, men- tioned in the Gospel, who made much ado about mint, anise, and cummin ; but shamefully neglected mercy, forbearance, and lov e. Ilf. Let us leave to the pope the wild conceit of infallibility ; and let us abandon to bigoted Mohammedans the absurd notion that truth is confined to our own party, that those who do not speak as we do are blind, and that orthodoxy and salvation are plants, which will scarcely grow any where but in our own garden. So long as we continue in this error, we are unfit for union Sls all those who “do not wear the badge b of our party. A Pharisaic pride taints our tempers, cools our love, and 352 EQUAL CHECK. ‘|PaRT breeds a forbidding reserve, which says to our brethren, “Stand by; ! am more orthodox than you.” * IV. Let us be afraid of a sectarian spirit. We may indeed, and we ought to be more familiar with the professors with whom we are mo particularly connected ; just as soldiers of the same regiment are mo familiar with one another, than with those who belong to other regiments. But the moment this particular attachment grows to such a degree as” to make a party in the army of King Jesus, or of King George, it breaks the harmony which ought to subsist between all the parts, and hinders the general service which is expected from the whole body. In what a deplorable condition would be the king’s affairs, if each colonel in his” army refused to do duty with another colonel: and if, instead of mutu- ally supporting one another in a day of battie, each said to the rest, «I will have nothing to do with you and your corps: you may fight yonder by yourselves, if you please: I and my men will keep here by ourselves, doing what seems good in our own eyes. As we expect no assistance from you, so we promise you that you shall have none from us: And you may think yourselves well off, if we do not join the common enemy, and fire at you; for your regimentals are different from ours, and there. fore you are no part of our army.” ‘If so absurd a behaviour were excusable, it would be among the wild, cruel men, who compose an. army of Tartars or savages ; but it admits of no excuse from men who call themselves believers, which is another name for the “ followers of Him” who laid down his life for his enemies, and perpetually exhorts his soldiers to love one another as brethren,—yea, as he has loved us. Let us then peculiarly beware cf inordinate self love. It is too often the real source of our divisions; when love to truth is their pretended cause. If St. Paul could say of fallen believers in his time, “ They all seeix their own ;” how much more may this be said of degenerate be- lievers in our days? Who can tell all the mischief done by this ungene- rous and base temper? Who can declare all the mysteries of error and iniquity, which stand upon the despicable foundation of the little words, I, me, and mine? Could we see the secret inscriptions which the Searcher of hearts can read upon the first stones of our little Babels, how often would we wonder at such expressions as these :—My church, my chapel, my party, my congregation, my connections, my popularity, my hope of being esteemed by my partisans, my fear of being suspected by them, my jealousy of those who belong to the opposite party, my sys- tem, my favourite opinions, my influence, &c, &c! 'To all those egotisms Jet us constantly oppose those awful words of our Lord, “ Except a man deny himself, he cannot be my disciple.” ‘Till we cordially oppose ou inordinate attachment to our own interest, we “ sacrifice to our own net,’ in our public duties; and even when we “ ‘preach Christ,” it is to be feared that we do it more “ out of contention,” than out of a real conce for his interest. What Dr. Watts writes on this subject is striking :—* Have we neve: observed what a mighty prevalence the applause of a party, and th advance of self interest have over the hearts and tongues of men, and inflame them with malice against their neighbours? They assault every different opinion with rage and clamour: they rail at the persons of all other parties, to ingratiate themselves with their own. When they _. maxim was, to “please all men to their edification ‘THIRD.] RECONCILIATION. 353 to death for bitter reproach] the ministers of the Gospel, they boast like Jehu, when he slew the priests of Baal, ‘Come and see my zeal for the Lord.’ And as he designed hereby to establish the kingdom in his own hands; so they to maintain the reputation they have acquired among their own sect. But, ah! how little do they think of the wounds that Jesus the Lord receives by every bitter reproach they cast on his followers !” ' V. Let us be afraid of needléss singularity. The love of it is very common, and leads some men to the wildest extremes. The same spirit which inclines one to wear a hat cocked in the height of the fashion, and influences another to wear one in full contrariety to the mode, may put one man upon minding only the first Gospel axiom, and the blood of Christ, while another man fancies that it becomes him to mind only the second Gospel axiom, and the law of Christ. Thus, out of singularity, the former insists upon faith alone, and the latter recom- mends nothing but morality and works. May’we detest a temper, which makes men delight in an unnecessary opposition to each other! And may we constantly follow the example of St. Paul, whose charitable 1? So shall “ our a) '. moderation be known to all men:” nor shall we absurdly break the __.balance of the various truths which compose the Gospel system. VI. Let us never blame our brethren but with reluctance. And when love to truth, and the interest of religion, constrain us to show the absurd or dangerous consequences of their mistakes, let us rather underdo than overdo. Let us never hang unnecessary* or false conse- quences upon their principles: and when we prove that their doctrine necessarily draws absurd and mischievous consequences after it, let us do them the justice to believe that they do not see the necessary con- nection of such consequences with their principles. And let us can- didly hope that they detest those consequences. VII. Let us, as far as we can, have a friendly intercourse with some of the best men of the various denominations of Christians around us. And if we have time for much reading, let us peruse their best writings, to be edified by the devotion which breathes through their works. This will be an effectual mean of breaking the bars of prejudice, contempt, fear, and hard thinking, which want of acquaintance with them puts between them and us. Why are savages frighted at the sight of civil- ized men? Why do they run away from us as if we were wild beasts ? It is because they have no connection with us, are utter strangers to the good will we bear them, and fancy we design to do them mischief. Bigots are religious savages. By keeping to themselves, they contract * I humbly hope that I have followed this part of the direction in my Checks. To the best of my knowledge I have not fixed one consequence upon the princi- ples of my opponents, which does not fairly and necessarily flow from their doc- trine. And I have endeavoured to do justice to their piety, by declaring again and again my full persuasion that they abhor such consequences. But whether they have done so by my principles, may be seen in my Genuine Creed, where I show that the absurd and wicked consequences, which my opponents fix upon the doctrines that I maintain, have absolutely nothing to do with it. Ido not how- ever say this to justify myself in all things: for I do not doubt, but if I had health and strength to revise my Checks, I should find some things which might have been said in a more guarded, humble, serious, and loving manner. Vou. II. 23 (354 EQUAL CHECK. ~ . 4 a shyness toward their fellow Christians: they fancy that their brethre are monsters; they ask, with Nathanael, “Can any good * con out of Nazareth?” By ‘and by they get into the seats of the Phari e and peremptorily say, that “out of Galilee there ariseth no prophet And it is well if they do not turn in a rage from the precious truth delivered by some of the most favoured servants of God; fondly su posing, with Naaman, that the Jordan of their brethren is at to be com pared with the rivers of their own favourite Damascus; and un ha ritably concluding, with the pope and Mohammed, that all waters are poisonous except those of their own cistern, The best advice whic can be given to these prejudiced people, is that which Philip gaye to Nathanael, who fancied that Jesus was not a prophet : “Come an see.” I would say to Calvinian bigots, “ Come and see” your Arminian brethren; and to Arminian bigots, “Come and see” pious Calvinia 3) and you will be ashamed to have so long forfeited the blessing annex to brotherly communion ; for “they that fear the Lord, speak often oné to another, and the ieee hearkens and hears it, and a ‘beak of remem brance is written before him for them. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels.” VIII. Let our religion influence our hearts as well as our heads Let us mind the practice as well as the theory of Christianity. . bare knowledge of Christ’s doctrine “ puffeth up, but charity edifieth “He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love,” and would haye us to be loving and “merciful as he is.” He receives us not standing our manifold weaknesses and provocations; and he say his apostle, “Forgive one another, as God for Christ’s sake hath for. given you; that ye may with one mind, and with one mouth, gloni ff God.” How far from this religion are ‘ee who, instead of receiving one another, keep at the greatest distance from their brethren, and per. haps pronounce damnation against them! ‘The men who rashly con. demn their “ weak brother to perish,” cannot be close followers of ou “merciful High Priest,” who “died for him,” who “is touched with * feeling of our infirmities, and has compassion on them that are ignorar and out of the way. If any man say, I love God,—the love of Christ -constraineth me,—and yet hateth his brother,” or shuns a reconciliatic with his fellow servants, “he is a liar; for he who loveth not hi -brother, whom he hath seen, how can Ws love God whom he hath ne ‘seen? This commandment have we from Christ, that he who lov .God, love his brother,” yea, his enemy also. And love is “ pure, peace able, gentle, easy to be entreated, and full of mercy. It suffereth | and is kind, it envieth not, is not puffed up, it does not behave ii unseemly, it seeketh not its own, it beareth all things, it endureth things, it believeth and hopeth all things,” and it attempteth many things, that Christians may “be made perfect in one,” and may “keep tk unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Where this love is not, tl practice of Christianity is absent. We may have the brain of a Chri tian, but we want his tongue, his hands, and his heart. We may indee say many sweet things of Christ; but we spoil them all if we spe bitterly of his members; for he who toucheth them, toucheth the ap .of his eye ; and he who wounds them, wounds him in the tenderest Hence the severity of our Lord’s declarations: “‘ Whosoever offendeth “THIRD.] RECONCILIATION. 355_ one of these little ones, who believe in me, it were better for him that a mill stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. And whosoever shall uncharitably say to his brother, Thou fool! shall be in danger of hell fire,” as well as a mur- derer, Matt. xviii, 6; v, 22. So dreadful is the case of those who make shipwreck of the faith which works by charity, while they contend for real or fancied orthodoxy. We shal! readily set our seals to the justice and propriety of these terrible declarations, if we remember that when Christians offend against the law of kindness, they stab their religion in her very vitals, because Christianity is the religion of love. From first to last, it teaches us loye—free, distinguishing, matchless love. The Father so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son that we might not perish. He freely delivered him up to death for us all, and with him he gives us all things ; forgiveness, grace, and glory. The Son, who, when he was in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with him, influenced by obedient love to the Father and tender pity toward us, assumed our nature, became a prophet to teach the religion of love, a king to enforce the law of love, a priest and a victim dying for the breaches of the law of love. He lived to keep and enforce the law of love: he wept, prayed, and agonized, to show the force of sympathizing love: he died on the cross to seal with the last drop of his vital blood the plan of redeeming love. He sunk into the grave, and descended into hades, to show the depth oflove. He rose again to secure the triumph of love: he ascended into heaven to carry on the schemes of love: from thence he sent, and . still sends, upon obedient believers, the spirit of burning ; baptizing them with the Holy Ghost, and with the fire of love, which many waters cannot quench; and from thence he shall come again, to send the unloying and contentious to their own place, and to crown loving souls with honour, glory, and immortality. The office of the Holy Ghost answers to the part which the Father and the Son bear in our redemption. When we receive him according to the promise of the Father, we receive him as the Spirit of love: he sheds abroad the love of God in our hearts; he testifies to us the love of Christ ; and his fruit, in our hearts and liv es, is “love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, and meekness.” This loying spirit is so essential to Christianity, that if you ask St. Paul and St. John an account of their religion, the former answers, The end of Christianity is “‘ charity out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith unfeigned:” and therefore if any Christian loveth not the Lord Jesus in his person and in his mystical members, he is accursed. Maranatha, the Lord cometh to cut in sunder that wicked servant, and to appoint him his portion with hypocrites in outer darkness. As for St. John, he thus describes Christianity :—“ Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God: every one that loveth is born of God. We love him because he first loved us. And every one that loveth God who begat believers, loveth them also that are begotten of him: and this commandment we have from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also.” St. James’ testimony to the religion of love will properly close that of St. Paul.and St. John. ‘‘ Hearken, my beloved brethren. If ye fulfil the royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect to persons,” much more if ye bite and P ne. EQUAL CHECK. ; [Parr deyour your brethren, “ye are convinced of the law as transgressors: for whosoever shall keep the whole law [of love] and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” He shows himself a bad Christian—a fallen believer. Therefore, “Speak not evil one of another, brethren, not grudge one against another, lest ye be condemned: behold, the Judge ; standeth at the door.” And Christ the Judge confirms thus the testi mony of his apostles, in his awful account of the day of judgment :— — Then shall the king say unto them on his right hand, “ Come, ye blessed, inherit ‘the kingdom prepared for you, for” ye were kind and loving to me. ‘The head of every man is Christ,” and therefore, “ inasmuch as ye have done it [that is, inasmuch as ye have been kind and loving] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me :” ye have — from me, ye cursed :” for ye were not kind and loving to me: and if they plead “ Not guilty” to the charge, he will “ answer them, saying, — Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of the least of these, ye did it not unto me :” that is, inasmuch as ye ‘were not kind to one of these, ye were net kind and loving to me. And these unloving men “shall go away into everlasting punishment ; but the righteous, [that is, the loving and: merciful, | into life eternal.” How plain is this religion! and how deplorable is it that it should be almost lost in clouds of vain notions, wild opinions, unscriptural systems, empty professions, — and noisy contentions! Were professors to embrace this ee Christianity, what a revolution would take place in Christendom ! accuser of the brethren would fall as lightning from heaven, and genuine orthodoxy would combine with humble charity to make the earth a paradise again. IX. Lastly: if we will attain the full power of godliness, and be peaceable as the Prince of Peace, and merciful as our heavenly Father, — let us go on to the perfection and glory of Christianity ; let us enter the ~ _ full dispensation of the Spirit. ‘Till we live in the pentecostal glory ef — the Church: till we are baptized with the Holy Ghost: till the Spirit of burning and the fire of Divine love have melted us down, and we have been truly cast into the softest mould of the Gospel: till we can say with St. Paul, “ We have received the Spirit of love, of power, and of a sound mind ;” till then we shall be carnal rather than spiritual believers ; we shall divide into sects like the Jews, and at best we shall be like the disciples of John and of Christ before they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost. We shall have an envious spirit: we shall contend about superiority, and be ready to stop those who do good, because they do it — not in our way, or because they follow not with us. And supposing we — once tasted the first love of the Church, and had really the love of God and our neighbour “ shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given — unto us ;” yet if this “love be grown cold,” or if we “ have left it,” by grieving or quenching the Spirit, we are fallen from pentecostal Chris. tianity, and instead of continuing in disinterested fellowship, like the primitive Christians, we shall “ seek our own,” as the fallen Philippians ; or we shall divide into parties like those Corinthians to whom St. Paul wrote :—“ Some of you have not the knowledge of the God of love; I © speak this to your shame. I cannot speak to you as to spiritual, but as been kind and loving to me: and I will give you “the reward of the — inheritance. Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart é —_— THIRD.] RECONCILIATION. . 357 to carnal believers, even as to babes in Christ. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as the men of the world? Examine yourselves therefore whether ye be in the faith: prove your own selves.” Is Christ in you?’ Have ye the Spirit of power, or have ye obliged him to with- draw? And are ye shorn of your strength, as Samson was, when the Spirit of the Lord was departed from him? Alas! Who can say how many believers are in this deplorable case without suspecting it? The world knows that they are fallen, but they know it not themselves. They make sport for the Philistines by their idle contentions, and they dream that they are the champions of truth. O may they speedily “ awake to righteousness,” and see their need of “ righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost!’? And may “ power from on high” rest again upon them! So shall they break the pillars of the temple of discord, rebuild the temple of peace, and be “ continually in it, praising and blessing God,” instead of accusing and provoking their brethren. —_—— SECTION VIII. Farther motives to a speedy reconciliation—An exhortation to it. I. “ Azove all things,” says St. Peter, “have fervent charity among yourselves.” “Little children,” says St. John, “love one another.” Sweet precepts! but how far are we, from regarding them, while we give to bitter zeal, or to indifference, the place allotted to the communion of saints, and to burning love! Had these apostolic injunctions a due effect upon us, how would the fervent charity which victorious faith kin- dies, set fire to the chaff of our idle contentions, and make us ashamed of haying so departed from the Gospel as to give the world to understand (if men may judge of our doctrine by our conduct,) that the Scriptures exhort us to fall out one with another, and to mind charity less than every thing; whereas it enjoins us to mind it “ above all things,” above * all honour, pleasure, and profit,—yea, above all knowledge, orthodoxy, and faith. Il. We are commanded to “glorify God with one heart and one mouth.” Our lips should be instruments of praise, ever tuned to cele- brate the Prince of Peace,—ever ready to invite all around us to the Gospel feast ; the feast of Divine and brotherly love. To neglect this» _ labour of love is bad: but how much worse is it to be as “sounding brass,” as a “ tinkling cymbal,” as an infernal kettle drum, used by the accuser of the brethren, to call professors from the good fight of faith, to the detestable fight of needless or abusive controversy, and perhaps to the bloody work of persecution? Who can describe the injury done to religion by the champions of bigotry? An ingenious writer being one day desired to draw in proper colours the figure of uncharitableness, the monster which has so narrowed, disgraced, and murdered Christianity ; “J will attempt it,” said he “if you will furnish me with a sheet of large paper, and that of the fairest kind, to represent the Christian Church in this world. First, I will pare it round, and reduce it to a very small compass: then with much ink will I stain the whiteness of it, and a“ - - $58 - ' - EQUAL CHECK. [Part =. deform it with many a blot. At the next sitting I will stab it through rudely with an iron pen: and when I put the last hand to complete the likeness, it shall be besmeared with blood.” And shall we lend our common enemy iron pens, or tongues sharpened like the murderer’s swords, that he may continue to wound the members of Christ, and deform the Christian Church? God forbid! Let as many of us as haye turned our pens and tongues into instruments of idle contention, apply them henceforth to the defence of peace and brotherly love. Ill. If we refuse to do it, we practically: renounce our baptism: for in that solemn ordinance we profess to take God for our common Father, Christ for our common Saviour, and the Spirit for our common Sanc- tifier. When we receive the Lord’s Supper in faith, we solemnly bind this baptismal engagement upon ourselves, and tie faster the knot of brotherly love, by which we are joined to “ all those who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.” Now can any thing be more antichristian and diabolical, than for persons, who con- stantly communicate, to live in discord, and perhaps to insult one another in a manner contrary to the first rules of heathen civility? O ye, who surround our altars, and there “humbly beseech almighty» God con- tinually to inspire the universal Church with the spirit of unity and concord, that all who confess his holy name may live in unity and godly love ;” can any thing equal your sacrilegious guilt, if, after such a solemn prayer, you not only refuse to live “in unity and godly love,” with your pious Calvinian and Arminian brethren, but also breathe the spirit of discord, and live in variance and ungodly contentions with them, merely because they do not pronounce “ Shibboleth” with all the em- phasis which our party puts upon some favourite words and phrases? If we continue to offer so excellent a prayer, and to indulge so detestable a temper, are we not fit persons to fight’ under the banner of Judas? Do we not with a kiss betray the Son of man in his members? Do we not goto the Lord’s table to say, “ Hail, Master !” and to deliver him for less than thirty pieces of silver, for the poor satisfaction of pleasing the bigots of-a party, or for the mischievous pleasure of breaking the balance of the Gospel axioms, and rending the doctrines of grace from those of justice ? ; IV. “God is love.” Let us be like “our Father-who is in heaven.” Satan is uncharitableness and variance: detest we his likeness, and let not the faithful and true Witness be obliged to say to us one day, “ Ye are of your father the devil, whose works ye do,” when you keep up divisions. “The devil,” says Archbishop Leighton, “ being an apostate spirit, revolted and separated from God, doth naturally project and work division.” This was his first exploit, and is still his grand design and business in the world. He first divided our first parents from God, and the next we read of in their first child, was enmity against his. brother. The tempter wounded truth, in order to destroy love, and therefore he is justly called by our Saviour “a liar, and a murderer from the begin- ning.” He murdered our first parents by lying, and made them mur- derers by drawing them into his uncharitableness. God forbid that we should any longer do the work of the father of lies and murders! Heaven prevent our committing again two so great evils as those of wounding truth and preventing love! of wounding truth by attacking the THIRD.] RECONCILIATION 359 . Scripture doctrines of free grace and free agency! and of preventing love, by hindering the union of two such large bodies of professors, as the Calvinists and the Arminians! Nor let any lover of peace say, “I will not hinder the reconciliation you speak of ;” for it is our bounden duty to farther it by a speedy, constant exertion of all our interest with God, and influence with men: otherwise we shall be found “unprofitable, slothful” servants, and shall be judged according to this declaration of our Lord, “ He that gathereth not with me scattereth.” For he who, in so noble a cause as that of truth and love, is “neither cold nor hot,” pulls down upon his own head the curse denounced against the lukewarm Laodiceans. -Y. The sin of the want of union with our pious Calvinian or Arminian brethren, is attended with peculiar aggravations. We are not only fellow creatures, but fellow subjects, fellow Christians, fellow Protestants, and fellow sufferers (in reputation at least) for maintaining the capital doctrines of salvation by faith in Christ, and of regeneration by the Spirit of God. How absurd is it for persons who thus share in the reproach, patience, and kingdom of Christ, to imbitter each other’s omforts, and add to the load of contempt, which the men of the world cast upon them! Let Pagans, Mohammedans, Jews, Papists, and Deists, do this work.. We may reasonably expect it from them. But for such Calvinists and Arminians as the world lumps together under the name of Methodists on account of their peculiar profession of godliness, for such “ companions in tribulation,” I say, to “‘ bite and devour” each other, is highly unreasonable, and peculiarly scandalous. A VI. The great apostle of modern infidels, Mr. Voltaire, has, it is supposed, caused myriads of men to be ashamed of their baptism, and to renounce the profession of Christianity. His profane witticisms have slain their thousands; but the too cogent argument, which he draws from our divisions, has destroyed its myriads. With what exulta- tion does he sing,— . Des Chretiens divises les infames querelles Ont, au nom du Seigneur, apporte plus de mauz, &c. «“ The shameful quarrels of divided Christians have done more mischief under religious pretences, made more bad blood, and shed more human blood, than all the political contentions which have laid waste France and Germany under pretence of maintaining the balance of Europe.” And shall we still make good his argument by our ridiculous quarrels ? Shall we help him to make the world believe that the Gospel is an apple of discord thrown among men, to make them dispute with an acrimony and an obstinacy which have few precedents among men of the most corrupt and detestable religions in the world? Shall we continue to point the dagger with which that keen author stabs Christianity? Shall” we furnish him,with new nails to crucify Christ afresh in the sight of all Europe: or shall we continue to clinch those with which he has already done the direful deed? How will he triumph if he hears that the men who distinguish themselves by their zeal for the Gospel in Eng- land, maintain an unabated contest about the doctrines of grace and justice—a contest as absurd as that in which the whigs and tories would be involved, if they perpetually debated whether the house of lords or * py ‘ 360 , : EQUAL CHECK. [Parr | tha of commons makes up the British parliament ; and whether England — or Scotland forms the island of Great Britain! And with what self ap- . plause will he apply to us what the apostle says of wicked heathens and apostate Christians: “Because when they knew God, they glorified hi not as God”—the sovereign, righteous God of love and justice—* they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves wise, they became fools: being filled with envy, debates malignity, whisperers, backbiters, despiteful, without understand. 2, without brotherly affection, implacable ; having a form of godly ortho. ot but denying the power of” peaceable charity ! VIL. Instead of continuing to give avowed infidels such room to laugh at us and our religion, would it not become us to stop, by a speedy recon- ciliation, the offence given by our absurd debates? Should we feel less _ concern for the honour of Christianity, than Sir Robert Walpole did for the honour of the crown? _ It is reported that when he stood at the helm of the British empire, he was abused in parliament by some members of the privy council. Soon after, meeting with them in the king’s cabinet, — he proceeded to the despatch of business with his usual freedom, and — with a remarkable degree of courtesy toward his enemies, And bein; asked how he could do so, he replied, “The king’s business require union. Why should my master’s affairs suffer loss by the private quar- rels of his servants?” May the time come, when the ministers of the King of peace shall have as much regard for his interest, as that alll showed for the interest of his royal master! Do not circumstance: Church and in state loudly call upon us to unite, in order to make head against the enemy of Christ and our souls? An enemy ternble as the banded powers of earth and hell, headed by the prince of the air, whose name is “ Abaddon, Apollyon, Destroyer ?” _ VIII. Ye are no strangers to the craft and rage of that powerful adver- — sary, O ye pious Calvinists and godly Arminians! For “ ye wrestle not with flesh and blood only, but with the principalities and powers” of the kingdem of darkness! Cease then, cease to spend in wrestling one against another, the precious talents of time, strength, and wisdom, with which the Lord has entrusted you, to resist your infernal antagonist. Let it not be said that Herod, a Jew, and Pilate, a heathen, became friends, and united to pursue “ the Lamb of God” to death; and that — you, fellow Protestants, you, British believers, will not agree to “resist the devil, who goes about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may — devour.” You are astonished when you hear that some obstinate lawyers are so versed in chicanery as to protract for years law suits which might be ended in a few days. Your controversy has already lasted for ages; and the preceding pages show that it might be ended in a few hours: ‘should you then still refuse reasonable terms of accommodation, think, O think of the astonishment of those who will see you protract the needless contention, and entail the curse of discord upon the next gene- ration. Our Lord bids us “ agree quieliy with our adversaries 5? ;” and will ye for ever dispute with your friends? Joseph said to his brethren, “See that ye fall not out by the way ;” and so far as we know, his direction was faithfully observed. Christ says to us, Wear my badge: “ By this ‘ + —— - 'THIRD.] RECONCILIATION. : 361 shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one ae : And will ye still fall out in the way to heaven, and exchange the Chris- tian badge of charity, for the Satanic badge of contention ? Passionate Esau had vowed that he would never be reconciled to his brother. Nevertheless, he relented ; and as soon as Jacob was in sight, “he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him: and they wept,” Gen. xxxui, 4. And shall it be said that Esau, the hairy man, the fierce hunter, the savage who had resolved to imbrue his hands in his own brother’s blood, the implacable wretch, whom so many people consider as an absolute reprobate—shall it be said that Esau was sooner softened than you? He was reconciled to his brother who had deprived him of Isaac’s blessing by a lie ; and they lived in peace ever after. And will ye never be reconciled one to another, and live peacea- bly with your Calvinian or Arminian brethren, who, far from having deprived you of any blessing, want you to share the blessing of holding with them the doctrines of grace, or those of justice? The Prince of life “died, that he might gather together in one the children of God, who are scattered abroad,” John xi, 52. And will ye defeat this important end of his death? He “ would gather you as a hen _ gathers her brood under her wings ;” and will ye pursue one another as hawks pursue their prey? Or keep at a distance from each other, as lambs do from serpents ? Cannot Christ’s blood, “by which you are brought nigh to God,” bring you nigh to cach other? Does it not “speak better things than the blood of Abel?” kinder things than your mutual complaints? Does it not whisper peace, mercy, gentleness, and joy? “In Christ Jesus neither” rigid Calvinism “ availeth any thing, nor” rigid Arminianism, “ but faith which worketh b by love :” draw near with faith to the Christian altar, which streams with that peace-speaking blood. Behold the bleeding Lamb of God, and become gentle, merciful, “and loving! See the antitype of the brazen serpent! He hangs on high and says, “ When I am lifted up, I will draw all men unto me :” and in me they shall centre as the solar beams centre in the sun. And will ye reply, “ We will not be obedient to thy drawings: we will not be concentrated in thee with our Calvinian or Arminian brethren! Thy Father may sacrifice thee to ‘slay the enmity, and so make peace and thou mayest lay down thy life to make reconciliation ; but reconciled to each other we will not be; for the god of discord draws us asunder, and his infernal drawings we will obey.” If you shudder at the thought of speaking such words, why should you so behave, that whoever sees you, may see they are the language of your conduct,—a language which is far more emphatical than that of your lips? Say then no longer, “« Have us excused ;” but “come to the banquet- ing house,”—the temple of peace where “the Lord’s banner over you “will be love,” and his mercy “will comfort you on every side.” “If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any ‘comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies ; fulfil ye the joy” of all who wish Sion’s prosperity : “ be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind, submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. He is my record how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ, in whom there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither bond nor free,” neither Calvinist nor Arminian, “ but i. As, ~ Christ is all in all. My heart is ; enlarged : for a recompense in the ia i a . : » 7% ; ae hal ‘ ; 362 EQUAL CHECK. | [PART © same, be ye also enlarged,” and grant me my humble, perhaps my dying request: reject not my plea for peace. If it be not strong, it is earnest: for (considering my bodily weakness) I write it at the hazard of my life. Animamque in vulnere pono. y But why should I drop a hint about so insignificant a life, when | can move you to accept of terms of reconciliation by the life and death, by the resurrection and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ? I recall the frivolous hint; and by the unknown agonies of Him whom you love; “who in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him who was able to save him from death ;” by his second coming ; and by our gathering together unto him, L beseech. you, “ put on, as the [Protestant] elect of God, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long suffering ; for- bearing. one another, and forgiving one another; even as Christ loved and forgave you, so also do ye.” Instead of absurdly charging one another with heresy, embrace one another, and triumph together in Christ. ‘Come up out of the wilderness” of idle controversy, “ lean- ing upon each other as brethren, holy and beloved :” and with your joi forces attack your common enemies, Pharisaism, Antinomianism, and infidelity. Bless God, ye Arminians, for raising such men as the pious Calvinists, to make a firm stand against Pharisaic delusions, and to main- tain with you the doctrines of man’s fallen state, and of God’s partial grace, which the Pelagians attack with all their might. And ye C vinists, rejoice, that Heaven has raised you such allies as the go Arminians, to oppose Manichean delusions, and to contend for the doc trines of holiness and justice, which the Antinomians seem sworn destroy. Jerusalem is a city which is at unity in itself. As soon as ye will cordially unite, the Protestant Jerusalem will become a praise in the earth. The moment ye join creeds, hearts, and hands, our reproach is _ rolled away: the apostasy is ended: the apostolic, pentecostal Church returns from her long captivity in mystical Babylon. The two staves, beauty and bands, become one in the hand of the great Shepherd, who writes upon it ‘“ Bible Calvinists reconciled to Bible Arminians:” see Zech. xi, 7, and Ezek. xxxvii, 16, 17. Thus united, how happy are ye among yourselves! How formidable to your enemies! The men of the world are astonished, and say, ‘“‘ Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?” Surely it is a Church formed upon the model of the primitive Church. These people are Christians indeed. See how they — “ provoke one another to love and to good works!” Such will be the fruit of your reconciliation, and such the glory of “the Shulamite,” the peaceful Church! But, before I am aware, “ my . longing soul makes me like the chariots of Aminadab,” to go and admire | that truly reformed Church, whose members “are all of one heart and of one soul.” O ye pious Calvinists, and godly Arminians, if you desire to see her glory, express your wish in Solomon’s prophetic words, “Return, return, O Shulamite: return, return, that we may look upon thee. What will ye see in the Shulamite? As it were the company of two armies :” Cant. vi, 10, 12, 13: the combined force of the good ; ; at we © ges “ THIRD.] RECONCILIATION. a: 363 men who maintain the doctrines of grace and justice, and who, by their union, will become strong enough to demolish modern Babel, and to bat- ter down Pharisaism and Antinomianism, the two forts by which it is defended. For Pharisaism will never yield, but to the power of Bible Calvinism and the doctrines of grace. Nor can Antinomianism be con- -quered, without the help of Bible Arminianism and the doctrines of justice. And when Pharisaism and Antinomianism shall be destroyed, the Church will be “sanctified, cleansed, and ready to be presented to Christ,—a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.” ‘Then shall we sing with truth, what we sing without propriety :— . ** Love, like death, has all destroy’d, Render’d all distinctions void: Names, and sects, and parties fall, Thou, O Christ, art all in all.” * In the meantime, let us rejoice in hope, and sing with the Christian poet :-— ‘Giver of peace and unity, Send down thy mild, pacific Dove ; ia We all shall then in one agree, * And breathe the spirit of thy love. We all shall think and speak the same . Delightful lesson of thy grace ; One undivided Christ proclaim, And jointly glory in thy praise. w Regard thine own eternal prayer, And send a peaceful answer down: To us thy Father’s name_declare ; Unite and perfect us in one. So shall the world believe and know, That God has sent thee from above; When thou art seen in us below, And every soul displays thy love.” * When I hear contending Calvinists and Arminians agree to print and smg this verse, I am tempted to cry to them, ‘“‘ Be at peace among yourselves,” or sing at your love-feasts,— Love has not our pride destroy’d, Render’d our distinctions void ; Names, and sects, and parties rise, Peace retires, and mounts the skies cthenncivnnrs aul re om =e PT 1} * iihons ' j at A REPLY * TO THE ‘PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS BY WHICH a THE CALVINISTS AND THE FATALISTS SUPPORT THE DOCTRINE OF d . sd ABSOLUTE NECESSITY : "4 w BEING ; ‘ j REMARKS ® ‘ ON THE REV. MR. TOPLADY’S “SCHEME OF CHRISTIAN AND PHILO. SOPHICAL NECESSITY.” bi “ Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,” Col. ii, 8. i | mK ere gl? > . ” a - By wits INTRODUCTION. “ Mr. Votrarre at the head of the Deists abroad; President Edwards and Mr. Toplady at the head of the Calvinists in America and Great | Britain; and Dr. Hartley, seconded by Dr. Priestley and Mr. Hume, at the head of many ingenious philosophers, have of late years joined their literary forces to bind man with what Mr. Toplady calls « ineluc- tabilis ordo rerum,” or “the extensive series of adamantine inks,” which form the chain of “absolute necessity.” An invisible chain this, by which, if their scheme be true, God and nature inevitably bind upon us all our thoughts and actions; so that no good man can absolutely think or do worse—no wicked man can at any time think or do better than he " does, each exactly filling up the measure of unavoidable virtue or vice which God, as the first cause, or the predestinating and necessitating author of all things, has allotted to him from ail eternity. Mr. Toplady triumphs in seeing the rapid progress which this doctrine es, by the help of the above-mentioned authors, who shine with distinguished lustre in the learned world. «Mr. Wesley,” says he, “laments that necessity is ‘the scheme which is now adopted by not a few of the most sensible men in the nation.’ I agree with him as to the fact: but I cannot deplore it as a calamity. The progress which that doctrine has of late years made, and is still making in the kingdom, I consider as a most happy and promising symptom,” &c. I flatter myself that I shall by and by show, upon theological prin- ciples, the mischievous absurdity of that spreading doctrine, in an Answer to Mr. Toplady’s Vindication of the Decrees. But as he has lately published a book entitled, “The scheme of Christian and Philo- sophical Necessity, asserted in opposition to Mr. J. Wesley’s Tract on that Subject ;” and as he has advanced in that book some arguments taken from philosophy and Scripture, I shall now take notice of them. To defend truth effectually, error must be entirely demolished. There. fore, without any farther apology, I present the lovers of truth with the following refutation of the grand error which supports the Calyinian and Voltarian gospels. ° : . A REPLY, &c. —_——_ -Asiow of the doctrine of absolute necessity, as it is maintained by Mr. _ _Toplady and his adherents. This doctrine (as well as Manicheism) j makes God the author of every sin. Conrrovertists frequently accuse their opponents of holding detest- able or absurd doctrines, which they never advanced, and which have no necessary connection with their principles. That I may not be guilty of so ungenerous a proceeding, I shall first present the reader with an account of necessity and her pedigree, in Mr. Toplady’s own words. Scheme of Christian and Philosophical Necessity, (pages 13, 14:) « If As we distinguish accurately, this seems to have been the order in ick ’ ‘the most judicious of the ancients considered the whole matter. First, | God ; then his will ; then fate, or the solemn ratification of his will, by _ passing and establishing it into an unchangeable decree ; then creation ; then necessity ; that is, such an indissoluble concatenation_of secondary causes and effects as has a native tendency to secure the certainty of all __ events, as one wave is impelled by another ;* then providence ; that is, the omnipresent, omnivigilant, all-directing ‘The might have added ail- impelling| superintendency of Divine wisdom and power, carrying the whole preconcerted scheme into actual execution, by the subservient mediation of second causes, which were created for that end.” This is the full view of the doctrine which the Calvinists and the better sort of fatalists defend. I would only ask a few questions upon it. (1.) If all our actions, and consequently all our sins, compose the seventh link of the chain of Calvinism ;—if the first link is God; the second his will; the third his decree; the fourth creation; the fifth necessity; the sixth providence ; and the seventh sin; is it not as easy to trace the pedigree of sin through providence, necessity, creation, God’s decree, and God’s will, up to God himself, as it is to trace back | the genealogy of the prince of Wales, from George III, by George I, up to George I? And upon this plan is it not clear that suv is as much the real offspring of God, as the prince of Wales is the real offspring of George the First ? (2.) If this is the case, does not Calvinism, or if you please, | fatalism or necessitarianism, absolutely make God the author of sin by means of his will, his decree, his creation, his necessitation, . his impelling providence? And (horrible to think!) does’ it not un- avoidably follow, that the monster sry is the offspring of God’s provi- dence, of God’s necessitation, of God’s creation, of God’s decree, of ‘God’s will, of God himself? (3.) If this Manichean doctrine be true, when Christ came to destroy sin, did he not come to destroy the work f God, rather than the work of the devil? And when preachers ! * Mr. T. puts this clause in Latin: Velut unda impellitur unda. _ Vor. II. 24 370 REMARKS ON TOPLADY S attack sin, do they not attack God’s providence, God’s necessitation, God’s creation, God’s decree, God’s will, and God himself? (4.) To do God and his oracles justice, ought we not to give the following Scriptural genealogy of sn? A sinful act is the offspring of a sinful choice ; a sinful choice is the offspring of self perversion; and self per- version may or may not follow from free will put in a state of probation, or under a practical law. When you begin at sin, you can never ascend higher than free will; and when you begin at God, you car never descend lower than free will. Thus, (i.) God; (ii.) his will te make free-willing, accountable creatures ; (iii.) his puttmg his will in execution by the actual creation of such creatures; (iv.) legislation on God’s part; (v.) voluntary,,unnecessitated obedience on the part of those who make a good use of their free will; and (vi.) voluntary, un. necessitated disobedience on the part of those who make a bad use of it. Hence it is evident, that by substituting necessity for free will, and absolute decrees for righteous legislation, Mr. Toplady breaks the golden’ chain which our gracious Creator made, and helps Manes, Augustine, Calvin, Hobbes, Voltaire, Hume, Dr. Hartley, and Dr. Priestley, tc hammer out the iron-clay chain by which they hang sin upon Goé himself. (5.) If all our sins with all their circumstances and aggrave tions, are only a part of “the whole preconcerted scheme” which “ Divine wisdom and power’ absolutely and irresistibly “carry into actual execution by the subservient mediation of second causes, which were created for that end;” who can rationally blame sinners for answering the end for which they were absolutely created? Who cai refuse to exculpate and pity the reprobates, whom all-impelling omnipo- tence carries into sin, and into hell, as irresistibly as a floating cork is carried toward the shore by tossing billows which necessarily impel one another? And who will not be astonished at the erroneous notions which the consistent fatalists have of their God? A God this who necessitates, yea, impels men to sin by his will, his decree, his necessix tation, and his providence: then gravely weeps and bleeds over them for sinning. And after having necessitated and impelled the non-eléet to disbelieve and despise his blood, will set up a judgment seat to damr hem for “necessarily carrying his preconcerted scheme into ae execution,” as “ second causes which were created for that‘end!” __ “Q! but they do it voluntarily as well as necessarily, and therefore ‘they are accountable and judicable.” This Calvinian salvo makes a bad matter worse. For if all their sins are necessarily brought about ‘by God’s all-impelling decree, their willing and bad choice are brought ‘about by the same preconcerted, irresistible means ; one of the ends of God’s necessitation, with respect to the reprobate, being to make them sin with abundantly greater freedom and choice than if they were not necessitated and impelled by God’s predestinating, efficacious, ire sistible decree. This Mr. Toplady indirectly asserts in the following” argument :— 1 ie Page 15. “They [man’s actions—man’s sins] may be, at one and the same time, free and necessary too. When Mr. Wesley is very hungry and tired, he is necessarily, and yet freely, disposed to food or rest. His will is concerned in sitting down to dinner, or in courting repose, wh necessity impels to either. Necessarily biassed as he is to those 7 PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 37. mediums of recruit, he has recourse to them as freely (that is, as volun- tarily, and with as much appetite, choice, desire, and relish) as if necessity were quite out of the case; nay, and with abundantly greater freedom and choice than if he was not so necessitated and impelled.” Is not this as much as to say, “As necessitation, the daughter of God’s decree, impels Mr. Wesley to eat, by giving him an appetite to food: so it formerly impelled Adam, and now it impels all the reprobates to sin, by giving them an appetite to wickedness. And _ necessarily biassed as they are to adultery, robbery, and other crimes, they commit them as freely, i. e. with as much appetite and choice, as if necessity were quite out of the case: nay, and with abundantly greater freedom and choice than if they were not so necessitated and impelled.” Is not this reviving one of the most impious tenets of the Manichees? Is it not confounding the Lamb of God with the old dragon, and coupling the celestial Dove with the infernal serpent ? If you ask, “ Where is the flaw of Mr. Toplady’s argumentative ilius- tration?” I answer, It has two capital defects: (1.) That God’s will, his decree, and his providence, impel Mr. Wesley to eat when he is hungry, is very true ; because eating in such a case is, in general, Mr. Wesley’s duty; and reminding him of his want of nourishment, by the sensation which we call hunger, is a peculiar favour, worthy of the Parent of good te bestow. But the question is, Whether God’s will, decree, and providence, impelled Adam to choose the forbidden fruit rather than any other, and excited David to go to Uriah’s wife, rather than to his own wives? How illogical, how detestable is this conclusion! God necessi- tates and impels us to do our duty; and therefore he necessitates and impels us to do wickedness! But, (2.) The greatest absurdity belonging to Mr. Toplady’s illustration is, his pretending to overthrow the doctrine of free will by urging the hunger, which God gives to Mr. Wesley, in _ order to necessitate and impel him»to eat, according to the decree of Calvinian neceéssitation, which is absolutely irresistible. Mr. T. says, (page 13,) “‘ We call that necessary which cannot be otherwise than it is.” Now Mr. Wesley’s eating when he is hungry is by no means Caivinistically necessary: for he has a hundred times reversed the decree of his hunger by fasting ; and if he were put to the sad alterna- tive of the woman who was to starve or to kill and eat her own child, he both could and would go full against the necessitation of his hunger, and neyer eat more. Mr. Toplady’s illustration, therefore, far from proving that God’s necessitation irresistibly impels us to commit sin, indirectly demonstrates that God’s necessitation does not so much as absolutely * impel us to do those things which the very laws of our constitution and nature themselves bind upon us, by the strong necessity of self preserva- tion. For some people have so far resisted the urgent calls of nature and appetite, as not only to make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, but even literally to starve themselves to death. I once saw a man who played the most amazing tricks with a pack of cards. His skill consisted in so artfully shuffling them, and imper- ceptibly substituting one for another, that when you thought you had fairly secured the king of hearts, you found yourself possessed only of the knave of clubs. The defenders of the doctrine of necessity are not less skilful. I shall show, in another tract, with what subtilty Mr. T 372 REMARKS ON TOPLADY S uses “ permission” for efficacy,—no “ salvation due,” for eternal torments insured ; “not enriching,” for absolute reprobation ; and “ passing by,” for absolutely appointing to remediless sin and everlasting burnings. us now consider the grand, logical substitution which deceives gentleman, and by which he misleads the admirers of his scheme. Page 14. “TI acquiesce in the old distinction of necessity [a distinction adopted by Luther and others] into a necessity of compulsion, and a necessity of infallible certainty. We say of the earth, for instance, that it circuits the sun by compulsory necessity. The necessity of infalli- ble certainty is of a very different kind, and only renders the event inevitably future, without any compulsory force on the will of the agent.’ If Mr. T. had said, “ The necessity of trwe prophecy considers an event as certainly future, but puts no Calvinian, irresistible bias on the will ¢ the agent ;” I would have subscribed to his distinction. But instead of the words truly certain, or certainly future, which would have perfectly explained what may improperly be called necessity of true prophecy, and what should be called certain futurity ; instead of those words, I sa he artfully substitutes, first, “infallibly certain,” and then “inevitably future.” The phrase infallibly certain may be admitted to pass, if you understand by it that which does not fail to happen: but if you take it in a rigid sense, and mean by it that which cannot absolutely fail to happen, you get a step out of the way, and you may easily go on shuf fling your logical cards, till you have imposed fatalism upon the simple, by making them believe that certainly future, infallibly future, and inevitably future, are three phrases of the same import; whereas the ' difference between the first and last phrase is as great as the difference between Mr. Wesley’s Scriptural doctrine of free will, and Mr. T.’s Manichean doctrine of absolute necessity. It is the property of error to be inconsistent. Accordingly we find that Mr. T., after having told us, p/14, that the “necessity of infallible certainty,” which renders the event inevitably future, lays “no compul- sory force on the will of the agent,” tells us, in the very same page, that his Calvinian necessity is “such an indissoluble concatenation of second. ary causes, [created for that end, ] and of eflects, as has a native tendency to secure the certainty of events, [i. e. of all volitions, murders, adultes ries, and incests,] sicut unda impellitur ‘unda ;” as one wave impels another; or as the first link of a chain, which you pull, draws the second, the second the third, and so on. Now if all our volitions are pushed forward by God through the means of his absolute will, his irresistible decree, his efficacious creation, and his all-conquering ne- cessitasion, which is nothing but an adamantine chain of second causes created by Providence in order to produce absolutely all the effects which are produced, and to make them impel each other, “as one wave impels another ;” we desire to know how our volitions can be thus irre. sisiibly impelled upon us “ without any compulsory farce on our will.” I do not see how Mr. T. can get over this contradiction, otherwise than by saying, that although God’s necessitation is irresistibly impulsory, yet it is not at all compulsory; although it absolutely impels us to will, yet it does not in the least compel us to be willing. But would so frivolous, so absurd a distinction as this, wipe off the foul blot which the scheme of necessity fixes on the Father of lights, when i; represent? PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 373 him as the first cause, and the grand contriver of all our sinful volitions ? Mr. T., pp. 133, 134, among other pieces of Manicheism, gives us the following account of that strange religion :—‘“ There are two inde- pendent gods, or infinite principles, viz. light and darkness. The first js the author of all good; and the second of all evil. The evil god made sin. ‘The good god and the bad god wage implacable war against each other; and perpetually clog and disconcert one another’s schemes and operations. Hence men are impelled, Sc, to good, or to evil, ac- cording as they come under the power of the good deity, or the bad one.” Or, to speak Calvinistically, they are necessarily made willing to believe and obey, if they are the elected objects of everlasting love, which is the good principle ; and they are irresistibly made willing to disbelieve and disobey, if they are the reprobated objects of everlasting wrath, which is the evi principle. For free will has no more place in Manicheism than it has in Calvinism. Hence it appears that, setting aside the other peculiarities of each scheme, the grand difference be- tween Calvin and Manes on in Calvin’s making everlasting, elect- ing, necessitating love, and everlasting, reprobating, necessitating wrath, to flow from the same Divine principle ; whereas Manes more reasona- bly supposed that they flow from two contrary principles. Whoever therefore denies free will, and contends for necessity, embraces, before he is aware, the capital error of the Manichees; and it is well if he do not hold it in a less reasonable manner than Manes himself did. “J believe,” adds Mr. Toplady, “it is absolutely impossible to trace quite up to its source the antiquity of that hypothesis which absurdly affirms - the existence of two eternal, contrary, independent principles. What led so many wise people, and for so great a series of ages, into such a wretched mistake, were chiefly, I suppose, these two considerations: (1.) That evil, both moral and physical, are positive things, and so must have a positive cause. (2.) That a being, perfectly good, could not, from the very nature of his existence, be the cause of such bad things.” Here Mr. Toplady reasons like a judicious divine. The misfortune for his scheme is, that his “two considerations,” like two mill stones, grind Calvinism to dust; or, like two cogent arguments, force us to embrace the doctrine of free will, or the error of Manes. Mr. Toplady seems aware of this; and therefore to show that God can, upon the Calvinian plan, absolutely predestinate, and effectually bring about sin, by making men willing to sin in the day of his irresistible power; and that nevertheless he is not the author and first cause of sin; to show this, I say, Mr. Toplady asserts, “that evil, whether physical or moral, does not, upon narrow inspection, appear to have so much of positivity in it, as it is probable those ancients supposed.” Nay, he insinuates that as “sickness is a privation of health; so the sinfulness of any human action is said to be a privation ;” being called avowsa, “ illegality ;” and he adds, that wonderful as the thing may appear, Dr. Watts, in his _ Logic, “ventures to treat of sin under the title of not being.”* When * If the Calvinists, in their unguarded moments, represent sin as a kind of not being or nonentity, that they may exculpate God for absolutely ordaining it, do they not by this means exculpate the sinner also? If the first cause of sin is excusable, because sin is a privation, and has ‘‘not so much of positivity in it as * 374 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S q Mr. Toplady has thus cleared the way, and modestly intimated that sin, being a kind of nonentity, can have no positive cause, he proposes” the grand question, “‘ whether the great first cause, who is infinitely and merely good, can be either efficiently or deficiently the author of them?” — that is (according to the context) the author of iniquity, injustice, im. piety, and vice, as well as the author of the natural evil by which God punishes sin? r Page 139, Mr. Toplady answers this question thus :—“ In my opinion, the single word permission solves the whole difficulty, as far as it can be solved,” &c. And page 141, he says, “ We know scarce any of the views which induced uncreated goodness to ordain (for, &c, I see no great difference between permitting and ordaining) the introgression, or more properly the intromission, of evil.” Here Mr. Toplady goes as far as he decently can. Rather than grant that we are endued with free will, and that when God had made angels and men free-willing creatures, in order to judge them according to their own works, he could not, without inconsistency, rob them of free will by necessitating them to be either good or wicked; rather, I say, than admit this Scrip- tural doctrine, which perfectly clears “the gracious. Judge of all*the earth, Mr. Toplady first indirectly and decently extenuates sin, and brings it down to almost nothing, and then he tells us that God ordained it. Is not the openness of Manes preferable to this Calvinistic winding ? When Mr. Toplady grants that God “ordained” sin, and when he charges “the intromission of evil” upon God, does he not grant all that Manes in this respect contended for? And have not the Manichean necessitarians the advantage’ over Mr. Toplady, when they assert that a principle, which absolutely ordains, yea, necessitates sin and all the works of darkness, is a dark and evil principle? Can we doubt of it, if we believe these sayings of Christ? “Out of the [evil] heart proceed evil thoughts, &c. By their works you shall know them. ‘The tree is known by its fruit.” . Again: if “sin,” or rather the sinfulness of an action, may be pro- perly called a “not being,” or a nonentity, as Mr. 'Toplady incen- sistently insinuates, page 137, it absurdly follows, that crookedness, or the want of straightness in a line, is a mere privation also, or a not being: whereas reason and feeling tell us that the crookedness of a crooked line is something every way as positive as the straightness of a straight line. To deny it is as ridiculous as to assert that a circle is a not being, because it is not made of straight lines like a square ; or that — a murder is a species of nonentity, because it is not the legal execution — of a condemned malefactor. Nor can Mr. Toplady mend his error by hiding it behind “Dr. Watts’ Logic ;” for the world knows that Dr. — Watts was a Calvinist when he wrote that book; and therefore, judi- ; cious as he was, the veil of error prevented him from seeing then that part of the truth which I contend for. : Once more: whether sin has a positive cause or not, (for Mr. Top- — lady insinuates both these doctrines with the inconsistency peculiar to _ F his system,) I beg leave te involve him in a dilemma, which will meet him at the front or back door of his inconsistency. Hither sin 7s a real the ancients supposed,” is not the second cause of sin much more excusable on : the same account? : PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 375 thing, and has a positive cause; or it zs not a real thing, and has no positive cause. If it 1s Nor a real thing, and has no positive cause, why does God positively send the wicked to hell for a privation which they have not positively caused? And if sin 1s a real thing, or a positive moral crookedness of the will of a sinner, and as such has a positive cause; can that positive cause be any other than the self perversion of free will, or the impelling decree of a sin-ordaining God? If the posi- tive cause of sin is the self perversion of free will, is it not evident, that so sure as there is sin in the world, the doctrine of free will is true? But if the positive cause of sin is the zmpel/ing decree of a sin-ordaining, sin-necessitating God; is it not incontestable that the capital doctrine of the Manichees, the doctrine of absolute necessity is true; and that there is in the Godhead an evil principle, (it signifies little whether you call it matter, darkness, everlasting free wrath, or devil,) which positively ordains and irresistibly causes sin? In a word, is it not clear that the second Gospel axiom is overthrown by the doctrine of necessity; and that the damnation of sinners is of God, and not of themselves? hile Mr. Toplady tries to, extricate himself from this dilemma, I shall produce one or two more’passages of this book to prove that his scheme makes God the author of sin, according to the most dangerous error of Manes. The heathens imagined that Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, was Jupiter’s offspring in the most peculiar manner. Diana was indeed Jupiter’s daughter, but Latona, an earthly princess, was her mother: whereas Jupiter was at once the father and mother of Minerva. He begat her himself in the womb of his own bram, and when she was ripe fer the birth, his forehead opened after a violent headache, which answered:to the pangs of child bearing, and out came the lovely female deity. Mr. Toplady, alluding to this heathen fiction, represents his Diana, necessity, as proceeding from God with her immense chain of eyents, which has among its adamantine links all the follies, heresies, murders, robberies, adulteries, incests, and rebellions, of which men and deyils have been, are, or ever shall be guilty. His own words, page 50, are, “ Necessity, in general, with all its extensive series of adamantine links in particular, is, in reality, what the poets feigned of Minerva, the issue of Divine wisdom: [he should have said the issue of the supreme God, by his own wise brain,] deriving its whole existence from the free wil of God; and its whole effectuosity from his neyer-ceasing provi- dence.” Is not this insinuating, as plainly as decency will allow, that every sin, as a link of the adamantine chain of events, has been ham- mered in heaven, and that every crime “ derives its whole existence from the free will of God?” Take one more instance of the same Manichean doctrine := Page 64. Mr. Toplady having said that “he [God] casteth forth his ice like morsels, and causeth his wind to blow,” &c, adds, “ Neither is material nature alone bound fast in fate. Al] other things, the human will itself not excepted, are not less tightly bound, i. e. effectually in- fluenced and determined.” Hence it is evident, that if this Calvinism is true, when sinners send forth volleys of unclean and profane words, Calvin’s God has as “tightly bound” them to cast forth Manichean ~ ribaldry, as the God of nature binds the clouds to “cast forth his ice like morsels,” 376 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S I would not be understood to demonstrate by the preceding quota. tions, that Mr. Toplady designs to make God the author of sin. No: on the contrary, I do him the justice to say, that he does all he can to clear his doctrines of grace from this dreadful imputation. I only pro- duce his own words to show that, notwithstanding ail his endeavours, this horrid Manichean consequence unavoidably flows from his Scheme | of Necessity. —— SECTION II. Mr. Toplady attempts to support his Scheme of Absolute Necessity by — philcsophy—His philosophical error is overthrown by fourteen argu- — ments— What truth comes nearest to his error. We have taken a view of the Scheme of Necessity, and seen how it represents God, directly or indirectly, as the first cause of all sin and damnation. Consider we now how Mr. T. defends this scheme by © #rational arguments as a philosopher. e Page 22. “The soul is, in a very extensive degree, passive as matter is.” Here Mr. Toplady, in some degree, gives up the poimt. He is” about to prove that the soul is not self determined ; and that, as our — bodily organs are necessarily and_ irresistibly affected by the objects which strike them; so our souls are necessarily and irresistibly deter- mined by our bodily organs, and by the ideas which those organs ne- cessarily raise in our minds, when they are so affected. Now, to prove this, he should have proved that our souls are altogether as passive as our bodies. But, far from proving it, he dares not assert it : for he allows that the soul is passive as matter, only “in a very extensive de- gree ;” and therefore, by his own concession, the argument on which he is going to rest the notion of the absolute passiveness of the soul with respect to self determination, will be at least in some degree ground. less. But let us consider this mighty argument, and see if Mr. T.’s limitation frees him from the charge of countenancing materialism, “in a very extensive degree.” Page 22. “The senses are necessarily impressed by every object from without, and as necessarily commove the fibres of the brain; from ~ which nervous commotion, ideas are necessarily cortitttanented to, or excited in the soul; and by the judgment, which the soul necessarily — frames of those ideas, the will is necessarily inclined to approve or dis- approve, to act or not toact. If so, where is the boasted power of self determination ?” ; This Mr. Toplady calls “a survey of the soul’s dependence on the body.” Page 27, he enforces the same doctrine in these words: “The — human body is necessarily encompassed by a multitude of other bodies. — Which other surrounding bodies, animal, vegetable, &c, so far as we come within their perceivable sphere, necessarily i impress our nerves with sensations correspondent to the objects themselves. These sensa- tions are necessarily, &c, propagated to the soul, which can no more help receiving them, and being affected by them, than a tree can resist a stroke of lightning. « Now, (1.) If all the ideas in the soul derive their existence from PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 317 sensation; and, (2.) If the soul depend absolutely on the body, for all those sensations; and, (3.) If the body be both primarily and continu- ally dependent on other extrinsic beings, for the very sensations which it [the body] communicates to the soul ; the consequence seems to me undeniable, that neither man’s mental, aie his outward operations are self determined; but, on the contrary, determined by the views with which an infinity of surrounding objects necessarily, and almost inces- santly impress his intellect.” These arguments bring to my mind St. Paul’s caution : “ Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit.” That Mr. T.’s scheme is founded on a vain philosophy, will, I hope, appear evi- dent to those who weigh the following remarks :— I. This scheme is contrary to genuine philosophy, which has always represented the soul as able to resist the strongest impressions of the objects that surround the body; and as capable of going against the wind and tide of all the senses. Even Horace, an effeminate disciple of Epicurus, could say, in his sober moments, > ” Justum et tenacem propositi virum, &e. « Neither the clamours of a raging mob, nor the frowns of a threaten- ing tyrant; neither furious storms, nor roaring thunders can move a righteous man, who stands firm to his resolution. The wreck of the world might crush his body to atoms, but could not shake his soul with fear.” But Mr. T.’s philosophy sinks as much bejow the poor hea- then’s, as a man who is perpetually borne down and carried away by every object of sense around him, is inferior to the steady man, whose virtue triumphs over all the objects which strike his senses. II. This doctrine unmans man. For reason, or a power morally te regulate the appetites which we gratify by means of our senses, is what chiefly distinguishes us from other animals. Now if outward objects necessarily bias our senses, if our senses necessarily bias our judgment, and if our judgment necessarily bias our will and practice, what ad- vantage have we over beasts?) May we not say of reason, what heated Luther once said of free will; that it is an empty name, a mere non- entity?’ Thus Mr. Toplady’s “Scheme of Philosophical Necessity,” by rendering reason useless, saps the very foundation of all moral phi- losophy, and hardly allows man the low principle of conduct which we call instinct in brutes: nay, the very brutes are not so affected by the objects which strike their senses; but they often run away, hungry as they are, from the food which tempts their eye, their nose, and their belly, when they apprehend some danger, though their senses discover none. Beasts frequently act in full opposition to the sight of their eyes ; but the wretched scheme, which Mr. T. imposes upon us as Christian philosophy, supposes that all men necessaril y think, judge, and act, not only “according to the sight of their eyes,” but according to the im- pressions made by matter, upon all their senses. How would heathen- ish fatalists themselves have exploded so carnal a philosophy! Ill. As it sets aside reason, so it overthrows conscience, and “ the light which enlightens every man that comes into the world.” For of what use is conscience? Of what use is the internal light of grace, which enlightens conscience within, if man is necessarily determined 378 REMARKS ON TOPLADY $ from withovt ; and if the objects which strike his senses, irresistibly turn — his judgment and his will; insomuch that he can no more resist their impression “than a tree can resist the stroke of lightning ?” iat IV. As this scheme leaves no room for morality, so it robs us of the very essence of God’s natural image, which consists chiefly in self acti- vily and self motion. For, according to Mr. T.’s philosophy, we cannot take one step, no, not in the affairs of common life, without an irresistible, necessitating impu'se. Yea, with respect to self activity, he represents us as inferior to our watches: they have their spring of motion within themselves, and they can go alone, if they are wound up once in twenty- four hours. But, if we believe Mr. T., our spring of motion is without us: nay, we have as many springs of motion as there are objects around us ; and these objects necessarily wind up our will from moment to mo- ment. For, by necessarily moving our senses, they necessarily move our understandings ; our understanding necessarily moves our will ; and our will necessarily moves our tongues, hands, and feet. Thus our will — and our body, like the wheels and body of a coach, never move but as ‘they are moved, and cannot help moving when they are acted upon. How different is this mechanical religion from the spiritual religion which the learned and pious Dr. H. More inculcates in these words :— “The first degree of the Divine image was self motion or self activity. For mere passivity, or to be moved or acted by another, without a man’s will, &e, i is the condition of such as are either dead or asleep; as to go of a man’s self is a symptom of one alive or awake. _Men that are dead drunk may be haled, or disposed of where others please.” To be irre- sistibly acted upon is then to be “deprived of that degree of life which — is self activity, or the doing of things from an inward principle of free agency ; and therefore it is to be, so far, n a state of death.” Nor will Mr. T. mend the matter by urging that our understanding and our will are first necessarily moved and determined by the objects — which surround us. For the motion of a coach drawn by horses, and driven by a coachman, is not the less mechanical, because the smooth axletree, and the oiled wheels, being first set in motion, move the whole — coach by readily yielding to the impulse of the external mover. Were such wheels as full of consciousness and willingness as the mystic wheels of Ezekiel’s vision ; yet, so long as they moved by absolute necessity, or by an oil of willingness irresistibly applied to them from without, their — motion would not be more commendable than that of a well suspended and oiled wheel, which the touch of your finger moves round its axis. It turns indeed freely and (according to supposition) willingly : but yet, as it wills and moves irresistibly and passively, its moving and willing are — merely mechanical. So easy and short is the transition from the scheme of absolute necessity to that of universal mechanism ! V. If Mr. T.’s scheme of necessity be true, all sin may be ae charged upon Providence, who, by the “ surrounding objects which neces- sarily impress our intellect,” causes sin as truly, and as irresistibly, as a gunner causes the explosion of a loaded cannon, by the lighted mateh which he applies to the touch hole. And Eve was unwise when she said, “ The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat ;” for she might have said, é Lord, I have only followed the appointed law of my nature : for, pro- videntially coming within sight of the tree of knowledge, I perceived PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 379 that ‘the fruit was good for food, and pleasant to the eye.’ It necessa- rily impressed my nerves with correspondent sensations; these sensa- tions were necessarily and instantaneously propagated to my soul ; and my soul could no more help receiving these forcible impressions, and eating in consequence of them, than a tree can resist a stroke of light- ning.” I should be glad to know with what justice Eve could have been condemned after such a plea, if Mr. 'T.’s scheme be true ? Especially if she had urged, as Mr. T’. does, p. 14, that God’s necessitation gives birth to “ providence ;” that is, “to the all-directing superintendency of Divine wisdom and power, carrying the whole preconcerted scheme into actual execution, by the subservient mediation of second causes [such as the fair colour of the fruit, and the eye of Eve] which were created for that end.” Can any man say, that if Mr. T. be right, Eve would have “ charged God foolishly ?” However, if Eve did not know how to exculpate herself properly, according to the doctrine of Divine necessitation, Mr. Toplady knows how to reduce his Gospel] to practice ; and therefore, in a, humorous manner, he justifies his illiberal treatment of his opponent thus: p. 10, “Mr. Wesley imagines that, upon my own principles, I can be no more than a clock. And if so, how can I help striking ? He himself has several times smarted for coming too near the pendulum.” What a sweet and profitable Gospel is this! Who would wonder, if all who love to “strike their fellow servants” should embrace Mr. Toplady’s system, as a comfortable “ doctrine of grace,” by which sin may be humourously palliated, and striking sinners completely justified ? VI. It is contrary to Scripture : for, if man be necessarily affected, and irresistibly wrought upon, or led by the forcible impressions of external objects, Paul spake like a heretical free willer when he said, “ All things [indifferent] are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any.” How foolish was this saying, if he could “no more help being brought under the irresistible power of the objects which surrounded him, than a tree can help being struck by the light- ning ?” VII. It is contrary to common sense: how can God reasonably set life and death, water and fire before us, and bid us choose eternal life, and living water, if surrounding objects work upon us, as the lightning works upon a tree on which it falls? And when the Lord commands the reprobates to choose virtue, afier having bound them over to vice by the adamantine chain of necessitation, does he not insult over their misery, as much as a sheriff would do, who, after having ordered the execu- tioner to bind a man’s hands, to fasten his neck to the gallows, and abso- lutely to drive away the cart from under him, should gravely bid the. wretch to choose life and liberty, and bitterly exclaim against him for “ neglecting so great” a deliverance ! VIII. It is contrary to the sentiments of all the Churches of Christ, except those of necessitarian Rome and Geneva: for they all reasonably require us to renounce the pomps of the world, and the alluring, sinful baits of the flesh. But if these pomps and baits work upon us by means of our senses, as necessarily, and determine our will as irresistibly as lightning shivers a tree, can any thing be more absurd than our baptis- mal engagements? Might we not as well seriously vow never to be 380 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S struck by the lightning in a storm, as solemnly vow never to be led by, or follow the vanities of the world and the sinful lusts of the flesh? IX. It represents the proceedings of the day of judgment, as the most _ unrighteous, cruel, and hypocritical acts, that ever disgraced the tribunal * ofa tyrant. For if God, by eternal, absolute, and necessitating decrees, places the reprobates in the midst of a current of circumstances, which carries them along as irresistibly as a rapid river wafts a feather ; if he encompasses them with tempting objects, which strike their souls with — ideas, that cause sin in their hearts and lives, as inevitably as a stroke of lightning raises splinters in the tree which it shatters ; and if we can no more help being determined by these objects, which God’s providence has placed around us on purpose to determine us, than a tree can resist a stroke of lightning ; it unavoidably follows, that when God will judi- cially condemn the wicked, and send them to hell for their sins, he will act with as much justice as the king would do, if he sent to the gallows all his subjects who have had the misfortune of being struck with light. ning. Nay, to make the case parallel, we must suppose that the king has the absolute command of the lightning, and had previously struck them with the fiery ball, that he might subsequently condemn them to be hanged for having been struck, according to his absolute decree. . Should the reader, who is not yet initiated into the mystery of the Calvinian decrees, ask, if it be possible that rigid bound willers should fix so horrible a blot upon the characier of “ the Judge of all the earth ?” I answer in the affirmative ; and I prove, by the following words of Mr. Toplady, that, if Calvinism be true, the pretended sentence which the Judge shall pass in the great day, will be only a publication or ratification of the everlasting decrees, by which a Manichean deity absolutely — necessitates some men to repent and be saved, and others to sin and be damned. “ Christ,” says Mr. Toplady, in his Zanch. p. 87, “ will then properly sit as a Judge; and openly publish, and solemnly ratify his everlasting decrees, by receiving the elect, &c, into glory; and by passing sentence on the non-elect, [&c,] for their wilful ignorance of Divine things, and their obstinate unbelief,’ &c. It is true that after the word non-elect Mr. 'T. adds in a parenthesis these words, “ not for having done what they could not help.” But it is equally true that he — had no more right to add this parenthesis, than I have to say that the lightning is at my command: for, throughout his Scheme of Necessity, he attempts to prove that man is not “ self determined,” but érresistibly determined by some other being, viz. by God, who absolutely determines him by “second causes created for that end ;” forcible causes these, whose impressions are so strong, that we “ can no more help receiving them [and being determined by them] than a tree can resist a stroke of lightning.” Beside, if the non-elect are damned “ for their obstinate unbelief,” as Mr. T. tells us in his quotation ; and if it be as impossible for them to believe as to make a world, (an absurd maxim this, which is ¥ inculcated by rigid bound wiliers,) it is evident that the non-elect can no — amore help their unbelief, than they can help their incapacity to — a world. X. Mr. Toplady’s Scheme of Necessity places matter and its: icogsei sions far above spirit and its influence. If his philosophy be true. every — material object around us, by making necessary, irresistible impressions PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 381 apon our minds, necessarily determines our will, and irresistibly impels our actions. According to this system, therefore, we cannot resist the powerful influence of matter: but, if we believe the Scriptures, we can «resist the Holy Ghost, and do despi‘e to the Spirit of grace.” Now, what is this, but to represent matter, (which is the God of the materialists, and the evil God of the Manichees,) as more active, quick, and powerful than spirit? Yea, than the Holy Spirit? Mr. Toplady may indeed say that the material objects, by which we are absolutely determined, are only God’s tools, by which God himself determines us: but, though this salvo may so far reconcile the Scheme of Necessity to itself; it will never reconcile it to such scriptures as these :—“ Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, as your fathers did. I would have gathered you, and ye would not.” And, what is still worse, it represents God as working Manichean iniquity by common adulterers and robbers, as forcibly as a miller grinds his corn, by the use he makes of a current of air or a stream of water. _ XI. The Scheme of Philosophical Necessity which I attack, supposes that God, to maintain order in the universe, is obliged to necessitate all events, from the wagging of a dog’s tail, or the rise of a particle of dust, to the murder of a king, or the rise of an empire. Thus Mr. T. tells us, in his preface to Zanchizs, p. 4, “ Bishop Hopkins did not go a jot too far in asserting,” that “ not a dust flies on a beaten road, but God raiseth it, conducts its uncertain motion, and, by his particular care, conveys it to the certain place he had before appointed for it: nor shall the most fierce and tempestuous wind hurry it any farther.” I object to this puerile system: (1.) Because it absurdly multiplies God’s decrees; rendering them not oaly as numerous as the sands on the sea shore, and the particles of dust on beaten roads, but also as countless as ali the motions of each grain of sand and particle of dust in all ages. At this rate, a large folio volume could not contain all the decrees of God concerning the least particle of dust; its rises and falls; its stops and hinderances ; its situations and modifications ; its whirlings to the right, or to the lefi, &c, &c. And, (2.) Because it represents God as being endued with less wisdom than a prudent king, who can maintaia good order in his kingdom without making particular laws or decrees to necessitate every eructation of his drunken soldiers, or every puff of his smoking subjects; and without ordaining every filthy jest which is u‘tered from the ale bench, appointing every loud invective which disturbs Billingsgate, and predestinating every wry face which the lunatics make in Bedlam. , XII. But what I chiefly dislike in this scheme, is its degrading all human souls in such a manner as to make them receive their moral excellence and depravity from the contexture of the brains by which they work, and from the place of the bodies in which they dwell. Insomuch, that all the difference there is between one who thinks loyally, and one who thinks otherwise ; between one who believes that Christ is God over all, and one who believes that he is a mere creature, consists, only in the make and position of their brains. Supposing, for example, that a gentleman has honourable thoughts of his king and of his Saviour, and is ready, from a principle of loyalty and faith, to defend the dignity of George the Third, and the divinity of Jesus Christ: supposing also, 382 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S that another gentleman breaks, without ceremony, these two evangelical — precepts, ‘“‘ Honour the king,—Let all the angels of God worship him” [Christ ;] I ask, Why is their moral and religious conduet so opposite? Is it because the first gentleman’s free-willing soul has intrinsically more " reverence for the king and for our Lord? Because he keeps his heart more tender by faith and prayer, and his conscience more devoid of prejudice, through a diligent improvement of his talent, or through a more faithful use of his free agency, and a readier submission to the light that enlightens every man? No such thing; if Mr. T.’s scheme be true, the whole difference consists in “ mud walls,” and external circumstances. Page 33, “'The soul of a monthiy reviewer, if imprisoned within the same mud walls which are tenanted by the soul of Mr. John Wesley, would, similarly circumstanced, reason and act, (I verily think,) exactly like the bishop of Moorfields.” And, pp. 34, 35, he adds, “I just now hinted the conjecture of some, that a human spirit incarcerated in the brain of a cat, would probably both think and behave as that animal does. - But how would the soul of a cat acquit itself if inclosed im the brain of a man? We cannot resolve this question with certainty, any more than the other.” Admirable divinity! So Mr. Toplady leaves the orthodox in doubt: (1.) Whether when their souls, and the souls of cats, shall be let out of their respective brains or prisons, the souls of cats will not be — equal to the souls of men. (2.) Whether, supposing the soul of a cat had been put in the brain of St. Paul, or of a monthly reviewer, the soul of “ puss” would not have made as great an apostle as the soul of Saul of Tarsus; as good a critic as the soul of the most sensible reviewer. And, (3. ) Whether, in case the “ human spirit” [of Isaiah] “ were shut up in the skull of a cat, puss would not, notwithstanding, move prone on all four, purr when stroked, spit when pinched, and birds and mice be her darling objects of pursuit,” p. 34. Is not this a pretty large stride, for the first, toward the doctrine of the sameness of the souls of men with the souls of cats and frogs? Wretched Calvinism, new-fangled doctrines of grace, where are you leading your deluded admirers? your principal vindicators? Is it not enough that you have spoiled the fountain of living waters, by turning it into the muddy streams of Zeno’s errors? Are ye also going to poison it by the absurdities of Pythagoras’ philosophy ? What a side stroke is here inadvertently given to these capital doctrines = God breathed into Adam the breath of life, and he became a living soul,”—a soul made “ in the image of God,” and not in the image of a cat: “ the spirit of the beast goeth downward to the earth : but the spirit of man goeth upward : it returns to God who gave it,” with an intention to judge and reward it according to its moral works. But I must do Mr. Toplady justice : he does not yet recommend this | doctrine as absolutely certain. However, from his capital doctrine, that human souls have no free will, no inward principle of self determination; and from his avowed opinion, that the soul of one man, placed in the body of another man, “ would, similarly circumstanced, reason and act — “exactly like” the man in whose mud walls it is lodged ; it evidently fol. ; lows: (1.) That had the human soul of Christ been placed in the eh and circumstances of Nero, it would have been exactly as wicked atrocious as the soul of that bloody monster was. And,.(2.) That x4 PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 383 Nero’s soul had been placed in Christ’s body, and in his trying circum. stances, it would have been exactly as virtuous and immaculate as that. of the Redeemer: the consequence is undeniable.” Thus, the merit of the man Christ did not in the least spring from his righteous soul, but from his “mud walls,” and from the happiness which his soul had of being lodged in a “brain peculiarly modified.” Nor did the demerit of Nero flow from his free agency and self perversion; but only from his “mud walls,” and from the infelicity which his necessitated soul had of being lodged in an “11u-constructed vehicle,” and placed on that throne on which Titus soon after deserved to be called the darling of mankind. See, O ye engrossers of orthodoxy, to what absurd lengths your aversion to the liberty of the will, and to evangelical worthiness, leads your unwary souls! And yet, if we believe Mr. Toplady, your scheme, which is big with these inevitable consequences, is Christian philosophy, and our doctrine of free will is “ philosophy run mad!” XIII. If our thoughts and actions necessarily flowed from the modifi- cations of our brains, and from the impressions of the objects around us, it would necessarily follow, that as most men, throughout the whole - world, see the sun bright, snow white, and scarlet red: or as most men taste aloes bitter, vinegar sour, and honey sweet ; so most men would think, speak, and act nearly with the same moral uniformity which is perceivable in their bodily organs, and in the objects which affect those organs : and it would be as impossible to improve in virtue, by a proper exertion of our powers, and by a diligent use of our talents, as it is im- possible to improve the whiteness of the snow, or our power to see it white, by a, diligent use of our sight. At this rate too, conversion would not be so much a reformation of our spiritual habits as a reformation of our brains. XIV. But the worst consequences are yet behind: for if God works upon our souls in the same manner in which he works upon matter; if he raises our ideas, volitions, and passions, as necessarily as a strong wind raises the waves of the sea, with their roar, their foam, and their other accidents; in a word, if he works as absolutely and irresistibly upon spirit as he does upon matter; it follows that spirit and matter, being governed upom the same principles, are of the same nature ; and that if there be any difference between the soul and the body, it is only such a difference as there is between the tallow which composes a lighted candle, and the flame which arises out of it. The light flame is as really matter as the heavy tallow and the ponderous candlestick ; and all are equally passive and subject to the laws of absolute necessity. Again :— If virtue and vice necessarily depend on the modification of our brains, and the objects which surround us; it follows that the effect will cease with the cause, and that bodily dissolution will consign our virtue or vice to the dust, into which our brains and bodily organs will soon be turned ; and that when the souls of the righteous, and the souls of the wicked, shall be removed from their “mud walls,” and from the objects whic surround those mud walls, they will be (nearly at least) on a level with each other, if they are not on aJevel with the souls of cats and dogs. Lest Mr. Toplady’s admirers should think that prejudice makes me place his mistakes in too strong a light, [shall close these arguments by 334 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S the judgment of the monthly reviewers. In their Review for 1775, they give us the following abridged account of Mr. Toplady’s Scheme. of Necessity :— 7 “The old controversy concerning liberty and necessity has lately been renewed: Mr. Toplady avows himself a strenuous and very posl. tive champion on the side of necessity, and revives those arguments which were long since urged by Spinoza, Hobbes, &c, [two noted inf dels, or rather Atheistical materialists. ] It is somewhat singular in the history of this dispute, that those who profess themselves the friends of revelation, should so earnestly contend for a system which unbelievers have very generally adopted and maintained. ‘This appears the more strange, when we consider that the present asserters of necessity mani- fest a very visible tendency to materialism. Fate and universal me- chanism seem to be so nearly allied, that they have been usually defended on the same ground, and by the same advocates. Mr. Toplady indeed admits that the two component principles of man, body and soul, ‘a not only distinct but essentially different from each other.’ But it appears, in the sequel of his reasoning, that he has no high opinion of the nature and powers of the latter, [the soul.] _‘ An idea,” he observes, ‘is that image, form, or conception of any thing which the soul is im- pressed with from without ;’? and he expressly denies that the soul has” any power of framing new ideas, different from or superior to those which are forced upon it by the bodily senses. ‘The soul,’ he affirms, ‘is, in a very extensive degree, passive as matter itself.’ On his scheme, the limitation, with which he guards this assertion, is needa and futile.” While this Monthly Review is before me, I cannot help maces from it two other remarkable passages. The one occurs four pages after the preceding quotation. ‘The correspondents of the reviewers give them an account of an absurd and mischievous book, written by some wild Atheistical philosopher abroad, who thinks that all matter is alive, that the earth is a huge animal, and that we feed upon it, as some diminutive insects do upon the back of an ass. “ His moral doctrine,” say the reviewers, “is of a piece with the rest: the result of his reasor ing on this subject is, in his own words, ‘ Man, in every instant of his duration, is a passive instrument in the hands of necessity.’ Then let us drink and drice care away, drink, and be merry, as the old song says’ which is the practical application.” I would not be understood to charge this application upon Mr. Toplady; I only mention it, after 2 reviewers, as a natural consequence of his system of necessity. The other passage is taken from the Review of Dr. Hartley’s* Theoi of the Human Mind, published by Dr. Priestley, who pleads as strongly for necessity as Mr. Toplady himself. ‘«‘ Materialism,” say the reviewers, “has been, from early ages, con sidered as one of the chief bulwarks of Atheism. Accordingly, while Epicurus, and Hobbes, and their disciples, have endeavoured to defend it, Theists and Christians have pointed their batteries against it. But we learn from Dr. Priestley that perception, and all the mental powers * Mr. Toplady, page 148, intimates to his readers that Dr, Hartley has written an ‘“‘eminent defence of necessity,” and promises himself ‘‘a feast of — and instiuction” in reading his book. PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 385 of man, are the result of such an organical structure as that of the brain. How would Epicurus, how would Collins have triumphed, had they lived to see this point [that the mental powers of man result from such an organical structure as that of the brain] given up to them, even by a Christian divine! Another discovery, very consonant to the first, is, that the whole man becomes extinct at death. For this concession Atheists will likewise thank him, as it has been one of the chief articles of their creed from the beginning of the world. Let us suppose, with Dr. Priestley, that all the mental powers of Julius Cesar result from the organical structure of his brain. ‘This organical structure is dissolved, and the whole man, Julius Cesar, becomes extinct; the matter of this brain, however, remains, but it is not Julius Cesar ; for he (ew hypothest) is wholly extinct.” Having produced a variety of arguments, which, I trust, will altogether have weight enough to sink Mr. Toplady’s Scheme of Necessity to the bottom of the sea of error, where a vain philosophy begat it on a mon- strous body of corrupted divinity, I shall conclude this section by setting my seal to the truths which border most upon Mr. Toplady’s error, and by which he is deceived, according to the old saying, Decipimur specie recti, ‘““ We embrace falsehood under the deceitful appearance of some truth.” . Mr. Toplady is certainly in the right, when he asserts that there is a close connection between our soul and body; and that each has a reciprocal influence on the other. We readily grant that a cheerful mind is conducive to bodily health, and that Corpus onustum Hesternis vitiis animum quoque pregrayvat una, Atque affigit humo divine particulam aure.—Hor. “The soul, which dwells in a body oppressed with last night’s excess, is clogged with the load which disorders the body.” Nor do we deny that, in a thousand cases, our bodies and our circumstances may prevent the full exertion of our spiritual powers, as the lameness of a horse, or its natural sluggishness, added to the badness of the road, may prevent the speed which a good rider could make if he had a better horse and a better road. But to carry this consideration as far as Mr. Toplady does, is as absurd as to suppose that the skill and expedition of a rider _ depend entirely on his beast, and on the goodness of the road. We like- = SS = a wise allow, that sometimes the soul may be as much overpowered by a disordered, dying body, as a rider, who is irresistibly carried away by a mad horse, or lies helpless under the weight of a dying horse. But, in | such cases, we do not consider the soul as accountable; as neither delirious persons, nor those who are dying of a paralytic stroke, are answerable for their actions and omissions im such peculiar circum- stances. Tn all other cases history furnishes us with a variety of examples of men, who, through a faithful use of their talents, have overcome the infelicity of their constitution and circumstances; while others, by a contrary conduct, have perverted the most happy constitution, and the most fortunate circumstances in life. Thus Socrates, by improving his light, mastered an unhappy constitution, which in his youth carried him, Vat. II. 386 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S to violent anger, and an undue gratification of bodily appetites. A thus Solomon, by not improving his light, in his old age made shipwree of the wisdom, temperance, and piety, that distinguished him in youth. So Nero outlived the happy dispositions which made him shit in the former part of his life. - And Manasses, by “ humbling himsel before the God of his fathers,” overcame in his old age the horrid a abéminable propensities which constituted him a monster of iniquity his youthful days. Likewise, with respect to the circumstances in which we are place by Providence, I grant they have a considerable weight in the turn ¢ our affections. Nevertheless, this weight is by no means such as Mr. supposes. Diogenes might be as proud in his tub, as Alexander in] magnificent palace. A gown and a band may cover a revengeful clerg man, while a star and garter shine on a benevolent courtier. Cornelit turned to God in the army; and the sons of Eli went after Satan in fi temple. Domitian and Marcus Antoninus filled the same throne where the one astonished the universe by his wickedness, as the oth did by his virtue. Abraham and Agathocles were humble in the midst« riches ; and too many beggars are proud in the depth of poverty. So men are content in a sordid cottage; while others murmur in the me splendid palaces. The treasurer of the queen of Ethiopia was” seems) converted in the vanity of a heathen court; while Judas w perverted in the company of Christ and his fellow apostles. In sho while thousands, like Absalom, have turned out bad, notwithstanding t best instructions ; numbers, like the Philippian jailer, have turned well, maugre the worst education. Such is the power of free grace at free will. To lay therefore so much stress upon external circumstance is to undo by overdoing, and to wiredraw the truth till it is refined im error. f Upon the whole, we have Scripture and experience on our side wh we assert that reason, conscience, the “light which [in various degret enlightens every man,” the general assistance of Divine grace, a the peculiar or providential helps of God our Saviour, are m«¢ than sufficient savingly to overrule the infelicity of our bodily const tion, and our circumstances in life, if we are not wilfully and pervers wanting to ourselves; for “ of them to whom less is given, less will required :” and the advantages or disadvantages under which we labe shall all be taken into the account of our evangelical worthiness unworthiness, in the day when God shall judge us according to several editions of his everlasting Gospel, and according to the good bad use which we make of his talents of nature and grace. SECTION III. Remarks upon the manner in which Mr. T. attempts to support his § ch of Necessity from Scripture—Twelve keys to open the scriptures which he founds that scheme. We have seen how Mr. T. has propped up his system by vhs -cal arguments; let us now see how he does it by Scriptural proof PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY 387 Page 54, he says, “ No man can consistently acknowledge the Divine authority of the Scriptures, without—being an absolute necessitarian.” To demonstrate this strange proposition, he produces, among many more, the passages which mention the case of Joseph and his brethren, the Lord and Pharaoh, Eli and his sons, Absalom and his father’s wives, Shimei and Dayid, Christ and his crucifiers, &c. As I have shown, in other publications, that these scriptures, when taken in connection with the context and the tenor of the Bible, perfectly agree with the doctrines of justice, which are inseparably connected with the doctrine of free will in man, and just wrath in God; J shail not swell this tract by vain repetition, especially as Mr. T. does not support by argument the sense which he fixes on these passages. However, that the public may see _ what method he follows in trying to vindicate his error from Scripture, I shall present my readers with some keys, by which they will easily open the scriptures which he misapplies, and discover the rotten foundation _ of Calvinism. : First key. Detaching a passage of Scripture from the context, that what God does for particular reasons may appear to be done absolutely, and from mere sovereignty, is a polemical stratagem, com- | monly used by the Calvinists. The first passage which Mr. 'T. produces | draws all its apparent conclusiveness from this artful method :-— Page 56. “I withheld thee from sinning against me,” Gen. xx,6. By : quoting this detached clause, Mr. T. would insinuate that while God absolutely ordains some men to sin, he absolutely withholds other men from sin. To see that his conclusion is unscriptural, we need only read the whole verse: “God said to him [Abimelech] in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the InTEGRITY OF THY HEART, for I also withheld thee from sinning against me, therefore I suffered thee not to touch her.” Now, who that adverts to the words in capitals, does not see that God’s keeping Abimelech from sinning, that is, from marrying Abraham’s wife, was a REWARD of Abimelech’s INTEGRITY, as well as | of Abraham’s piety? Therefore, this very text proves, that God rewards upright free will with restraining grace, as well as with glory ; and not that man has no free will, and that he is made willing to work righteousness, or to commit sin, as necessarily as puppets are made to move to the right or to the left by the show man, who absolutely causes and manages their steps. Take another instance of the same stratagem,—. Page 66. “ The Lord of hosts hath sworn, i. e. hath solemnly and | immutably decreed, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall tt stand.” Here Mr. Toplady breaks off the quotation, and leaves out what follows, “that I will break | the Assyrian,” that is, the wicked in general, but particularly Sennache- rib, the proud, blaspheming king of Assyria, whose immense army was cut off in one night by an angel; “and upon my mountains tread him | under foot,” &c. By this means Mr. T. makes his hasty readers _ believe that God speaks of a Calvinian, absolute decree, founded upon Antinomian grace and free wrath; and not of a judicial, retributive decree, founded upon the humility of the righteous, and the desert of the wicked; though, verse 13, &c, the decree,*and its cause, are thus expressly mentioned :—« Thou hast said in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, &c, I will be like the Most High, Gc. Yet thou shalt be | 388 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S brought down to hell.” When Mr. T. has hidden these keys doctrine of justice which we defend, it is easy for him to apply to doctrine of free wrath the peremptoriness of God’s decree, and accor ingly he triumphs much in these words :—“ This is the purpose wh is purposed upon all the earth, &c. For the Lord of hosts hath px posed, and who shall disannul it? And his hand is stretched out, a who shall turn it back?” Isa. xiv, 24, &e. “Who shall disannul purpose ?” (adds Mr. T.) “ Why, human free will to be sure! shall turn back God’s hand? Human self determination can do it wi as much ease as our breath can repel the down of a feather!” ' argument is full fraught with absurdity. Did we ever assert that whe free will has obstinately simned, it can reyerse an absolute decree punishment? Do we not, on the contrary, maintain the proper exerti of justice in opposition to the Calvinian dreams of absolute election a reprobation, according to which the salvation of some notorious i penitent sinners is. now actually finished, and the damnation of sor unborn infants is now absolutely secured ? Page 67. By a similar method Mr. T. tries to prove the doctrine | necessitating free wrath, thus :—“J have smitten you with blasting a1 mildew. I have sent you the pestilence. Your young men have slain with the sword!” Amos iv, 7-10. But he forgets to tell us th this severity is not Calvinistical and diabolical, but righteous and ju cially retributive ; for the persons thus punished are said, just befoi to be wicked men, “ who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, wl say to their masters, Bring [strong drink] and let us drink,” Amos iy, Therefore all that can be inferred from these, and a thousand su scriptures, is, that when free agents have obstinately sinned, punishme overtakes them whether they will or not. And when the Calyinists grout their Manichean notions of a wrathful, absolute sovereignty in God up such conclusions, they expose their good sense as much as I shou expose my reason, if I said, “I can demonstrate that all robbers al absolutely necessitated to go on the highway, because, when they al caught and condemned, they are absolutely necessitated to go to th gallows.” Srconp Key. Because God can do a thing, and does it on parti¢ Jar occasions, Mr. T. and his adherents infer that he does it alway Thus, to prove that God necessarily turns the hearts of all men, at all times, and in all places, to sin or to righteousness, Mr. T. produces" following text :— rg Page 65. “ Even the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, asi rivers of water: and he turneth it whithersoever he will, Proy. xxi, Odd sort of self deiermination this!” We never denied the sup power, which God has even over the hearts of proud kings, who g rally are the most imperious of men. When he will absolutely | their will for the accomplishment of some providential design, his dom and omnipotence can undoubtedly do it. Thus, by letting the Phi- listines Joose upon Saul’s dominions, God turned his heart, and mat him change his design of immediately surrounding and destroying Day Thus he turned the heart of Ahasuerus from his purpose of destroyimg the Jews, by the providential reading of the records, which remin the king of the obligation he was under to Mordecai. Thus he turned PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 389 the heart of Pharaoh toward Joseph, by giving Joseph wisdom to explain his prophetic dream. Thus, again, he turned the heart of Nebuchad- nezzar from his purpose of destroying Daniel and all the wise men in Babylon, by enabling Daniel to tell and open the king’s mysterious vision. And when the king of Assyria was bent upon making war against the Israelites and the Ammonites, and cast lots to know which he should destroy first, Rabbah or Jerusalem, God providentially ordered the lot to fall upon guilty Jerusalem, Isa. x, 6, 7; Ezek. xxi, 21, &c. For, _ in such cases, “the lot is cast into the lap” without an eye to the Lord, _ “but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord,” Prov. xvi, 33. But _ these peculiar interpositions of Providence no more prove that God absolutely turns the hearts of all kings, and of all men in all things, and on all occasions, as Mr. T.’s system supposes, than a farrier’s drench- ing now and then a horse, in peculiar circumstances, proves that all _ horses throughout the world never drink but when they are drenched. Turrp key. ‘The necessitarians confound our inability to do some _ or all things, with an inability to do any thing. Thus Mr. T. attempts _ to prove that we can do nothing but what we are necessitated to do, and _ that “Christ himself was an absolute necessitarian,” by the following argument :-— Page 71. “Thou canst not make one hair white or black. Your |. Father, &c, makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. Surely, man can neither promote nor hinder the rising of the sun, nor the falling of the rain.” But to con- _ elude that all things are absolutely necessary, because we cannot alter the colour of our hair, command the clouds, and hasten sun rising, is as absurd as to conclude that a dyer cannot absolutely alter the colour of the silks which he dyes, because he cannot change the colour of his own hair, or eyes. It is as ridiculous as to infer that we cannot move a pebble, because we cannot stir a mountain; that we cannot turn our eyes like men, because we cannot turn our ears like horses; and that we have no immediate command of our thoughts and hands, because we have no immediate command of the clouds and the sun. When Mr. T. imposes such a philosophy upon us, is he not as grossly mis- taken as Mons. Voltaire, his companion in necessitarianism, who gives us to understand, that because pear trees can bear no fruit but pears, men can bear no moral fruit but such as they actually produce, and that fate fixes our thoughts in our brains, as necessarily as nature fixes our teeth in our jaw bones? How absurd is a system of philosophy, which a Voltaire and a Toplady are obliged to prop up by such weak argu- ments as these! Fourrn key. The Calvinists suck Scriptural metaphors, till they im- bibe the blood of error instead of “the sincere milk of the word!” And, if I might compare Scripture comparisons to rational animals, I would say, that Mr. T’. makes them go upon all four. Hence it is that he says,— Page 58, “ Man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward, Job y, 7: and I am apt to think, sparks ascend by necessity.” By this me- thod of arguing, I can demonstrate that Christ was clothed with feathers ; rhe says, I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her brood. “ And m apt to think” that a hen is covered with feathers. However, I stant to Mr. T. that there is a necessity of fallen nature: according - 390 REMAKKS ON TOPLADY’S to this necessity, man is born to die, and in the meantime he is exposed to the troubles which naturally accompany mortality. But there are ; thousand troubles which flow from immorality, and which God puts in man’s power to avoid. To deny this, is to deny the following seri tures :—“ He that will love his life, and see good days, let him refrai his tongue from evil. Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him see peace and ensue it, 1 Pet. iii, 10, 11. Whoso keepeth his mouth anc his tongue, keepeth his soul from troubles,” Prov. xxi, 23. It is there fore absurd and unscriptural to suppose, that, because we cannot avoi ‘ every trouble in life, all canting gossips are absolutely bound to bring upon themselves all the troubles which their slanderous, lying tongues pull down upon their own heads. Firra «ey. If there occur in the Bible a poetical expression founded upon some common, though erroneous opinion, to which th sacred penmen accommodate their language in condescension to th vulgar, Calvinism fixes upon that expression, and produces it as a demonstration of what she calls orrnopoxy. ‘Thus Mr. T., p. builds his scheme on the following texts :— The stars in their courses fought against Sisera, Judges v, 20. It} as absurd to prove fatalism from these words, as it would be to provi that the earth is the fixed centre of our planetary system, by quoting the above-mentioned words of our blessed Lord, “ Your Father make: his sun to rise on the just.” , The best philosophers, as well as Chris to be understood by the common people, say, agreeably to a false ph sophy, The sun rises, though they know that it is the earth which turn Yound on her axis toward the fixed sun. As we say the crown, whet we mean “the reigning king ;” and put heaven for “ the King of heaven: so Deborah poetically said in her song, The stars in their courses, fo “the providential power which keeps the planets in their courses.” Herein she, probably, adapted her language to some false notions 0} astrology, which the Israelites had received from the Egyptians. An all that she meant was that God had peculiarly assisted the Israelites i their battle with Sisera. expressions, so they do upon proverbial sayings. ‘Thus, p. 88, Mi Toplady endeavours to support the doctrine of absolute necessity, or ¢ the Calvinian decrees, by these words of our Lord :— from all eternity made particular decrees, to appoint that men shoul shave so ay times every week, and that such and such a hair of 7 ing grown just so many days. This text is only a proverbial hea i that which is sometimes used among us: “I will not give way to e a hair’ s breadth.” As this expression means only, “I will fully error ;” so the other only means, “ You shall be fully protected. Pe ere- fore to build Calvinian necessity upon such a scripture, is to render th pillars of Calvinism as contemptible as the hairs which the barber wip off his razor, when he shaves my mistaken opponent. ” Srnvenru key. The word shail frequently implies a kind of nece sity, and a forcible authority: thus a master says to his arguing ser PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 39 vant, “ You shall do such a thing: I will make you do it, whether you will or not.” Mr. Toplady avails himself of this idea, to impose his scheme of necessity upon the ignorant. I say upon the ignorani, be- cause he quotes again and again passages, where the word shall has absolutely no place in the original. For example :— Pages 84, 87, 92, he tries to prove that Christ was “an absolute necessitarian,” by the following texts :—I send unto you prophets, &c, and some of them ye suaut kill, and some of them swaLu ye scourge: One of you, Fe, sHauu betray me. Ye all suaut be offended because of me. Other sheep I have which are not of this fold ; them also [from a principle of superior kindness, or of remunerative favour] I musr bring ; and they saat hear my voice. I musr, and they suauu: what is this but double necessity?” In these, and in many such scriptures, the word ye shall kill, gc, in the original is a Bare future tense. And for want of such a tense in English, we are obliged to render the words which are in that tense by means of the words shall or will. These auxiliary ‘words are often used indiscriminately by our translators, who might as well, in the preceding texts, have rendered the Greek verbs wrx kill, | WILL scourge, wit betray, witt be offended, witu hear my voice. Therefore, to rest Calvinism upon such vague proofs is to rest it upon a defect in the English language, and upon the presumption that the _ reader is perfectly unacquainted with the original. Exeuru key. As Mr. T.’s scheme partly rests upon a supposition that his readers are unacquainted with the Greek grammar ; so it sup- poses that they are perfect strangers to ancient geography. Hence it is that he says, p. 89, “ Our Lord knew her [the woman of Samaria] to be one of his elect: and that she might be converted pre- cisely at the very time appointed, he must needs go through the territory of Samaria, John iv, 4.” Mr. Whitefield builds his peculiar orthodoxy on the same slender foundations, where he says, “ Why must Christ needs go through Samaria? Because there was a woman to be converted there.” (See his Works, vol. iv, p. 356.) Now the plain reason why our Lord went through Samaria was, that he went from Jerusalem to Galilee ; and as Samaria lies exactly between Judea and Galilee, he must needs go through Samaria, or go a great many miles out of his way. Absurdity itself, therefore, could hardly have framed a more absurd argument. Nuiyru Key. One of the most common mistakes on which the Cal- vinists found their doctrine is, confounding a necessity of consequence with an absolute necessity. A necessity of consequence is the necessary connection which immediate causes have with their effects, immediate effects with their causes, and unavoidable consequences with their pre- mises. ‘Thus, if you run a man through the heart with a sword, by necessity of NATURAL consequence he must die: and if you are caught, and convicted of having done it like an assassin, by necessity of LEGAL consequence you must die. Thus again: if I hold that God, from all eternity, absolutely fixed his everlasting wrath upon others, without any re- spect to their works ; by necessity of LocicaL consequence I must hold that the former were never children of wrath, and must continue God’s plea- sant children while they commit the most atrocious crimes; and that the latter were children of wrath while they seminaily existed, together with the man Christ, in the loins of sinless Adam, before the fall. ce C2 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S Now these three strong necessities of consequence do not amount to one grain of Calvinian, absolute necessity; because, though the above tioned effects and consequences necessarily follow from their causes premises, yet those causes and premises are not absolutely necessary. T, be more plain: though a man, whom you run through the heart to ro him without opposition, must die; and though you must suffer as a murderer for your crime, yet this double necessity does not prove tha you were absolutely necessitated to go on the highway, and to murde the man. Again: though you must (indirectly at least) propagate the most detéstable errors of Manes, (i. e. the worship ofa double-principled Deity,) if you preach a God made up of absolute, everlasting love to sa and of absolute everlasting wrath to others; yet you are not necessi- tated to do this black work ; because you are by no means necessitate¢ to embrace and propagate this black principle of Calvin. Once more: by necessity of consequence, a weak man who drinks to excess is drunk ; yet his drunkenness is not Calvinistically necessary ; because, though the man cannot help being drunk if he drinks to excess, yet he can help drinking to excess: or, to speak in general terms, though he cannot prevent the effect, when he has admitted the cause ; yet he can prevent the effect by not admitting the cause. However, Mr. Toplady, without adverting to this obvious and important distinction, takes it fo granted .that his readers will subscribe to his doctrine of absolute necessity, because a variety of scriptures assert such necessity of sequence as I have just explained. ‘Take the following instances :— Page 83. “ How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” ‘These words of Christ do not prove sb reprobation and absolute necessity; of consequence) infallibly Bet with the damnation of hell. Page 91. “Tf the Son shall make you free, [and he shall make us free, if we will continue in his word,] ye shall [by necessity of consequence] be freé indeed.” Again, p. 92, “ Why do ye not understand my speech? Ever because [while you hug your prejudices] ye cannot hear my word” [with the least degree of candour.] This passage does not prove Calvinian necessity ; it declares only that while the Jews were biassed by the love of honour, rather than by the love of truth, by necessity of consequence they could not candidly hear, and cordially receive Christ’s humbling doctrine. ‘Thus he said to them, “ How can ye believe, who receive honour one of another?” (Ibid.) “He that is of God heareth God’s words ; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” Here is no Siren but only a plain declaration, that by necessity of conse. quence no man can serve two masters; no man can gladly receive thi truths of God, who gladly-receives the lies of Satan. (Ibid.) “ Ye beliew not, because ye are not of my sheep:” that is, you eagerly follow the prince of darkness. “The works of your father, the devil, ye will* do;” and therefore, by necessity of consequence, ye cannot do the work God; ye cannot follow me ; ye cannot rank among my sheep. Again:— Page 93. “I give my sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish, * Our Lord, when he spake these words, did not use a bare future, wormoere, whie Mr. T. would perhaps have triumphantly translated, ye suauu do; putting the word sHALL in large capitals; but @edere corey, a phrase this, which i is peculiarly expressive of the obstinate choice of the Sree- -willing Jews. eg PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 393 John x, 283i. e. their salvation is necessary, and cannot be hindered.” True: it is necessary, but it is only so by necessity of consequence: for damnation follows unbelief and disobedience, as punishment does sin ; and eternal salvation follows faith and obedience, as rewards follow good works. But this no more proves that God necessitates men to sin or to obey, than hanging a deserter, and rewarding a courageous soldier, prove that the former was absolutely necessitated to desert, and the latter to play the hero. Once more :— Page 94. “I will pray the Father, and he shail give you another Comforter,—acvhom the world cannot receive” [as a comforter without a proper preparation.] Now this no more proves that the world can- not absolutely receive the Comforter, than my asserting that Mr. Top lady could not take a degree at the university, before he had learned grammar, proves that he was for ever absolutely debarred from that literary honour. If the reader be pleased to advert to this distinction, between necessity of consequence and absolute necessity, he will be able to steer safe through a thousand Calvinian rocks. Tenru Key. ‘The preceding remarks lead us to the detection of another capital mistake of the orthodox, so called. They perpetually confound natural necessity with what may (improperly speaking) be called moral necessity. By natural necessity, infants are born naked, and colts are foaled with a coat on; men have two legs, horses four, and some insects sixteen. And by moral necessity, servants are bound to obey their masters, children their parents, and subjects their king. Now can any thing be more unreasonable than to infer that servants can no more help obeying their masters, than children can help being born with two hands? Is it not absurd thus to confound natural and moral necessity ? This however Mr. T. frequently does; witness the follow- ing scriptures, which he produces in defence of absolute necessity :— Page 62,&c. “He [the Lord] made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder. By the breath of God frost is given, Job. He maketh grass to grow. He giveth snow like wool : he scattereth the hoar frost like ashes. Who can stand before his cold ? He causes his wind to blow. Fire and hail, snow and vapour, &c, fulfil his word,’ Psalms. From these and the like circumstances, Mr. T. infers that all things happen “by a necessity resulting from the will and providence of the supreme First Cause.” That nothing happens independently on that cause, and on the provi- dential laws which God has established, we grant. But this does not prove at all the Calvinian necessity of all our actions. Nor does it prove that man, who is made in God’s image, cannot, within his narrow sphere, frequently exert his delegated power at his own option, by making and executing his own decrees. If Mr. T. denies it, 1 appeal to his own experience and candour. Can he not, by a good fire, reverse in his apartment God’s decree of frost in winter; and by a candle can he not in his room reverse God’s decree of darkness at midnight? Can he not, by icy, cooling draughts, elude the decree of heat in summer? Nay, cannot a gardener, by skilfully distributing heat to vegetables in a hot house, force a pine apple to ripen to perfection in the midst of winter?) And by means of a watering pot can he not command an artificial rain to water his drooping ~ 394 REMARKS ON TOPLADY S plants i. the greatest drought of summer? Again: cannot a philoso- pher, acquainted with the secret laws of nature, imitate, as often as he — pleases, most decrees of the God of nature?, Can he not form and collect dews, by raising artificial vapours in an alembic? Can he not, when he has a mind, cause diminutive thunder and lightning by means of an electrical machine? Can he not create ice, snow, and hoar frost, by nitrous salts? Can he not produce little earthquakes, by burying in the ground iron filings and sulphur mixed with water? And while he “raises a wind by managing a communication of rarified air with con- densed air, cannot a smith do it without half the trouble by working his bellows? Once more: cannot a physician do in the little world within you, what a philosopher does without you in the world of nature? By availing himself of some natural Jaw, is it not in general as much in his power, if you submit to his decrees, to raise an artificial blister on your back, as it is in your gardener’s to raise a sallad in your garden? By skilfully setting the powers of nature at work, can he not cleanse your intestines, as yonder farmer scours his ditches? Can he not, in general, assuage his pains by lenitives, or lull them asleep by opiates? Can he not, through his acquaintance with the means by which God preserves the animal world, often promote the secretion of your fluids, and supply the want of those which are exhausted? Nay, can you not do it your- self by using that cheap medicine, ewercise, and by taking those agreeable boluses and pleasant draughts which you call meat and drink? 'To say that nature cannot be, in many respects, assisted, and even improved by art, is to say that there are neither houses nor cities in the world; neither shoes on our feet, nor clothes on our back. And to affirm that the works of art are as absolutely necessary as the works of nature, is to confound nature and art, and to advance one of the most monstrous paradoxes that ever disgraced human reason. Exeventa key. Confusion reigns in every corner of Babel. Another capital mistake of the necessitarians consists in their confound- ing prophetic certainty with absolute necessity. An illustration will explain my meaning :-— Mr. Toplady discovers a boy who is absolutely bent upon theft From his knowledge of the force of indulged habits, he foresees and foretels that the boy will one day come to the gallows; and his predic- tion is fulfilled. The question is, Did Mr. T.’s foresight, or his prophecy, necessitate the thievish boy to indulge his wicked habit ; and might not that boy have done like many more? Might he not have reformed, and died in his bed? Calvinism answers in the negative; but reason and Scripture agree to declare that a clear foresight, and a bare prophecy, are not of an absolutely necessitating nature ; and that, of consequence, — it is as absurd to confound absolute necessity with certainty of prophecy, [if I may use this expression,] as it is to confound the free abode of the keepers in Newgate, with the necessary abode of the felons who are confined there under bars and locks: in a word, it is as absurd as to confound the necessity of an event with the certainty of it. Your awkward servant has, at various times, b xken you a number of china plates : that the plates are broken is cer, in; but that they were Cal- vinistically broken, that is, that your servain could no ways avoid break- ing them ail, precisely in the manner, place, and instaat m wnich they — al oo — PHILUSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 395 were broken, is a proposition as absurd as the proof which Mr. T., page 83, draws from the following sentences of the Scriptures, to de. monstrate that our Lord was Calvinistically necessitated to lay down his life for us :—“ How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? Matt. xxvi, 54. All this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled,” verse 56. ‘To do these passages jus- tice, we should consider three things :— 1. The necessity of fulfilling the Scriptures with respect to our Lord, could never amount to the least degree of absolute, Calvinian necessity ; for our Lord was no more obliged to give us the Scriptures in order to fulfil them, than Mr. T. is bound to give me a thousand pounds in order to get my thanks. 2. When we meet with such sayings as these, “ This that is written must yet be accomplished in me: the Scripture must be fulfilled,” &e, if they relate to Christ, they only indicate a necessity of resolution, if I may use this expression. Now, a necessity of resolution is the very reyerse of absolute necessity ; because a resolution is the offspring of free will, and may be altered by free will; whereas Calvinian necessity never admits of a liberty or power to do a thing otherwise than it is done. J resolve to go out this evening, and I write my resolution ; but this does not imply any absolute necessity : rmsT, because I am at per- fect liberty not to make such a resolution; and, seconpiy, because [ am at perfect liberty to break it, and I shall certainly do it, if some sufficient reason detains me at home. Take a nobler example : God resolved to give Abraham and his seed the land of Canaan “for an everlasting possession ;” and the Divine resolution is written, Gen. xvii, 8, and xlviii, 4. But this does not imply the least degree of Calvinian necessity: for, (1.) Reason dictates that God was no ways obliged to form such a resolution; and, (2:) Expe- rience teaches us, that the obstinacy of the Jews has obliged him to make them “ know the breach” of his written resolution, Num. xiv, 34. Accordingly, they are scattered over all the world, instead of enjoying the promised land “for an everlasting possession.” 3. When prophetical sayings refer to the wicked, as in the following texts, This cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled, which is written in the law, They hated me without a cause : the son of perdition is lost ; that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. They believe not on him, that the saying of Esaias might be fulfilled, Lord, who has believed our report? ‘These and the like passages denote only a prophetic necessity, founded upon God’s bare foresight of what will be, but might as well (nay, better) have been otherwise. Thus I prophesy that through logi- cal necessity I shall (in full opposition to orthographical necessity) put a colon, instead of a full point, at the end of the paragraph I am now writing : but this double necessity of prophecy and logic is so far from absolutely necessitating me, that I have almost a mind to follow the rules of punctuation, and to show, by this mean, that I am as much at liberty to reverse my prophetic, logical decree, as God was to reverse his prophetic, vindictive decree, “ Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed” (:) However, my decree is accomplished. What was an hour ago a future contingency, is now matter of fact. The preceding period is 396 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S concluded without a full point as certainly as God exists. Should Mr, T. object that I could foresee this contingent event, because I had a mind to bring it about: I reply, That this does not invalidate my proof: for, (1.) I foresaw this little event as contingent, and depending on my liberty, and of consequence I could not foresee it as absolutely neces. sary. (2.) I have a clear foresight of many things, in which I have no hand at all. Thus I foresee that a man, condemned to be hanged for murder, shall certainly be hanged, whether I do the executioner’s office or not. Though the murderer might be reprieved; though he might make his escape, or poison himself before the day of execution; yet, from my knowledge of the law, of the king’s aversion to murder, of the strength of the prison, and of the particular care taken of condemned criminals, my foreknowledge that the condemned murderer shall be hanged, amounts to a very high degree of certainty. Now, if I, whose foreknowledge, compared to the foreknowledge of God, is no more than a point to the infinity of space; if I, who am so short sighted, can, with such a degree of certainty, foresee an event which is not absolutely necessary ; is it not absurd, I had almost said impious, to suppose that God’s foreknowledge of events, which are not absolutely necessary, may amount to absolute necessity? Cannot God foresee future events without necessitating them, a thousand times more clearly than I can foresee what I am sure I shall not ordain, much less necessitate, namely, that Mr. T.’s prejudice will hinder him from treating Mr. W. with the respect due to an aged, laborious minister of Christ? — To deny that God’s certain knowledge of future events is consistent with our liberty, because we cannot understand how God can certainly foresee the variations of our free will; to deny this, I say, is to deny . the existence of all the things which we cannot fully comprehend, And at this rate, what is it that we shall not deny? What is it that we per- fectly understand? Is there one man in ten thousand that understands how astronomers can certainly foretel the very instant in which an eclipse will begin? But does this ignorance of the vulgar render astro- nomical calculations less real or certain? And may not God (by the good leave of the necessitarians) surpass all men in his foreknowledge of the actions of free agents, as much as Sir Isaac Newton surpassed all the Hottentots in his foreknowledge of eclipses ? From these remarks it appears, that all the difficulties which the Calvinists have raised, with respect to the consistency of Divine fore- knowledge and human free will, arise from two mistakes: the First of which consists in supposing that the simple, certain knowledge of an event, whether past, present, or future, is necessarily connected with a peculiar influence on that event; and,the srconp consists in measuring God’s foreknowledge by our own, and supposing that because we can- not prophesy with absolute certainty, what free-willing creatures will do to-morrow, therefore God cannot do it. A conclusion this, which is as absurd as the following argument :—* We cannot create a grain of sand, nor comprehend how God could create it, and therefore God could nei- ther create a grain of sand, nor comprehend how it was to be created,” I have dwelt so long upon this head, because it is the strong hold of the Calvinists, from which Mr. T. seems to bid defiance to every argu- ment; witness his assertion, p. 80, “ Foreknowledge, undarkened by the PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 397 least shadow of ignorance, and superior to all possibility of mistake, is a link which draws invincible necessity after it.” To the preceding argu- ments, which, I trust, fully prove the contrary, I shall add one more, which is founded on the plain words of Scripture. _ So sure as the Bible is true, Mr. T. is mistaken; and God’s fore- knowledge, far from being connected with “ invincible necessity,” may exist, not only with respect to an event which is not necessary, but also with respect to an event which is so contingent, that it never comes to pass. ‘Take a proof of it:— We read, 1 Sam. xxiii, 10-12, that David, while he was im the city of Keilah, heard that Saul designed to come and surprise him there. “ Then aaa David, O Lord God of Israel, &c, will Saul come down as thy servant has heard? And the Lord said, He witt come pown. Then David said, Will the men of Keilah deliver me into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, Tuey witn peLiver THEE uP.” When David had received this double information he went out of Keilah, and when Saul heard it he did not come to Keilah, neither did the men of Keilah deliver him to Saul. From this remarkable occurrence we learn, (1.) That future, contingent events are clearly seen of God. (2.) That this foresight of God has not the least influence on such events. (3.) That God can foretel such events as contingent. And, (4.) That neither Scripture prophecy, nor Divine foreknowledge, has the least connection with Mr. T.’s scheme of absolute, invincible necessity ; since God fore- knew that, if David stayed in Keilah, Saul would come down, and the men of Keilah would deliver David into his hands. But so far were this clear foreknowledge and peremptory prophecy of God from “ drawing invincible necessity after” them, that Saul did not come to Keilah; nei- ther did the men of Keilah deliver David into his hands. I flatter myself, that if the reader attend to these arguments, he will see that Mr. 'T.’s doctrine of an absolute connection between the certain fore- knowledge of events, and their invincible necessity, is contradicted by experience, reason, and Scripture. Twetrre Key. Because no child can help being born, when the last pang of his mother forces him into the light ; and because no man can possibly live when the last pang of death forces his soul into eternity, the necessitarians conclude that our every intermediate action, from our birth to our death, is irresistibly brought about by the iron hand of ne- cessity. But is not their conclusion as absurd as the following argu- ment: “John the Baptist could not speak when he was newly born, nor could he do it when the executioner had cut off his head; absolute necessity hindered him from forming articulate sounds in the moment of his birth, and at the instant of shis death; and therefore ail the days of his life absolute necessity made him move his tongue when he spake!” , Let us see how Mr. T. handles this wonderful argument. Pages 102, 118. “Birth and death are the era and the period, whose interval constitutes the thread of man’s visible existence on earth. Let us examine whether those important extremes be or be not unalterably fixed by the necessitating providence cf God.” And by and by we are asked, “if the initial point from whence we start, and the ultimate goal which terminates our race, be Divinely and unchangeably fixed ; is it reasonable to suppose that any free will, but the free will of Dezty alone, 398 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S may fabricate the intermediate links of the chain?” That i is, in plaisa English, “« Does not God alone fabricate our every action, good or we from our cradle to our grave ?” Page 107, &c. Mr. T. produces such scriptures as these, to prove that the free will of Deity alone fabricates the link of our birth :—# [Jacob] said, Am I in God’s stead to give [a barren woman] children? They are my sons, whom Gad has given me. Thy hands have made me and fashioned me. Thou art he that took me out of the womb. Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord. Thou hast covered me, dc, in my mother’s womb. In “thy book all my members were writien. God has fixed an exact point of time, for the accomplishment of all his decrees: among which fixed and exact points of time, are @ time to be born, and a time to die.” All these passages prove only, (1.) That when a woman is naturally barren, like Rachel or Sarah, an extraordinary interposition of God’s providence is necessary to render her fruitfuk (2.) That the fruitful- ness of woman, as that of our fields, is a gift of God. (3.) That children grow in the womb, and come to the birth, according to the peculiar energy of those laws, which God, as the God of nature, has made for the pro- pagation of animals in general, and of man in particular. And, (4.) That as there is a time to be born, namely, in general nine months after conception; so there is a time to die, which, in the present state of the world, is seventy or eighty years after our nativity, if no peculiar event or circumstance hastens or retards our birth and our,death. That this is the genuine meaning of the scriptures produced by Mr. T., I prove by the following arguments :— ‘teyGadieould never Calv inistically appoint the birth of ail children, without Calvinistically appointing their conception, and every mean con- ducive thereto: whence it undeniably follows, that (if Calvinism is true) he absolutely appointed, yea, necessitated all the adulteries and whore- doms, with all the criminal intrigues and sinful lusts of the flesh, which are inseparably connected with the birth of base-born children. Now this doctrine makes God the grand author of all those crimes, and repre- sents him as the most inconsistent of all lawgivers; since, by his moral decrees he forbids, and by his Calvinian decrees he enjois, whoredom and adultery, in order to fabricate the link of the birth of every bastard child. 2. The experience of donsiads of virgins shows, that, by keeping themselves single, they may prevent the birth of a multitude of children; and their parents may do it too, for St. Paul says, “He that otsidsdletle steadfast in his heart, having no [moral] necessity, [from his daughter’s constitution, or his own low circumstances] but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart, that he will keep his virgin, doth well.” 3. If women have conceived, by their carelessness or cruelty they frequently may so oppose one law of nature to another, as to reverse the decree of nature concerning the maturity of the fruit of the womb: nor can Mr. T. avoid the force of this conclusion otherwise than by saying that God necessitates such cruel mothers to destroy their unborn children, to fulfil the absolute decree which condemns their unhappy embryos never to come to birth. PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 399 When Mr. T. has tried to prove that God has Calvinistically ap- pointed the birth of all children, he tries to demonstate that the manner, moment, and circumstances of every body’s death are so absolutely fixed, that no man can possibly live longer or shorter than he does. These are some of his arguments :— Page 110. “The time drew near that Israel musr die, Gen. xlvii, 20.” Yes, he must die by necessity of consequence: for he was quite worn out; his age, which is mentioned in the preceding verse, being one hundred and forty-seven years. We never dream that old decrepit men are immortal. Again :— Pages 111, 113. “ Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? In whose hand i is the soul of every living thing? Man’s days are de- termined ; the number of his months is with thee: thou hast appointed his bounds, which he cannot pass. All the days of my appointed time will I wait till my change come, Job vii, 1; xiv, 5-14. Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his term of life? Matt. vi, 27.” None of these scriptures proves that the free will of Deity alone has absolutely fabricated the link of every man’s death. They only indicate, (1. ) That God has fixed general bounds to the life of vegetables and animals; for as the aloe vegetates a hundred years, so w heat vegetates scarce twelve months: and as men in general lived seven or eight hundred years before the flood; so now “the days of our life are three score years and ten; and if, by reason of strength, they are four score years, yet is their strength then but labour and sorrow, so soon passeth it away, and we are gone,” Psa. xc, 10. (2.) That as no man lived a thousand years before the flood; so no man lives two hundred years now. And, (3.) That when we are about to die by necessity of consequence, &c, we cannot, without an extraordinary interposition of Providence, suspend the effect of this general decree, “ Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” But to infer from such passages that we cannot in general shorten our days by not taking a proper care of our- selves, or by running headlong into danger, is acting over again the part of the old deceiver, who said, “Cast thyself down, [from the pinnacle of the temple,] for it is written,” &c. From such Turkish Sepa aaly and murderous conclusions, God deliver weak, unwary readers! Two arguments will, I hope, abundantly prove the falsity of this doc- trine : the FIRsT is, God does not so fabricate the link of our death, but we may, in general, prolong our days by choosing wisdom, and shorten them by choosing folly. Is not the truth of this proposition immovably founded upon such scriptures as these? “Ifthou seekest her [wisdom] as silver, then shalt thou understand every good path : length of days is in her hand,” while untimely death is in the hand of fool hardiness, Prov. ii, 4,9; mi, 16. “Keep my commandments, for length of days, and long life, and peace shall they add unto thee, Prov. ii, 1, 2. Honour thy father and mother, that thou mayest live long on the earth, Eph. vi, 3. If thou wiit walk in my ways, then will I lengthen thy days, 1 Kings iii, 14. Their feet run to evil: they lay wait for their own blood, and lurk privily for their own lives. So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof, Prov. i, 16, &c. A sound heart is [in many cases] the life of the flesh ; but envy, the rottenness of the bones,” Prov. xiv, 30. Hence so many per- 400 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S sons shorten their days by obstinate grief; for “the sorrow of the world worketh death.” What numbers of men put an untimely end to their lives by intemperance, murder, and robbery, and make good that awful saying of David, “ Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days,” Psalm lv, 23. What multitudes verify this doctrine of the wise man, “The fear of the Lord prolongeth days, but the years of the wicked shall be shortened,” Proy. x, 27. Does not the psalmist pray, “O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days?” Psalm cii, 24. Does he not say, “As a snail which melteth, so let the wicked pass away like the untimely fruit of a woman?’ And was not this the case of the disobedient Israelites in the wilderness, who committed “the sin unto bodily death?’ Is not this evident from 1 Cor. x, “ Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them also committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand?” &c. Nay, was not this the case of many of the Corinthians themselves? “For this cause [because he that receiveth the Lord’s Supper unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment _ to himself,] many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep,” [i. e. die,] 1 Cor. xi, 30. My sEconp argument is taken from reason. If God has absolutely appointed the untimely death of all, who shorten their own days, or the days of others, by intemperance, filthy diseases, adultery, murder, robbery, treason, &c, &c, he has also absolutely appointed all the crimes by which their days are shortened ; and has contrived all the wars and massacres, by which this earth is become a field of blood. I have heard of some Indians who worship a horned grinning idol, with a huge mouth split from ear to ear. But the preaching a God, who has plarned and neces- sitated all the crimes that ever turned the world into an Aceldama, and a common sewer of debauchery, is an honour that the Manichees and the orthodox, so called, may claim to themselves. Should Mr. T. answer, that although “the free will of the Deity alone may fabricate” adultery, murder, and every intermediate link of the chain of necessity ; and that although the generation and death of a child con- ceived in adultery, and cut off by murder, is “ Divinely and unchangeably fixed ;” yet God is not at all the author of the adultery and murder; I desire to know how we can cut the Gordian knot, and divide between adultery and the generation or conception of a child born in adultery ; and _ between the murder of such a child, and its wntimely death caused by the cruelty of its unnatural mother. From the whole, if I am not mistaken, we may safely conclude, (1.) That the birth and death of all mankind take place according to some providential laws. (2.) That God, in a peculiar manner, interposes in the execution or suspension of these laws, with respect to the birth of some men: witness the birth of Isaac, Samuel, John the Baptist, &c. (3.) That he does the same with respect to the untimely death of some, and the wonderful preservation of others, as appears by the awful destruction of Ananias, Sapphira, Herod, and by the miraculous preser- vation of Moses in the Nile, of Daniel in the den of lions, of Jonah in the whale’s belly, and of Peter in the prison. (4.) That if neither the first nor the last link of the chain of human life is, in general, fabricated by the absolute will of God, it is unreasonable to suppose that “the free will of Deity alone fabricates the intermediate links.” (5.) That tocarry _ 4 PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 401 the doctrine of providence so far as to make God absolutely appoint the birth and death of all mankind, with all their circumstances, is to excul- pate adulterers and murderers, and to charge God with being the princi- pal contriver, and grand abettor of all the atrocious crimes, and of all the _ filthy, bloody circumstances which have accompanied the birth and death of countless myriads of men: and therefore, (6.) That the doctrine of the absolute necessity of all events, which is commonly called absolute predestination, is to be exploded as unscriptural, irrational, immoral, and big with the most impious consequences. However, Mr. T. seems ready to conclude that the death of every man is absolutely predestinated, because the “ fall of a sparrow” is not beneath the notice of our heavenly Father: and that he thinks so, appears from his producing the following texts in defence of absolute necessity :— Pages 81-87. “ Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one ‘of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father, Matt. x, 29. Not one of them, &c, is forgotten before God, Luke xii, 6.” These, and the like scriptures, do not prove that God made particular decrees from all eternity, concerning the number of times that a sparrow should chirp, the number of seeds that it should eat, and the peculiar time and man- ner of its death. ‘They prove only that God’s providence extends to their preservation ; and that they rise into existence or fall according to some law of God’s making, the effect of which he can suspend, whenever he pleases. If you shoot a sparrow, it falls indeed according to this natural law of our Father, “ that an animal mortally wounded shall fall ;” but it by no means follows that you were necessitated thus to wound it. _ When the Emperor Domitian spent his time in catching and killing flies, _ those insects fell a sacrifice to his childish and cruel sport, according to this general decree of Providence, “ In such circumstances. a man shall have power to killa feebler animal.” But to suppose that from all eternity God made absolute decrees that Domitian should lock himself up in his apartment, and kill twenty-three flies on such a day, and forty-six the next day—that he should wring off the head of one which was six weeks old, and with a pin impale another which was three months, six hours, and fifteen minutes old ; or to imagine that before the foundation of the world, the Almighty decreed that three idle boys should play the truant such an afternoon, in order to seek birds’ nests; that they should find a sparrow’s nest with five young ones; that they should torment one to. death, that they should let another fly away, that they should starve the third, feed the fourth, and give the fifth to a cat, after having put its eyes _ out, and plucked so many feathers out of its tender wings; to suppose ~ _ this, I say, is to undo all by overdoing. It is absurd to ascribe to God the cruelty of Nero, and the childishness of Domitian, for fear he should ot have all the glory of St. John’s love, and Solomon’s wisdom. In a word, it is to make “the Father of lights” exactly like the prince of darkness—the evil principle of the Manichees, who is the first cause of all iniquity and wo. Who can sufficiently wonder that any good man hould be so dreadfully mistaken as to call such a scheme a Christian _ scheme! a doctrine according to godliness ! a Gospel! and the genuine Gospel too! And when Mr. T. charges us with Atheism, because we cannot bow to the first cause of all evil, does he not betray as much _ prejudice as the heathens did, when they called the primitive Christians | Vou. TI. 26 _ 402 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S Atheists, merely because the disciples of Christ bore their a against idol gods ? Mr. 'T. produces many passages of Scripture beside~those svhich I have animadyerted upon in this section; but as they are equally mis- applied, one or another of the twelve keys with which I have presented the public, will easily rescue all of them from Calyinian bondage. SECTION IV. An answer to the capital objections of the necessitarvans against the doctrine of liberty. Ir I have broken the unphilosophical and unscriptural pillars on which Mr. T. builds his temple of philosophical and Christian necessity, I have nothing to do now but to answer some plausible objections, by which the necessitarians puzzle those who embrace the doctrine of liberty. OxsectTion First. And first, they say, that “if God had not secured every link of the chain of events, it would fall to pieces; and the events which God wants absolutely to bring about, could not he brought about at all; while those w hich he designs absolutely to hinder, would take place in full opposition to his decrees.” Answer. But we deny these consequences: for, 1. Nothing tha God determines absolutely to hinder shall ever come to pass. Thus he has absolutely decreed that the gates of hell shall never totally prevail against or destroy his Church, that is, all true Christians ; and therefore, there will always be some true Christians upon earth. It is his absolute will that all who “by patient continuance im well doing seek for glory,” shall have eternal life ; and that all who finally neglect so great salvation shall feel his wrathful indignation ; and therefore none shall pluck the former out of the hands of his remunerative mercy, and none shall pluck the latter out of the hands of his vindictive justice. 2. God has ten thousand strings to his providential bow, and ten ‘thousand bridles in his providential hand, to curb and manage free agents, ‘which way soever they please to go: and therefore, to suppose that he ‘has tightly bound all his creatures with cords of absolute necessity, fo ' fear he should not be able to manage them if they had their liberty; t suppose this, I say, is to pour upon Divine Providence the same con which a timorous gentleman brings upon himself when he dares not ri a spirited horse any longer than a groom leads him by the bridle, he may not run away with his unskilful rider. ; 3. If things had not happened one way, they might have happened another way. Supposing, for example, God had absolutely ordered the Solomon should be David’s son by Bathsheba; this event might ha) taken place without his necessitating David to commit adultery ar murder. For Providence might have found out means for ma Bathsheba to David before she was married to Uriah: or God n have taken Unah to heaven by a fever, and David could legally’ married his widow. Again: if neither Caiaphas nor Pilate had con demned our Lord, he could have made his life an offering for sin, b commanding the clouds to shoot a thousand lightnings upon his devote - PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 403 nead, and to consume him as Elijah’s sacrifice was consumed on Mount Carmel. _ 4. The pious author of Ecclesiasticus says, with great truth, that _ « God has no need of the sinful man.” To suppose that the chain of _ God’s providence would have been absolutely broken if Manasseh or Nero had committed one murder less than they did, is to ascribe to the old murderer and his servants an importance of which Manes himself -might have been ashamed. Although God used Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, and Attila, to scourge guilty nations, and to exercise the patience of his righteous servants, he was by no means obliged to use them. For he might have obtained the same ends by the plague, the famine, or the dreadful ministry of the angel who cut off the first born of the Egyptians, and the numerous army of Sennacherib. I flatter myself that these four answers fully set aside the first objection of the necessitarians : pass we on to another. _ Osyection secoxp. “If God had not necessitated the fall of Adam, and secured his sin, Adam might have contmued innocent; and then there would have been no need of Christ and of Christianity. Had Adam stood, we should have been without Christ to all eternity: but _ believers had rather be born in sin, than be Christless: they had rather be sick, than have nothing to do with their heavenly Physician, and with = cordials of his sanctifying Spirit.” * Answer. It is absurd to shed that the Father necessitated Adam _ f© sin, in order to make way for the indwelling of his Word and Spirit in the hearts of believers. For if Adam was made im the image of God; _ if God is that mysterious, adorable, Supreme Being, whom the Scriptures call Father, Word, and Holy Ghost ; if the Father gave his Word and light to Adam in paradise, and shed abroad Divine love in his heart by the Holy Ghost given unto him; Adam was full of thé Word and Spinit of God by creation. And although the eternal Word was not Adam’s Redeemer, yet he was Adam’s life and light; for Christ, considered as the Word of God, was the wisdom and power of sinless man, just as he b; the wisdom and power of holy believers. The reason why man needed not the atoning blood of the Lamb in a state of innocence was : Because the holy Lamb of God lived in his heart, and, jointly with the ‘Spirit of love, maintained there the mystical kingdom of righteousness, ‘pape joy in the Holy Ghost. To suppose, therefore, that if Adam not simmed he would have had nothing to do with the Word and Spirit of the Father, is as absurd as to fancy that if people did not poison | themselves, they would have had nothing to do with health and cheer- | fulness. And to intimate that God necessarily brought about the sin of ] in order to make way for the murder of his incarnate Son, is as mpious as to insinuate that our Lord impelled the Jews to despise the of their visitation, in order to secure the opportunity of weeping over igh of their hearis. If God necessitated the mischief, in order remedy it, the gratitude of the redeemed is partly at an end; and the aks they owe him are only of the same kind with such as Mr. Toplady * Mr. Toplady dares not produce this objection in all its foree: he only hints His own words are, p. 130, “‘ Let me give our free willers a very momentous ant: viz. that the entrance of original sin was one of those essential links, on ich the Messiah’s incarnation and crucifixion were suspended.” * 404 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S would owe me, if I wantonly caused him to break his legs, and then procured him a good surgeon to set them. But what shall we say of the non-redeemed? ‘Those unfortunate creatures whom Mr. Toplady calls “ the reprobate?” Are there not countless myriads of these, according to his unscriptural gospel? And what thanks do these owe — the evil Manichean God, who absolutely necessitates them to sin, and absolutely debars them from any saving interest in a Redeemer, that he may send them without fail to everlasting burnings? How strangely perverted is the rational taste of Mr. T., who calls the doctrine of — absolute necessity, which is big with absolute reprobation, absolute wickedness, and absolute damnation, a comfortable doctrine! a doctrine of grace! May we not expect next to hear him ery up midnight gloom — as meridian brightness ? , | But to return: if it was necessary that Adam should sin in order to glorify the Father, by making way for the crucifixion of the Lamb of — God ; is it not also necessary. that believers should sin in order to glorify God more abundantly by “crucifying Christ afresh, and putting him again to open shame?” Will they not, by this means, have greater need of their Physician, make a fuller trial of the virtue of his blood, and sing louder in heaven? O, how perilous is a doctrine, which, at every turn, transforms itself into a doctrine of light, to support the most subtle and pernicious tenet of the Antinomians, “ Let us sin that grace” may abound!” , Mr. Toplady, who has only hinted at the two preceding objections, triumphs much in that which follows: it shall therefore appear clothed in his own words. In the contents of his book he says, * Methodists, [he gives this name to all who oppose his Scheme of pene) Methodists, more gross Manicheans than Manes himself.” ‘The proo occurs, page 144, in the followings words :— OxssecTIon THIRD. ‘The old Manicheism was a gentle impiety, and a slender absurdity, when contrasted with the modern Arminian improve- ments on that system. For, which is worse? 'To assert the existence of two independent, beings, and no more ; or, to assert the existence of about one hundred and fifty millions of independent beings, all living at one time, and most of them waging successful war on the designs of him that made them? Even confining ourselyes to our own world, if will follow that Arminian Manicheism. exceeds the paltry oriental quality, at the immense rate of 150,000,000 to two—without reckoning the adult self determiners of past generations.” _ Answer. This argument, cast into a logical mould, will yield the following syllogism :— Every being, able to determine himself, is an independent being, ai of consequence a god. JE) According to the doctrine of free will, every accountable man is a being able to determine himself. ai. Therefore, according to the doctrine of free will, every accountable man is an independent being, and consequently a god. Hence it follows, that if Manes erred by believing there were two gods, those who espouse the doctrine of free will are more gross Manicheans than Manes himself; since they believe that every man is a god, Observe Mr. Toplady’s consistency! Indeed, when he attacks Mr. > PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 405 W. and Arminianism, no charges (be they ever so contradictory) come amiss to him. In his Historic Proof, Arminianism is Atheism; and in his Scheme of Necessity, Arminianism is a system which supposes countless myriads of gods! But, letting this pass, I observe that the preceding syllogism is a mere sophism ; the first proposition, on which all the others depend, being absolutely false; witness the following appeals to common sense :— Is a horse independent on his master, because he can determine him- self to range or lie down in his pasture? Is Mr. Toplady independent on his bishop, because he can determine himself to preach twice next Sunday, or only once, or not at all? Is a captain independent on his general, because he can determine himself to stand his ground, or to run away in an engagement? Are soldiers independent on,their colonel, because they determined themselves to list in such a company? Isa negro slave independent on his master, or is he a little god, because, when he lies down, he can determine himself to do it on the left side, or on the right? Is a highwayman a god, because he can determine himself _ to rob a traveller, or to let him pass without molestation? In a word, _ are subjects independent on their sovereign, because they can determine themselves to break or to keep the laws of the land ? Eyery one of the preceding questions pours light upon the absurdity of Mr. Toplady’s argument. But that absurdity will appear doubly _ glaring if you consider three things: (1.) All free agents have received their life and free agency from God, as precious talents, for the good or bad use of which they are accountable to his distributive justice. ‘(2.) All free agents are every moment dependent upon God, for the pre- servation of their life and free agency; there being no instant in which God may not resume all his temporary talents, by requiring their souls of them. (3.) He has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by Jesus Christ : then shall he publicly convince all moral agents of their dependence on ‘his goodness and justice, by graciously rewarding the righteous, and justly punishing the wicked, according to their works. (4.) In the meantime, he makes them sensible of their dependence, by keeping in his providential hand the “ staff of their bread,” and the thread of life; saying to the greatest of them, “Ye are gods, [in authority over others,| but ye shall die like men: and after death comes judgment.” It is as ridiculous, therefore, to suppose that, upon the scheme of free will, men are independent beings, as to assert that prisoners, who are going to the bar to meet their lawgiver and judge, are independent upon his supreme authority, because those who are going to be condemned for robbery or murder, determined themselves to rob or murder, without any Antinomian, im- pulsiye decree made by their judge ; and because those who are going to be rewarded for their obedience, were not necessitated to obey as a wave is necessitated to roll along, when it is irresistibly impelled by another wave. However, Mr. Tonlady sings the song of victory, as if he had proved that, upon the Arminian scheme of free will, every man is an inde. pendent being, anda god. ‘Poor Manes!” says he, “ with how excel- lent a grace do Arminians call thee a heretic! And, above all, such Arminians, (whereof Mr. J. Wesley is one,) as agree with thee m , 406 REMARKS ON TOPLADY S 7 | believing the attainability of sinless perfection here below : or, to use the good old Manichean phrase, who assert that the evil principle mye totally separated from man in this present life!” 4 The reader will permit me to make a concluding remark upon this triumphant exclamation of Mr. Toplady. I have observed, that Manes believed there are in the Godhead two co-eternal principles: (1.) The absolute sovereignty of free grace, which necessitates men to good. And, (2.) The absolute sovereignty of free wrath, which necessitates — them to evil. Nevertheless, Manes was not so mistaken as to suppose that the good principle in his Deity was weaker than the bad principle ; and that the latter could never be dislodged by the former from the — breast of one single elect person. Manes had faith enough to believe that now is the day of salvation, and that Christ (and not death or a temporary hell) saves good Christians from their sins. Accordingly he asserted that nothing unholy or wicked can dwell with the good-prin- cipled God; and that none shall inherit eternal life, but such as so concur with the heavenly light, as to have the works of darkness destroyed in their souls. And therefore he maintained, with St. Paul, that we must be “sanctified throughout,” and that our souls must be found at death “blameless and without spot or wrinkle” of sin; and he held, with St. John, that he who is “fully born of God [the good principle] sinneth not, but keepeth himself, and the wicked principle toucheth him not,” so as to lead him into iniquity. Now, if Mr. Toplady so firmly believes in the evil principle, as to assert, that though believers are ever so will. ing to have no other Lord but the good-principled God, yet this God can never destroy before death the works of the sin-predestinating God in their hearts ; and if, on the other hand, the wicked principle com- pletely destroys all good in all reprobates, even in this life; is it not evident that Mr. Toplady’s charge may be justly retorted ;* and that, as he ascribes so much more power to the evil principle than to the good, he carries the sovereignty of the evil principle farther than Manes him- self did; and is (to use his own expression) a “more gross Manichean than Manes himself?” OxsecTion FourTH. “Your scheme of free will labours under a greater difficulty than that with which you clog the Scheme of Neces- sity; because if it did not represent the sin-necessitating principle as . * Page 154, Mr. Toplady produces the following objection :—‘’Tis curious to behold Arminians themselves forced to. take refuge in the harbour of necessity. It is necessary, say they, that man’s will should be free: for without freedom, the will were no will at all,” [i. e. no free will—no such will as constitutes a mi: a moral and accountable agent.] ‘Free agency, themselves being judges, is on a ramification of necessity.” Le This is playing upon words, and shuffling logical cards in order to delude the simple. Ihave granted again and again that there is a necessity of nature, a necessity of consequence, a necessity of duty, a necessity of decency, a necessity of convenience, &c, &c, but all these sorts of necessity do no more amount to the Calvinian, absolute necessity of all events, than my granting that the king has variety of officers about his person by necessity of decency, of office, of custo &c, implies my granting that he has a certain officer, who absolutely necessitates him to move just as he does, insomuch that he cannot turn his eyes, or stir one finger, otherwise than this imaginary officer directs or impels him. This objec- tion of Mr. Toplady is so excessively trifling, that I almost blame myself for taking notice of it, even in a note. OM PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 407 more powerful than the good principle, yet it represents created spirits as stronger than the God who made them: an impotent, disappointed God this, who says,—ZI would, and ye would not.” Answer, 1. These words were actually spoken by incarnate Om- nipotence: nor do they prove that man is stronger than God, but only that when God deals with free agents about those things concerning which he will-call them to an account, he does not necessitate their will by an irresistible exertion of his power, (propter justum Dei judicium,) “that he may leave room for the display of his justice,” as the fathers said: for his perfections, and our probationary circumstances require, that he should maintain the character of Lawgiver and Judge, as well as that of Creator and Sovereign. And, therefore, when we say that free agents are not necessarily determined by God to those actions, for which God is going to punish or reward them, we do not represent free agents as stronger or greater than God. We only place them (sub justo Dei judicio) “under God’s righteous government,” as said the fathers, equally subjected to the legislative wisdom, and executive power of their omnipotent Lawgiver. 2. Whether free agents are rewarded or punished, saved or damned, God our Saviour will never be disappointed : for, (1.) He will pronounce the sentence; and what he will do himself will not disappoint his expectation. (2.) It is as much God’s righteous, eternal design to punish wicked, obstinate free agents, as to reward yielding and obedient free agents. (3.) Every Gospel dispensation yields a savour of life or death, The sword of the Lord is a two-edged sword: if it do not cut down a man’s sin, it will cut down his person. And though God, as Creator and Redeemer, does not in the day of salvation Calvinistically desire the death of a sinner; yet, as a holy Lawgiver, a covenant-keeping God, and a righteous Judge, he is determined to “render unto every man according to his deeds: eternal life to them who, by patient con- tinuance in well doing, seek for glory; but indignation and wrath to them who do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness :” and God will do this, “in the day when he shall judge the secrets of men according to the Gospel,” Rom. ii, 6-16. Hence it is evident that the bow of Divine justice has two strings, that each string will shoot its peculiar arrow, and although. God leaves it to free agents to choose which they will have, the arrow which is winged with remunerative life, or that which carries vindictive death; yet he can never be disappointed : he will most infallibly hit the judicial mark which he has set up : witness the awful declaration which is engraven upon that mark :—“'These [obstinate free agents] shall go away into everlasting punishment ; but the righteous unto life eternal,” Matt. xxv, 46. Upon the whole, I humbly hope, that whether candid readers con- sider the inconclusiyeness of Mr. T.’s philosophical arguments, the injudicious manner in which he has pressed the Scriptures into the service of absolute necessity, or the weakness of his objections, which he directly or indirectly makes against the doctrine of liberty ; they will see that his scheme is as contrary to true philosophy and to well-applied Scripture, as the absolute necessity of adultery and murder is contrary to good morals, and the absolute reprobation of some of our unborn chil- dren, and perhaps of our own souls, is contrary to evangelical comfort. 408 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S . “a SECTION V. : ie The doctrine of*necessity is the capital error of the Calvinists, and ‘the foundation of the most wretched schemes of philosophy and divinity— How nearly Mr. Toplady agrees with Mr. Hobbes, the apostle of the materialists in England, with respect to the doctrine of necessity— Conclusion. We have seen on what philosophical and Scriptural proofs Mr. — Toplady founds the doctrine of necessity ; and, if I am not mistaken, the inconclusiveness of his arguments has been fairly pointed out. I shall now subjoin some remarks, which I hope are not unworthy of the © reader’s attention. 1. It is not without reason that Mr. T. borrows from false philosophy — and misapplied passages of Scripture, whatever seems to countenance — his doctrine of necessity ; for that doctrine is the very soul of Calvinism ; and Calvinism is, in his account, the marrow of the Gospel. If the doctrine of absolute necessity be true, Calvinian election and reprobation are true also: if it be false, Calvinism, so far as we oppose it, is left without either prop or foundation. Take away necessity from the modern doctrines of grace, and you reduce them to the Seripture standard which we follow, and of which Arminius was too much afraid. 2. Those who would see at once the bar which separates us from the Calvinists, need only consider the following questions :—Are all those who shall be damned absolutely necessitated to continue in sin and perish? And are all those who shall be saved absolutely necessitated to work righteousness and be eternally saved? Or, to unite both questions” in one, Shall men be judged, that is, shall they be justified or condemned - in the last day, as bound agents, according to the unavoidable conse- quences of Christ’s work, or of Adam’s work? Or, shall they be justified or condemned, according to THEIR OwN works, as the Scripture declares? I lay a peculiar stress upon the words their own, because works, which absolute decrees necessitate us to do, are no longer, properly speaking, our own works, but the works of Him who necessi- — .tates us to do them. ; 3. There is but one case in which we can Scripturally admit the Calvinian doctrine of necessity, and that is, the salvation of infants who die before they have committed actual sin. These, we grant, are necessarily or Calvinistically saved. But they will not be “ judged according to THEIR works,” seeing they died before they wrought either iniquity or righteousness. Their salvation will depend only on the irresistible work of Christ, and his Spirit. As they were never called personally to “work out their own salvation ;” and as they never per-- sonally wrought out their own damnation, they will all be saved by the — superabounding grace of God, through the meritorious infaney and death of the holy child Jesus. But it is an abomination to suppose that — because God can justly force holiness and salvation upon some infants, — he can justly force continued sin and eternal damnation upon myriads — of people, by putting them in such circumstances as absolutely necessitate PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 409 them to continue in sin and be damned.” J repeat, God may bestow eternal favours upon persons whom his decrees necessitate .tu be righteous. But he can never inflict eternal punishments upon persons whom his decrees, according to Mr. Toplady’s doctrine, necessitate to be wicked from first to last. 4. The moderate Calvinists say, indeed, that Adam was endued with free will, and that God did not necessztate him to sin. _ But if necessity has nothing to do with the first man’s obedience and first transgres- sion, why should it be supposed that it has so much to do with us, as absolutely to beget all our good and bad works? And if it be not unreasonable to say “that God endued one man with a power to deter- mine himself ;” why should we be considered as enemies to the Gospel, because we assert that he has made all men in some degree capable of determining themselves ; the Scriptures declaring that he treats all adult persons as free agents, or persons endued with the power of self determination ? * 5. Mr. Toplady and all the rigid Calvinists suppose, indeed, that God’s necessitation extended to the commission of Adam’s sin ; and yet they tell us that God is not the author, but only the permitter of sin. But they do not consider that their doctrine of absolute necessity leaves no more room for permission, than the absolute decree that a pound shall alizazs exactly weigh sixteen ounces, leaves room for a permission of its weighing sometimes fifteen ounces and sometimes seventeen. Should Mr. Toplady reply that “such a decree, however, leaves room for the permission that a pound shall always exactly weigh sixteen ounces,” I reply, that this is playmg upon words, it being evident that the word permission, in such a case, is artfully put for the plainer word necessity or absolute decree. It is evident, therefore, that although Mr. Toplady aims at being more consistent than the moderate Calvinists, he is in fact as inconsistent as they, if he denies that, upon the scheme of the absolute decrees preached by Calvin, and of the absolute neces- sity which he himself maintains, God is properly the contriver and author of all sin and wickedness. 6. It is dreadful to lay, directly or indirectly, all sin at the door of an omnipotent Being, who is “ fearful in holiness, and glorious in praises.” Nor is it less dangerous to make poor, deluded Christians swallow down, as Gospel, some of the most dangerous errors that were ever propagated by ancient or modern infidels. " We have already seen that the capital error of Manes was the doctrine of necessity. This doctrine was also the grand engine with which Spinosa in Holland, and Hobbes in Eng- land, attempted to overthrow Christianity in the last century. Those ‘two men, who may be called the apostles of modern materialists and Atheists, tried to destroy the Lord’s vineyard, by letting loose upon it the very error which Mr. T. recommends to us as the capital doctrine of grace, “Spinosa,” says a modern author, “ will allow no governor of the universe but necessity.” As for Mr. Hobbes, he built his mate- rialism upon the ruins of free will, and the foundation of necessity : hear the above-quoted author giving us an account of the monstrous system of religion known by Hobbism :—* Freedom of will it*was impossible that Mr. Hobbes should assert to be a property of matter; but he finds a very unexpected way to extricate himself out of the difficulty. The 410 REMARKS ON TOPLADY’S " proposition against him stands thus: ‘Freedom of will cannot. property of matter; but there are beings which have freedom of therefore there are substances which are not material.’ He answe this at once by saying the most strange thing, and the most contradictor to our knowledge of what passes within ourselves, that perhaps ever advanced, namely, that there is no freedom of will. ‘ Every effect,’ he says, [and this is exactly the doctrine of Mr. Toplady, as the quota. tions I have produced from his book abundantly prove, ‘* Eyery effect must be owing to some cause, and that cause must produce the effect necessarily. Thus, whatever body is moved, is moyed by some other body, and that by a third, and so on without end.’ In the same manner he [Mr. Hobbes] concludes, ‘The will of a voluntary agent must be determined by some other external to it, and so on without end: there. — fore, that the will is not determined by any power of determining itself, inherent in itself; that is, it is not free, nor is there any such thing as freedom of will, but that all is the act of necessity.’” This is part of the account which the author of the Answer to Lord Bolingbroke’s Philosophy gives us of Mr. Hobbes’ detestable scheme of necessity: and it behooves Mr. Toplady and the Calvinists to see if, while they — contend for their absolute decrees, and for the doctrine of the absolute necessity and passiveness of all our willings and motions, they do not inadvertently confound matter and spirit, and make way for Hobbes’ — materialism, as well as for his scheme of necessity, , 7. The moment the doctrine of necessity is overthrown, Manicheism, Spinosism, Hobbism, and the spreading religion of Mr. Voltaire, are left without foundation ; as well as that part of Calvin’s system which we object against. And we beseech Mr. Toplady, and the contenders for Calvinian de@rees, to consider, that if we oppose their doctrine, it is not from any prejudice against their persons, much less against God’s free grace ; but from the same motive which would make us bear our testimony against Manes, Spinosa, Hobbes, and Voltaire, if they would impose their errors upon us as “ doctrines of grace.” Mr. Wesley and I are ready to testify upon oath that we humbly submit to God’s soyve- reignty, and joyfully glory in the freeness of Gospel grace, which has mercifully distinguished us from countless myriads of our fellow crea- tures, by gratuitously bestowing upon us numberless fayours, of a spiritual and temporal nature, which he has thought proper absolutely to withhold from our fellow creatures. To meet the Calvinists on their own ground, we go so far as to allow there is a partial, gratuitous election and repro- bation. By this election, Christians are admitted to the enjoyment of privileges far superior to those of the Jews: and, according to this reprobation, myriads of heathens are absolutely cut off from all the prerogatives which accompany God’s covenants of peculiar grace. In a word, we grant to the Calvinists every thing they contend for, except the doctrine of absolute necessity: nay, we even grant the necessary, unavoidable salvation of all that die in their infancy. And our love to peace would make us go farther to meet Mr. Toplady, if we could do it without giving up the justice, mercy, truth, and wisdom of God, together with the truth of the Scriptures, the equity of God’s paradisiacal and medi- atorial laws, the propriety of the day of judgment, and the reasonableness of the sentences of absolution and condemnation which the righteous + i PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 411 Judge will then pronounce. We hope, thérefore, that the prejudices of our Calvinian brethren will subside, and that, instead of accounting us inveterate enemies to truth, they will do us the justice to say that we have done our best to hinder them from inadvertently betraying some “of the greatest truths of Christianity into the hands of the Manichees, materialists, infidels, and Antinomians of the age. May the Lord hasten the happy day in which we shall no more waste our time in attacking or defending the truths of our holy religion; but bestow every moment in the sweetest exercises of Divine and brotherly love! In the mean- time, if we must contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, let us do it with a plainness that may effectually detect error; and with a _ mildness that may soften our most violent opponents. Lest I should transgress against this rule, | beg leave once more to observe, that though I have made it appear that Mr. Toplady’s Scheme of Necessity is inseparably connected with the most horrid errors of Manicheism, materialism, and Hobbism, yet I am far from accusing him of wilfully countenancing any of those errors. I am persuaded he does it unde- signedly. ‘The badness of his cause obliges him to collect, from all quarters, every shadow of argument to support his favourite *opinion. And I make no doubt but, when he shall candidly review our contro- versy, it will be his grief to find that, in his hurry, he has contended for a scheme which gives up Christianity into the hands of her greatest enemies, and has poured floods of undeserved contempt upon Mr. Wes- ley who is one of her best defenders. AN ANSWER TO THE REV. MR. TOPLADY’S “VINDICATION OF THE DECREES,” &c. BY THE AUTHOR OF THE CHECKS. . “The [absoluie] predestination of some to LIFE, &c, cannot be maintained without admitting the [absolute] reprobation of some others to DEATH, &c; and all who have subscribed the said article [the seventeenth, in a Calvinian sense] are bound in honour, conscience, and law to defend [Calvinian, absolute] reprobation, were it only to keep the seventeenth article [taken in a Calvinian sense] upon its legs.” (Rev. Mr. TopLapy’s Historic Proof of Calvinism, p. 574.) ie ee “ TDR Fee gti rst: it i r ‘ 4 . f > -~ é - > = > ‘ r 4; , t ‘ i iia INTRODUCTION. Wauen the author of Pietas Oxoniensis took his temporary leave of me in his Finishing Stroke, he recommended tothe public the book which I am going to answer. His recommendation runs thus :-—“ Who- soever will consult the Rev. Mr. Toplady’s last publication, entitled, More Work for Mr. J. Wesley, [or, A Vindication of the Decrees, &c,] will there find a full answer to all those cavils which Papists, Socinians, Pelagians, Arminians, and Perfectionists bring against those doctrines commonly called Catviutst, as if they tended to promote licentiousness, or to make God cruel, unjust, and unmerciful, and will see every one of their objections retorted upon themselves in a most masterly manner.” (Finishing Stroke, p. 33.) Soon after Mr. Hill had thus extolled Mr. Toplady’s: performance, I was informed that many of the Calvinists said that it was an unanswerable defence of their doctrines. This raised in me a desire to judge for myself; and when I had sent for, and read this admired book, I was so far from being of Mr. Hill’s senti- ment, that I promised my readers to demonstrate, from that very book, the inconclusiveness of the strongest arguments by which Calyinism is supported. Mr. Hill, by unexpectedly entering the lists again, caused me to delay the fulfillmg of my promise. But having now completed my answer to his fictitious creed, I hasten to complete also my Logica Genevensis. » Did I write a book entitled Charitas Genevensis, I might easily show, from Mr. Toplady’s performance, that the “doctrines of grace” (so called) are closely connected with “the doctrines of free wrath.” But if that gentleman, in his controversial heat, has forgotten what he owed to Mr. Wesley and to himself, this is no reason why I should forget the title of my book, which calls me to point out the bad arguments of our opponents, and not their ill humour. If I absurdly spent my time in passing a censure“upon Mr. Toplady’s spirit, he would with reason say, as he does in the introduction to his Historic Proof, page 35, “ After all, what has my pride or my humility to do with the argument in hand ? Whether I am haughty or meek is of no more consequence either to that or to the public, than whether I am tall or short.” Beside, having _ again-and again, myself, requested our opponents not to withdraw the controversy by personal reflections, but to weigh with candour the argu- ments which are offered, I should be inexcusabie if I did not set them \ 416 INTRODUCTION. ~* the example. Should it be said that Mr. Wesley’s character, wl Mr. Toplady has so severely attacked, is at stake, and that I ought ' posely to stand up in his defence, I reply, that the personal charge which Mr. Toplady interweaves with his arguments, have been already fully answered* by Mr. Olivers; and that these charges being chiefly founded upon Mr. Toplady’s logical mistakes, they will, of their own — accord, fall to the ground, as soon as the mistakes on which they rest shall be exposed. If Logica Genevensis is disarmed, Charitas Gene- _ vensis will not be able to keep the field. If good sense take the former prisoner, the latter will be obliged to surrender to good nature. Should this be the case, how great a blessing will our controversy prove to both parties! The conquerors shall have the glory of vindicating truth ; and the conquered shall have the profit of retiring from the fieid with their judgments better informed, and their tempers better regulated! May the God of truth and love grant, that if Mr. Toplady have the honour of producing the best arguments, I (for one) may have the advantage of yielding to them! To be conquered by truth and love, is to prove conqueror over our two greatest enemies, error and sin. Mapetey, Oct. 1775. * See ‘A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Toplady,” by Mr. Olivers. * AN ANSWER TO THE REY. MR. TOPLADY’S “VINDICATION OF THE DECREES,” &c. SECTION I. Showing that, upon the Calvinian scheme, it is an indubiiable truth that some men shall be saved, do what they will, till the efficacious decree of Calvinian election necessitate them to repent and be saved: and ‘that others shall be damned, do what they can, till the efficacious decree of Calvinian reprobation necessitate them to draw back, and be damned. Tue doctrinal part of the controversy between Mr. Wesley and Mr Toplady may, in a great degree, be reduced to this question :—If God, from all eternity, absolutely predestinated a fixed number of men, called the elect, to eternal life, and absolutely predestmated a fixed number of men, called:the reprobate, to eternal death, does it not unavoidably follow that “the elect shall be saved, do what they will ;” and that “the repro- bate shall be damned, do what they can?” Mr. Wesley thinks that the * consequence is undeniably true: Mr. Toplady says that it is absolutely false, and charges Mr. Wesley with “coining blasphemous proposi- tions,” yea, with “hatching blasphemy, and then fathering it on others,” pages 7, 8; and, in a note upon the word blasphemous, he says, “This epithet is not too strong.” To say that any shall be saved, do what they will, and others damned, do what they can, is, in the first instance, blas- phemy against the holiness of God; and, in the second, blasphemy against his goodness: and again, p. 34, after repeating the latter clause of the consequence, viz. “the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can,” he expresses himself thus :—“ One would imagine that none but a reprobate could be capable of advancing a position so execrably shocking. Surely it must have cost even Mr. Wesley much, both of time and pains, to invent the idea, &c. Few men’s invention ever sunk deeper into the despicable, launched wider into the horrid, and went farther in the profane. The Satanic guilt of the person who could excogitate, and publish to the world a position like that, baffles all power of description, and is only to be exceeded (if exceedable) by the Satanic shamelessness which dares to lay the black position at the door of othermen. Let us examine whether any thing occurring in Zanchius could justly furnish this wretched defamer with materials for a deduction so truly infernal.” Agreeably to those spirited complaints, Mr. Toplady calls his book, not only * More Work for Mr. J. Wesley,” but also “‘ A Vindication of the Decrees and Providence of God, from the defamations of a late printed paper, entitled, ‘The Consequence Proved.’” I side with Mr. Wesley for the consequence ; guarding it against cavils by a clause, which his. love of brevity made him.-think needless. And the guarded consequence, Vou. Hi. 27 418 ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S which I undertake to defend, runs thus :—From the doctrine of the abso. lute and unconditional predestination of some men to eternal life, and of all others to eternal death, it necessarily follows, that some men shall be sAvED, do what they will, till the absolute and efficacious decree of elec- tion actually necessitate them to obey, and be saved; and that all the rest of mankind shall be pamnep, do what they can, till the absolute and efficacious decree of reprobation necessitate them to sin, and be damned. . An illustration will at once show the justness of this consequence to | an unprejudiced reader. Fifty fishes sport in a muddy pond, where they have received life. The skilful and almighty Owner of the pond has absolutely decreed that ten of these fishes, properly marked with a shining mark, called election, shall absolutely be caught in a certain net, | | called a Clospel net, on a certain day, called the day of his power; and that they shall, every one, be cast into a delightful river, where he has | engaged himself, by an eternal covenant of particular redemption, to bring them without fail. The same omnipotent Proprietor of the has likewise absolutely decreed that all the rest of the fishes, namely, forty, which are properly distinguished by a black mark, called repro. bation, shall never be caught in the Gespel net; or that if they are entangled in it at any time, they shall always be drawn out of it, and so” shall necessarily continue in the muddy pond, till, on a certain day, called the day of his wrath, he shall sweep the pond with a certain net, called a law net, catch them all, and cast them into a lake of fire and brimstone, where he has engaged himself, by an everlasting covenant of non-redemp- lion, to. bring them all without fail, that they may answer the end of their predestination to death, which is to show the goodness of his law net, and to destroy them for having been bred in the muddy pond, and for not hay- ing been caught in theyGospel net. "The Owner of the pond is wise, as well as powerful. He knows that, absolutely to secure the end to which his fishes are absolutely predestinated, he must absolutely secure the means which conduced to that end ; and therefore, that none may escape their happy or their unfortunate predestination, he keeps night and day his hold of them all, by a strong hook, called necessity, and by an invisible line, called Divine decrees. By means of this line and hook it happens, that if the fishes, which bear the mark election, are ever so loath to come into the Gospel net, or to stay therein, they are always drawn into it ina day of powerful iach and if the fishes which bear the mark of repro. bation, are, for a tine, ever so desirous to wrap themselves in the Gas- pel net, they are always drawn out of it in a day of powerful wrath. For, though the fishes seem to swim ever so freely, yet their motions” ‘are all absolutely fixed by the Owner of the pond, and determined by means of the above-mentioned line and hook. If this is the case, says Mr. Wesley, ten fishes shall go into the delightful river, let them do what they will, let them plunge in the mud of their pond ever so briskly, or leap toward the lake of fire ever so often, while they have any liberty ~ to plunge or to leap. And all the rest of the fishes, forty in number, — shall go into the lake of fire, let them do what they can, let them in-— volve themselves ever so long in the Gospel net, and leap ever so often toward the fine river, before they are absolutely necessitated to go, through the mud of their own pond, into the, sulphureous pool. The , VINDICATION OF THE DECREES. 419 consequence is undeniable, and I make no doubt that all unprejudiced persons see it as well as myself: as sure as two and two make four, or, if you please, as sure as ten and forty make fifty, so sure ten fishes shall be finally caught in the Gospel net, and forty in the law net. Should Mr. Toplady say that this is only an illustration, I drop it, and roundly assert that if two men, suppose Solomon and Absalom, are absolutely predestinated to eternal life; while two other men, suppose Mr. Baxter and Mr. Wesley, are absolutely predestinated to eternal death ; the two elect shall be saved, do what they will, and the two reprobates shall be damned, do what they can. ‘That is, let Solomon and Absalom worship the abomination of the Zidonians, and of the Moabites, m ever so public a manner; let them, for years, indulge themselves with heathenish women, collected from all countries; if they have a mind, let them murder their brothers, defile their sisters, and imitate the incestuous Corinthian, who took his own father’s wife ; yet they can never really endanger their finished salvation. The indeli- ble mark of unconditional election to life is upon them; and forcible, victorious grace shall, in their last moments, if not before, draw them irresistibly and infallibly from iniquity to repentance. Death shall una- yoidably make an end of their indwelling sin ; and to heaven they shall unavoidably go. On the other hand, let a Baxter and a Wesley astonish the world by their ministerial labours: let them write, speak, and live in such a manner as to stem the torrent of iniquity, and turn thousands to righteousness: with St. Paul let them take up their.cross daily, and preach and pray, not only with tears, but “with the demonstration of the Spirit ‘and with power:” Jet unwearied patience and matchless diligence carry them with increasing fortitude through all the persecu- tions, danger, and trials, which they meet with from the men of the world, and from false brethren: let them hold on this wonderful way to their dying day ; yet, if the indelible mark of unconditional reprobation to death is upon them, necessitating, victorious wrath shall, in their last moments, if not before, make them necessarily turn from righteousness, and unavoidably draw back to perdition ; so shall they be fitted for the lake of fire, the end to which, if God Calvinistically passed them by, they were absolutely ordained through the prcdestenace medium of remediless sin and final apostasy. This is the true state of the case: to spend time in proving it would be offering the judicious reader as great an insult, as if I detained him to proye that the north is opposed to the south. But what does Mr. Toplady say against this consequence, “If Calvinism is true, the repro- bates shall be damned, do what they can?” He advances the following warm argument ;— Areument I. Page 55. “Can Mr. Wesley produce a single instance of any one man, who did all he could to be saved, and yet was lost? If he can, let him tell us who that man was, where he lived, when he died, what he did, and how it came to pass he laboured in vain. If he cannot, let him either retract his consequences, or continue to be posted for a shameless traducer.” I answer: 1. To require Mr. Wesley to show a man who did all he could, and yet was lost, is requiring him to prove that Calvinian repro- bation is ¢rue.- a thing this, which he can no more do, than he can oe — 420 ANSWER TO TOPLADY S$ prove that God is false. Mr. Wesley never said that any man was damned after doing his best to be saved: he only says that 2f Calvinism as true, the reprobates shall all be damned, though they should all do their best to be saved, till the efficacious decree of their absolute repro bation necessitates them to draw back and be damned. 2. As Mr. Toplady’s bold request may impose upon his inattentive readers, I beg leave to point out its absurdity by a short illustration. Mr. Wesley says, If there is a mountain of gold, it is heavier than a handful of feathers; and his consequence passes for true in England. But a gentleman who teaches logic in mystic Geneva thinks that it is absolutely false, and that Mr. Wesley’s “ forehead must be petrified, and quite impervious to a blush,” for advancing it. Can Mr. Wesley, says he, show us a mountain of gold, which is really heavier than a handful of feathers? If he can, let him tell us what mountain it is, where it lies, in what latitude, how high it is, and who did ever ascend to the top of it. If he cannot, let him either retract his consequences, or continue © be posted for a shameless traducer. Equally conclusive is Mr. Toplady’s challenge! By such cogent arguments as these, thousands of professors are bound to the chariot wheels of modern orthodoxy, and blindly follow the warm men, who “drive as furiously” over a part of the body of Seripture divinity, as the son of Nimshi did over the body of cursed Jezebel. SECTION II. s Calvinism upon its legs, or a full view of the arguments by which Mr. Toplady attempts to reconcile Calvinism with God’s holiness ;—a note upon a letter to an Afminian teacher. SensrB_e that Calvinism can never rank among the doctrines of holi- ness, if “the elect shall be saved, do what they will,” and if the “ repro- bate shall be damned, do what they can ;” Mr. Toplady tries to throw off, from his doctrines of grace, the deadly weight of Mr. Wesley’s con- sequence. In order to this, he proves that Calvinism insures the holi- ness of the elect, as the necessary means of their predestinated salvation : but he is too judicious to tel] us that it insures also the wickedness of the reprobate as the necessary means of their predestinated damnation. ‘To make us in love with his orthodoxy, he presents her to our view with one leg, on which she contrives to stand, by artfully leanimg upon her faithful maid, Logica Genevensis. Her other leg is prudently kept out ~ of sight, so long as the trial about her holiness lasts. This deseryes explanation. The most distinguishing and fundamental doctrines of Calvinism are two; and therefore they may with propriety be called the legs of that doctrinal system. The First of these fundamental doctrines is, the per- sonal, unconditional, absolute. predestination, or election, of some men to eternal life; and the seconp is, the personal, unconditional, absolute — predestination, or reprobation, of some men to eternal death. Nor can © Mr. Toplady find fault with my making his doctrine of grace stand upon her legs, Calvinian election and Calvinian reprobation: for, supposing ee aaa VINDICATION OF THE DECREES. 421 that our Church speaks in her seventeenth article of Calvinian, absolute predestination to eternal life, he says himself, in his Historic Proof, page 574, “The predestination of some to life, asserted in the seven- teenth article, cannot be maintained without admitting the reprobation* * Our opponents are greatly embarrassed about the doctrine of absolute, un- conditional reprobation. ‘Though in a happy moment, where candour prevailed over shame, Mr. Toplady stood up so boldly for Calvinian reprobation ; the reader, as he goes on, will smile when he sees the variegated wisdom with which that gentleman disguises, exculpates, or conceals, whut he so rationally and so can- didly grants here. The truth is, that as Scriptural election is necessarily attended with an answer- able reprobation ; so absolute, Calvinian election unavoidably drags after it abso- lute, Calvinian reprobation: a black reprobation this, which necessitates all who are personally written in the book of death to sin on, and to be damned. But some Calvinists are afraid to see this doctrine, and well they may, for it is horri ble: others are ashamed to acknowledge it; and not a few, for want of rational sight, obstinately deny that it is the main pillar of their Gospel; and with the right leg of their system they unmercifully kick the left. Among the persons who are guily of this absurd conduct, we may rank the author of A Letter to ar Arminian Teacher : an imperfect copy of which appeared in the Gospel Magazine of August, 1775, under the following title: A Predestinarian’s real thoughts of Election and Reprobation, gc. This writer is so inconsistent as to attempt cut ting off the left leg of Calvinism. He, at first, gives us reprobation. ‘‘ The word reprobation,” says he, ‘‘is never mentioned in all the Scripture, [no more is the word predestination, nor is the Scriptural word reprobate ever mentioned as the continuance of election, or as [its] opposite.’ This is a great mistake, as appears from the two first passages quoted by this author, Jer. vi, 30, and Rom. i, 28, where reprobate silver is evidently opposed to choice silver, and where a reprobate mind is indubitably opposed to the mind which is after God’s own heart—that is, to the mind which God approves and chooses to crown with evangelical praises and rewards. Our author goes on :— ““There is no immediate connection between election to salvation, and repro- bation to damnation.” What an argument is this! Did we ever say that there is any immediate connection between two things which are as contrary as Christ and Belial? O! but we mean that ‘‘they have no necessary dependence on each other.” The question is not whether they have a necessary dependence on each other; but whether they have not a necessary opposition to each other; and that they have, is as clear as that light is opposed to darkness. ‘‘ They proceed from very different causes.” True: for election proceeded from free grace, and Cal- Vinian reprobation from free wrath. ‘The sole cause of election is God’s free love, &c. The sole cause of damnation is only sin.” Our author wants candour or attention. Had he argued like a candid logician, he would have said, ‘‘ The sole cause of the reprobation which ends in unavoidable damnation, is only sin :” but if he had fairly argued thus, he would have given up Calvinism, which stands or falls with absolute reprobation ; and therefore he thought proper to substitute the word damnation for the word reprobation, which the argument absolutely requires. These tricks may pass in Geneva; but in England they appear incon- sistent with fair reasoning. It is a common stratagem of the Calvinists to say, “Election depends upon God’s love only, but damnation depends upon our sin only ;” break the thin shell of this sophism, and you will find this bitter kernel : God’s distinguishing love elects some to unavoidable holiness and finished salva- tion; and his distinguishing wrath reprobates all the rest of mankind to remedi- less sin and eternal damnation. For the moment the sin of reprobates is neces- sary, remediless, and insured by the decree of the means, it follows that absolute reprobation to necessary, remediless sin, is the same thing as absolute reprobation to eternal damnation ; because such a damnation is the unavoidable consequence of remediless sin. Wher the letter writer has absurdly denied Calvinian reprobation, he insinuates, p- 5, that everlasting torments and being unavoidably damned, are not the neces- sary consequences of the decree of Calvinian election; ‘‘ nor,” says he, “can they be fairly deduced from the decree of reprobation” So now the secret is out! 422 ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S of some others to death, &c, and all who have subscribed to the said article are bound in honour, conscience, and law to defend reprobation, © were it only to keep the seventeenth article [or rather, the Calvinian sense which Mr. 'Toplady fixes to that article] wpon its legs,” “A Agreeably to Mr. Toplady’s charge, Calvinism shall stand upon its legs. He takes care to show the right leg, in order to vindicate God’s holiness upon the Calvinian plan; and I shall set forth the left leg, in order to show that the honour of God’s holiness is as incompatible with Calvinism, as light with darkness. Mr. Toplady’s arguments are pro- — duced under No. 1, with the number of the page in his book where he advances them. In the opposite column, under No. 2, the reader will find my answer, which is nothing but Mr. Toplady’s own arguments, retorted in such a manner as to defend the second Gospel axiom, which Calvinism entirely overthrows. No. 1 displays the unguarded manner in which Mr. Toplady defends the first Gospel axiom. To form No. 2, I only make his arguments stand upon the other leg; and by this simple method, I show the lameness of Calvinism, and the infamy which she — pours upon God’s holiness and goodness, under fair shows of regard for — these adorable attributes. The right leg of Calvinism, or the The left leg of Calvinism, or the | | 4 Calvinian doctrine of election and Calvinian doctrine of reproba- necessary holiness. tion and necessary wickedness. Arcument II. No.1. Page 17. | Answer. No. 2. I affirm, with “JT affirm, with Scripture, that they Calvinism, that the reprobates can- [the elect] cannot be saved without not be damned without wickedness Our author, after denying reprobation, informs us that there is a Calvinian decree of reprobation. But if there be such a decree, why did he oppose it, p. 2? And if there is no such a decree, why does he mention it, p. 5; where he hints that insured : damnation cannot be fairly deduced from it? Now, if he, or any Calvinist in the world, can prove that, upon the Calvinian plan, among the thousands of Calvin’s reprobates, who are yet in their mothers’ wombs, one of them can, any how, avoid finished damnation, I solemnly engage myself before the public, to get my Checks burnt, at Charing Cross, by the common hangman, on any day which Mr. Hill, Mr. Toplady, and Mr. M’Gowan will please to appoint. But if the Calvinists cannot do this, and if the Calvinian decree of reprobation insures the necessary, remediless sin, and the unavoidable, finished damnation of one and all the repro. bates of Calvin, born or unborn; Mr. M’Gowan, and Dr. Gill, whom he quotes, insult common sense, when they intimate that insured damnation cannot be ~ fairly deduced from the decree of reprobation. How much less candid are the ~ letter writer and Dr. Gill, than Mr. Toplady and Zanchius, who fairly tell us, p. 75, ‘“*The condemnation (that is, the damnation) of the reprobate is necessary and irresistible !” The letter writer tells us, p. 6, ‘‘ What insures holiness, must insure glory; election (that is, Calvinian election) doth so, and glory must follow.” This is the right leg of Calvinism; let her stand upon the left leg, and you have this doctrine of grace: what insures remediless sin, must insure damnation ; Calvinian reprobation doth so, and damnation must follow. I would as soon bow to Dagon, as to this doctrine of remediless sin and insured wickedness. Ye controversial writers of the Gospel Magazine, if you will confirm Arminian teachers in their attachment to the holy election and righteous reprobation preached by St. Paul, and in their detestation for the Antinomian election and barbarous reprobation, which support your doctrinal peculiarities, only vindicate your election as incon- sistently as Mr. M’Gowan, and your reprobation as openly as Mr. Toplady. (See two other notes on the same performance; the one under the Arg. xxxviii, and the other under the Arg. lxvii.) i VINDICATION OF THE DECREES. 423 , RIGHT LEG. sanctification and obedience. Yet is not their salvation precarious ; for that very decree of election, by which they were nominated and ordained to eternal life, ordained their termediate renewal after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness. Nay, that renewal is itself the dawn and beginning of actual salvation.” Are. II]. No. 1. Page 17. “ The elect cold no more be saved with- out personal holiness, than they could be saved without personal existence. And why? Because God’s own decree secures the Means as well as the end, and accomplishes the end by the means. The same gratuitous predestination which ordained the existence of the elect as men, ordained their purifi- cation as saints; and they were ordained to both, in order to their being finally and completely saved in Christ with eternal glory.” LEFT LEG. and disobedience. Yet is not their damnation precarious ; for that very decree of reprobation, by which they were nominated and ordained toeter- nal death,ordained their intermediate conformity to the image of the devil in sin and true wickedness. Nay, that conformity is itself the dawn and beginning of actual damnation. Answer. No. 2. The repro- bates could no more be damned without personal wickedness, than they could be damned without per- sonal existence. And why? Be- cause God’s own decree secures the means as well as the end, and accomplishes the end by the means. The same gratuitous predestination which ordained the existence of the reprobate as men, ordained their pollution as sinners ; and they were ordained to both, in order to their being finally and completely damned in Adam with eternal shame. Before I produce the next argument, I think it # proper to observe that “the election of grace,” which St. Paul defends, is not, as Calym supposes, an absolute election to eternal life, through necessitated holi- ness: an election this, which, in the very nature of things, drags after it an absolute reprobation to eternal death, through remediless sin. But the -apestle means a gratuitous election to the privileges of the best covenant of peculiarity,—a most gracious covenant this, which is known under the name of “ Christianity, the Gospel of Christ,” or simply “ the Gospel,” by way of eminence. For as, by a partial election of distin- guishing favour, the Jews were once chosen to be God’s peculiar people, (at which time the Gentiles were reprobated, with respect to Jewish privileges, being left under the inferior Gospel dispensation of reprieved Adam and spared Noah,) so, when the Jews provoked God to reject them from being his peculiar people, he elected the Gentiles, to whom he sent “the Gospel of Christ: he elected them, I say, and called them to believe this precious Gospel, and “ to be holy im all manner of conversation, as becomes Christians.” But far from absolutely electing those Gentiles to eternal salvation through unavoidable holiness, Calvin- istically imposed upon them, he charged them by his messengers to make “ the:r Christian calling and election sure, lest they also should be cut off,” as the Jews had been, for not “ making their Jewish calling and election sure.” In short, “ the election of grace” mentioned in the Scriptures, is a gratuitous election to run the Christian race with Paul Peter, and James; rather than the Jewish race with Moses, David, and Daniel; or the race of Geniilism with Adam, Enoch, and Noah. It is a 424 ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S A ° + hi a gracious election, which implies no merciless, absolute reprobation of the rest of mankind. And the Calvinists are greatly mistaken when they confound this election with our judicial election to receive the crown of life, a rewarding crown this, the receiving of which depends, (1.) On the grace of God in Christ ; and, (2.) On the voluntary obedience of faith ; and will be judicially bestowed ‘according to the impartiality of justice; and not according to the partiality of grace. This will be demonstrated in an Essay on the Election of Grace and the Election of Justice, where the reader will see the true meaning of the passages — which Mr. Toplady has so plausibly pressed into the service of the — . following arguments :— RIGHT LEG. Are. IV. No. 1. Page 18. “God the Father hath chosen us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, that we should [not ‘be saved, do what we will ;’ but] ‘be holy and without blame before him in love,’ Eph. i, 4. Election is always fol- lowed by regeneration, and regene- ration is the source of all good works.” Are. V. No.1. Page 18. “We [the elect] are his subsequent work- manship, created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath foreordained, that we should walk in them. Consequently, it does not follow from the doctrine of absolute predestination that the ‘elect shall be saved, do what they will.” On the contrary, they are chosen as much to holiness as to heaven; and are foreordained to walk in good works, by virtue of their election from eternity, and of their conversion in time.” Are. VI. No.1. Pages 18,19. “Yet again, God hath from the beginning, [that is, from everlasting, &c,] ‘chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth,’ 2 Thess. ii, 13. All, therefore, who are cho- sen to salvation, are no less unalter- ably destined to holiness and faith in the meanwhile. And if so, it is giving God himself the lie to say that ‘ the elect shall be saved, do what they will.’ For the elect, like the blessed person who redeemed LEFT LEG. Answer. No. 2. God the Fa. } ther hath reprobated us in Adam, — before the foundation of the world, — that we should [not be “damned, ; do what we will ;” but] be unholy — and full of blame before him in malice. Reprobation is always fol- — lowed by apostasy ; and apostasy is — the source of all bad works. Answer. No. 2. We [the re- probates] are his subsequent work- manship, created anew in Adam unto bad works, which -God hath foreordained, that we should walk : in them. Consequently, it does not — ; follow from the doctrine of absolute — predestination that “ the reprobates shall be damned, do what they will.” On the contrary, they are reprobated as much to wickedness as to hell ; and are foreordained to walk in bad — works, by virtue of their reprobation — from eternity, and of their perversion : in time. . Answer. No, 2. Yet again, — God hath from the beginning, [that — is, from everlasting, |reprobated you — to damnation, through pollution of the Spirit, and disbelief of the truth. — All, therefore, who are reprobated — to damnation, are no less unalter- ably destined to wickedness and un- — belief in the meanwhile. And ifso, — it is giving God himself the lie to say that “the reprobate shall be damned, do what they will.” For the reprobate, like the blessed per- son who rejected them, come into VINDICATION OF THE DECREES. RIGHT LEG. them, come into the world not to do their own will, but the will of Him that sent them: and this is the will of God concerning them, even their sanctification. Hence they are ex- pressly said to be elect unto obe- dience. Not indeed chosen because of obedience, but chosen unto it: for works are not the foundation of grace, but streams flowing from it. Election does not depend upon holi- ness, but holiness depends upon elec- tion. tination from being subversive of good works, that predestination is the primary cause of all the good works which have been and shell be wrought from the beginning to the end of time.” So far, therefore, is predes.. 425 LEFT LEG. the world not to do their own will, but the will of Him that sent them: and this is the will of God concern- ing them, even their wickedness. Hence they are expressly said to be reprobated unto disobedience. Not indeed reprobated because of disobedience, but reprobated unto it: for works are not the foundation of wrath, but streams flowing fromit. ‘ Reprobation does not depend upon wickedness, but wickedness depends upon reprobation. So far, therefore, is predestination from being subver- sive of bad works, that predestina- tion to death is the primary cause of all the bad works which have been and shall be wrought from the beginning to the end of time. Dreadfully crooked as the left leg of Mr. Toplady’s system is, it per- fectly agrees with the right leg; that is, with his crooked election, and his bandy predestination. He may deny it as absolutely as prisoners at the bar deny what is laid to their charge: but their denial goes for nothing: the witnesses are called in, and I produce two, who are capital, and to whom I suppose Mr. Toplady will hardly object. The first is Zanchius, and the second is his ingenious translator, who says m his translation, page 50, “ He [man] fell in consequence of the Divine decree.” (Observ. p. 7.) “Whatever comes to pass, comes to pass by virlue of this absolute, omnipotent will of God. Whatever things come to pass, come to pass necessarily.” (Ibid.) “ Whatever man does, he does necessarily,” page 15. “All things turn out according to Divine predestination ; not only the works we do outwardly, but even the thoughts we think inwardly,” page 7. “The will of God is the primary and supreme cause of all things,” page 11. “The sole cause why some are saved and others perish, proceeds from his willing the salvation of the former, and the perdition of the latter,” page 15. “We can only do what God from eternity willed and foreknew we should,” page 7. “No free will of the creature can resist the will of God,” page 19. “The purpose or decree of God signifies his everlasting appointment of some men to life, and of others to death : which appoint- ment flows entirely from his own free and sovereign will,” page 57. “If between the elect and the reprobate there was not a great gulf fixed, so that neither can be otherwise than they are, then the will of God (which is the alone cause why some are chosen and others not) would be rendered of no effect,” page 56. “Nor would his word be true with regard to the non-elect, if it was possible for them to be saved,” page 15. “The condemnation of the reprobate is necessary and irresistible,” page 25. “God worketh all things in all men, even wickedness in the wicked.” - On these propositions, the most unguarded words of which I have ’ 426 “‘ ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S produced in Ifalics, I rest the left leg of Calvinism, and taking my leave of the translation of Zanchius, I return to the Vindication of the Decrees ; and continue to make Mr. Toplady’s doctrine of grace stand “on its legs,” that is, on absolute reprobation to death, as well as on absolute election to life. , RIGHT LEG. Arc. VII. No. 1. Page 19. “Reason also joins with Scripture in asserting the indispensable ne- cessity of SANCTIFICATION, upon the footing of the most absolute and irrespective election: or, in other words, that the certainty of the end does not supersede, but insure the intervention of the means.” Are. VIII. No. 1. Pages 21, 22. “Tt was necessary that, as sinners, they [the elect] should not-only be redeemed from punishment, and entitled to heaven, but endued more- over with an internal meetness for that inheritance. This internal meetness for heaven can only be wrought by the restoring agency of God the Holy Ghost, who gra- ciously engaged and took upon him- self, in the covenant of peace, to renew and sanctify all the elect peo- ple of God ; saying, ‘I will put my law in their minds. Elect, &c, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience.’ Election, though productive of good works, is not founded upon them: on the con- trary, they are one of the glorious ends to which they are chosen. Saints do not bear the roof, but the root them. Elect unto obedience. They who have been elected, &c, shall experience the Holy Spirit’s sanctification, in beginning, ad- vancing, and perfecting the work of grace in their souls. The elect, &c, are made to obey the command. ments of God, and to imitate Christ, Gc. I said, made to obey. Here perhaps the unblushing Mr. Wesley may ask, ‘ Are the elect then mere machines?’ J answer, No: they * LEFT LEG. Answer. No. 2. Reason also joins with Scripture in asserting the indispensable necessity of wick- EDNEss, upon the footing of the most, absolute and irrespective re- probation: or, in other words, that the certainty of the end does not supersede, but ansure the interyen- tion of the means. Answer. No. 2. It was neces- sary that, as holy, they [the repro- bate] should not only be appointed fo punishment, and entitled to hell, but endued moreover with an in- ternal meetness for that inheritance, This internal meetness for hell, can only be wrought by the perverting agency of [the Manichean] god the unholy ghost, who officiously en- gaged and took upon himself, in the covenant of wrath, to pervert and defile all the reprobate people of God; saying, “I will put my law in their minds. Reprobate, &c, through pollution of the spirit unto disobedience.” Reprobation, though productive of bad works, is not founded upon them: on the con- trary, they are one of the inglori- ous ends to which they are repro. bated. Sinners do not bear the root, but the root them. Reprobate unto disobedience. ‘They who haye been reprobated, &c, shall experi- ence the wicked spirit’s pollution, in beginning, advancing, and per- fecting the work of sim in their souls. The reprobates, &c, are made to disobey the commandments of God, and to imitate Satan, &c. I said, made to disobey. Here per- haps the blushing Mr. Wesley may ask, “ Are the reprobates then mere f ——— Ee eee ——=——_ VINDICATION OF THE DECREES. RIGHT LEG. are made willing in the day of God’s power.”* Ane. IX. No. 1. Pages 23, 24. “God decreed to bring his elect to glory, in a way of sanctification, and in no other way but that. If so, cries Mr. Wesley, ‘they shall be saved, whether they are sanctified or no. What, notwithstanding their sanctification is itself an es- sential branch of the decree con- cerning them? ‘The man may as well affirm that Abraham might have been the progenitor of nations, though he had died in infancy, &c. Equally illogical is Mr. Wesley’s impudent slander, that ‘the elect shall be saved, do what they will,’ that is, whether they be holy or Are. X. No. 1. Page 20. “ Paul’s travelling, and Paul’s utterance, were as certainly and as neces- sarily included in the decree of the means as his preaching was deter- mined by the decree of the end.” Arc. XI. No. 1. Pages 28, 29. « Love, when [Calvinistically] pre- dicated of God, signifies his eternal benevolence ; that is, his everlasting will, purpose, and determination, to deliver, bless, and save his [elect] people. In order to the eventual accomplishment of that salvation in the next world, grace is given them in this, to preserve them (and pre- serve them it does) from doing the evil they otherwise would. ‘This is all the election which Calvinism, &c, contends for ; even a predesti- nation to holiness and heaven.” Are. XII. No. 1. Page 33. ~ 427 LEFT LEG. machines?” I answer, No: they are made willing in the day of God’s power. Answer. No. 2. God decreed to bring his reprobate to hell in a way of sinning, and in no other way but that. If so, cries Mr. Wesley, “they shall be damned, whether they sin or no.” What, notwithstanding their sinning is it- self an essential branch of the de- cree concerning them? “The man may as well affirm that Paul might have preached the Gospel, viva voce, in fifty different regions, with- out travelling a step!” page 23. Equally illogical is Mr. Wesley’s impudent slander, that “the repro- bate shall be damned, do what they will,” that is, whether they be wicked or not. Answer. No. 2. The rich glut- ton’s gluttony, and his wnmerciful- ness, were as certainly and as ne- cessarily included in the decree of the means as his being tormented in hell was determined by the decree of the end. Answer. No. 2. Hate, when Calvinistically predicated of God, signifies his eternal 2/ will ; that fs, his everlasting will, purpose, and determination, to enthral, curse, and damn his [reprobated] people. In order to the eventual accomplish- ment of that damnation in the next world, wickedness is given them in this, to preserve them (and pre- serve them it does) from doing the good they otherwise would. This igs all the reprobation which Cal vinism contends for; even a pre destination to wickedness and hell. Answer. No. 2. Now, if it bethe * Here Mr. Toplady adds, And, I believe, nobody ever yet heard of a willing machine. But he is mistaken: for all moral philosophers call machine whatever is fitted for free motions, and yet has no power to begin and determine its own motions. Now willing being the motion of a spirit, ifa spirit cannot will but as it is necessarily made to will, it is as void of a self-determining principle as a fire engine, and of consequence it is (morally speaking) asa mere machine. 428 RIGHT LEG. ‘¢ Now, if it be the Father’s will that Christ should lose none of his elect ; if Christ himself, in consequence of their covenant donation to him, does actually give unto them eternal life, and svlemnly avers that they shall never perish; if God be so for them that none can hinder their salvation, &c; if they cannot be condemned, and naught shall sepa- rate them from the love of Christ ; it clearly and inevitably follows, that not one of the elect can perish ; but they must all necessarily be saved. Which salvation consists as much in the recovery of moral ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S LEFT LEG. s Father’s will that Satan should lose none of his reprobate; if Satan himself, in consequence of their covenant donation to him, does ac- tually give unto them eternal death, and solemnly avers that they shall never escape ; if God be so against — them that none can hinder their damnation, &c ; if they cannot’ be justified, and naught shall separate them from the hate of Christ; it clearly and inevitably follows, that not one of the reprobate can escape ; but they must all necessarily be damned. Which damnation con-— sists as much in the being stripped rectitude below, as in the enjoyment of moral rectitude on earth, as in the of eternal blessedness above.” enduring p A GS > Pie without impeachment of his holiness, justice, and mercy, absolutely appoint his unborn creatures to remediless wickedness and everlasting torments, Mr. Toplady relents, and seems a little ashamed of Calyi- nian reprobation. He tells us that “yreprobation is, for the most part, — something purely negative,” and “has, so far as God is concerned, more — in it of negation than positivity.” But Mr. Toplady knows that the unavoidable END of absolute reprobation is DAMNATION, and that the — means conducive to this fearful end is unavoidable wickedness ; and he has already told us, p. 17, that “God’s own decree secures the means ~ as well as the end, and accomplishes the end by the means.” Now securing and accomplishing a thing, is something altogether positive. — Hence it is, that, p. 83, Mr. T. calls the decrees by which the repro- bates sin, not only permissive but “effective ;” and tells us, p. 77, that “God efficaciously permitted horrible wickedness.” And herein he exactly follows Calvin, who, in his comment on Rom. ix, 18, says, “INDURANDI verbum, quum Deo in Scripturis tribuitur, non solum, PER- MissionEM (ut volunt diluti quidam moderatores sed) Divine quoque iRm ACTIONEM significat.” ‘The word HARDEN when it is attributed to God in Scripture, means not only PERMISSION, (as some washy, compromising divines would have it,) but it signifies also ruz action of Divine wrath.’ VINDICATION OF THE DECTEES. 445 Beside, something negative amounts, in a thousand cases, to some- thing positive. A general, for example, denies gunpowder to some. of his soldiers, to whom he owes a grudge; he hangs them for not firing, and then exculpates himself by saying, “ My not giving them powder was a thing purely negative. I did nothing to them to hinder them from firing: on the contrary, I bid them fire away.” This is exactly the case with the Manichean God and his imaginary reprobates. He bids them repent or perish, believe or be damned, do good works or depart into everlasting fire. And yet, all the while, he keeps from them every dram of true grace, whereby they might savingly repent, believe, and obey. Is it not surprising that so many of our Gospel ministers should call preaching such a doctrine, preaching the Gospel and exalting Christ? But Mr. Toplady replies :— Arc. XXXVIII. Page 48. “If I am acquainted with an indigent neighbour, and have it in my power to enrich him, but do it not, am I the author of that man’s poverty, only for resolving to permit him, and for actually permitting* him to continue poor?’ Am I blamable for his poverty, because I do not give him the utmost Iam able? Similar is * Not unlike this argument is that of the letter writer, on whom I have already bestowed a note, sec. il. « Divine justice,” says he, pp. 4, 5, could not condemn, till the law was broken.” True; but Calvinian free wrath reprobated from all eternity, and consequently before the law was either broken or given. ‘‘ Therefore condemnation did not take place before a law was given and broken.” This author trifles; for if Cal- vinian reprobation took place before the creation of Adam, and if it necessarily draws after it the uninterrupted breach of the law, and the condemnation con- sequent upon that breach, Calvinian reprobation differs no more from everlast- ing damnation, than condemning and necessitating a man to commit murder, that he may infallibly be hanged, differs from condemning him to be hanged. But ‘suppose that out of twenty found guilty, his majesty King George should par- don ten, he is not the cause of the other ten being executed. It was his cle- mency that pardoned any: it was their breaking the laws of the kingdom that condemned them, and not his majesty.” Indeed, it was his majesty who con- demned them, if, in order to do it without fail, he made, (1.) Efficacious and irresistible decrees of the means, that they should necessarily and unavoidably be guilty of robbery; and, (2.) Efficacious and irresistible decrees of the end, that they should unavoidably be condemned for their crimes, and inevitable guilt. The chain by which the God of Manes and Calvin drags poor reprobates to hell, has three capital links; the first is absolute, unconditional reprobation : the second is necessary, remediless sin: and the third is insured, eternal damnation. Now although the middle link intervenes between the first and the last link, it is only a necessary connection between them: for, says Mr. Toplady, p. 17, ‘“‘ God’s own decree secures the means as well as the end, and accomplishes the end by the means” That is, (when this doctrine is applied to the present case,) the first link, which is Calvinian reprobation, draws the middle, diabolical link, which is remediless wickedness, as well as the last link, which is infernal and finished damnation. Thus Calvin’s God accomplishes damnation by means of sin; or, if you please, he draws the third link by means of the second. Who can consider this and not wonder at the prejudice of the letter writer, who boldly affirms that, upon the Calyinian scheme, God is nu more the author and cause of the damna- tion of the reprobates, than the king is the cause of the condemnation of the criminals whom he does not pardon! For my part, the more I consider Calvin- ism, the more I see that the decree of absolute reprobation, which is insepara- ble from the decree of absolute election, represents God as the sure author of sin in order to represent him as the sure author of damnation. The horrible mystery of absolute reprobation, necessary sin, and insured damnation, is not less essential to Calvinism, than the glorious mystery of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is es- sential to Christianity ; and yet Calvinism is the Gospel! the doctrines of grace’ 446 ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S the case now in debate. Ever since the fall of Adam, mankind are by nature spiritually poor.” “i Mr. T. is greatly mistaken, when he says, “Similar is the case now in debate.” To show that it is entirely dissimilar, we need only m ake his partial illustration stand fairly “upon its legs.” If you know that your neighbour, who is an industrious tenant of yours, must work ¢ break ; and if, in order to make him break, according to your decree the end, you make a decree of the means—an efficacious decree that _ his cattle shall die, that his plough shall be stolen, that he shall fall sick, and that nobody shall help him; I boldly say, You are “the author of that man’s poverty :” and if, when you have reduced him to sordid want, _ and have, by this means, clothed his numerous family with filthy rags, you make another efficacious, absolute decree, that a majority of his” children shall never have a good garment, and that at whatsoever time” the constable shall find them with the only ragged coat which their” bankrupt father could afford to give them, they shall all be sent to the house of correction, and severely whipt there, merely for not having o1 a certain coat, which you took care they should never have; and fo wearing the filthy rags, which you decreed they should necessaril wear, you show yourself as merciless to the poor man’s children, as you showed yourself i] natured to the poor man himself. To prove tha this is a just state of the case, if the doctrine of absolute predestina- tion be true, I refer the reader to section ii, where he will find Calyin- ism “ on its legs.” Upon the whole, if I mistake not, it is evident that the arguments by which Mr. Toplady endeavours to reconcile Calvinian reprobation with Divine MERcy, are as inconclusive as those by which he tries to recon- cile it with Divine sustice ; both sorts of arguments drawing all their plausibility from the skill with which Logica Genevensis tucks up the left leg of Calvinism, or covers it with deceitful buskins, which are called by a variety of delusive names, such as “ passing by, not electing, not owing salvation, limiting the display of goodness, not extending mercy infinitely, not enriching,” &c, just as if all these phrases together con- veyed one just idea of Calvinian reprobation, which is an absolute, unconditional dooming of myriads of «inborn creatures to live and die in necessary, remediless wickedness, and then to “ depart into everlasting” fire,” merely because Adam, according to Divine predestination, neces- sarily sinned ; obediently fulfilling God’s absolute, irreversible, and effi- cacious decree of the means (sin:) an Antinomian decree this, by which, if Calvinism be true, God secured and accomplished the decree of the end, that is, the remediless sin and eternal damnation of the reprobate : for, says Mr. T., p. 17, “God’s own decree secures the means as well as the end, and accomplishes the end by the means.” And now, candid reader, say if Mr. T. did not act with a degree of partiality, when he called his book “ A Vindication of God’s Decrees, &c, from the defamations of Mr. Wesley ;” and if he could not, with greater propriety, have called it, “ An Unscriptural and Ilogical Vindication of the Horrible Decree, from the Scriptural and rational exceptions made against it by Mr. Wesley.” 4 VINDICATION OF THE DECREES. 447 SECTION VI. A view of the Scrrprure proors by which Mr. T. attempts to demon- strate the truth of Calvinian reprobation. Tuar the Old and New Testament hold forth a parTrAL REPROBATION of distinguishing grace, and an IMPARTIAL REPROBATION of retributive justice, is a capital truth of the Gospel. One of the leading errors of the Calvinists consists in confounding these two reprobations, and the elections which they draw after them. By the impetuous blast of prejudice, and the fire of a heated imagination, modern Aarons melt the partial election of grace, and the zmpartial election of justice ; and, casting them in the mould of confusion, they make their one partial election of unscriptural, necessitating, Antinomian FREE GRACE, to which they are obliged to oppose their one partial reprobation of necessitating, Manichean rrez wrarn. Now, as the Scriptures frequently speak of the harmless reprobation of grace, and of the awful reprobation of justice, it would be surprising, indeed, if out of so large a book as the Bible, Logica Genevensis could not extract a few passages which, by being wrested from the context, and misapplied according to art, seem to favour Calvinian reprobation. Such passages are produced in the following ages :— i: XXXIX. Page 19. After transcribing Rom. ix, 20-23, Mr. Toplady says, “ Now are these the words of Scripture, or are they not? If not, prove the forgery. Ifthey be, you cannot fight against reprobatzon without fighting against God.” Far from fighting against Scripture Treprobation, we maintain, as St. Paul does in Rom. ix, (1.) That God has an absolute right gratuitously to call whom he pleases to either of his two grand covenants of peculiarity, (Judaism and Christianity,) and gratuitously to reprobate whom he will from the blessings peculiar to these covenants; leaving as many nations and individuals as he thinks fit, under the general blessings of the gracious covenants which he made with reprieved Adam, and with spared Noah. (2.) We assert that God has an indubitable right judicially to reprobate obstinate unbelievers under all the dispensations of his grace, and to appoint that (as stubborn unbe- lievers) they shall be “ vessels of wrath fitted for destruction” by their own unbelief, and not by God’s free wrath. This is ail the reprobation which St. Paul contends for in Rom. ix. (See Scales, sec. xi, where Mr. T.’s objection is answered at large.) Therefore, with one hand we defend Scripture reprobation, and with the other we attack Calvinian reprobation ; maintaining that the Scripture reprobation of grace, and of justice, are as different from Calvinian, damning reprobation, as appointing a soldier to continue a soldier, and to be a captain, or a wilful deserter to be shot, is different from appointing a soldier necessarily to desert, that he may be unavoidably shot for desertion. Having thus vindicated the godly reprobation maintained by St. Paul from the misapprehensions of Mr. Toplady, we point at all the passages which we have produced in the Scripture Scales, in defence of the doctrines of justice, the conprrronatiry of the reward of the inheritance, and the rrrEepom of the will; and, retorting Mr. T.’s argument, we say, , “ Now, are these the words of Scripture, or are they not? If not, prove 448 ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S the forgery. If they be, you cannot fight against [the conditional] repro. bation [which we defend,] without fighting against God.” You cannot — fight for Calvinian reprobation without fighting for free wrath and the evil-principled Deity worshipped by the Manichees. b.. Arc. XL. Page 51. Mr. T. supports absolute reprobation by quoting 1 Sam. ii, 25: “They [the sons of Eli] hearkened not to the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them,” 1 Sam. ii, 25. Here © we are given to understand, that by the decree of the means, the Lord secured the disobedience of these wicked men, in order to accomplish his decree of the end, that is, their absolute destruction. 4 To this truly Calvinian insinuation we answer, (1.) The sons of Eh, — who had turned the tabernacle into'a house of ill fame, and a den of © thieves, had personally deserved a judicial reprobation ; God therefore could justly give them up to a reprobate mind, in consequence of their — personal, avoidable, repeated, and aggravated crimes. (2.) The word “ killing” does not here necessarily imply eternal damnation. The Lord © killed, by a hon, the man of God from Judah, for having stopped in Bethel: he killed Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire: he killed — the child of David and Bathsheba: he killed many of the Corinthians, for their irreverent partaking of the Lord’s Supper: but the “ sin unto ~ [bodily] death” is not the sin unto eternal death. For St. Paul informs” us that the body is sometimes “ given up to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord,” 1 Cor. v, 5. (3.) The Hebrew particle »2, which is rendered in our translation “ because,” means also “ therefore :” and so our translators themselves have rendered it after St. Paul, and the Septuagint, Psa. exyi, 10, “I believed, », and therefore will I speak :” see 2 Cor. iy, 13. If they had done their part as well in translating the verse quoted by Mr. © Toplady, the doctrines of free wrath would have gone propless ; and we — should have had these edifying words : “ They [the sons of Eli] hearkened not to the voice of their father; and rHeREFor:E the Lord would slay them.” ‘Thus the voluntary sin of free agents would be represented as the cause of their deserved reprobation; and not their undeserved reprobation as the cause of their necessary sin. (See sec. il.) Arc. XLI. Page 51. Mr. T. tries to prove absolute reprobation by quoting these words of our Lord: “ Thou Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works which ~ have been done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would [or might] haye remained unto this day.” This passage, if J am not mistaken, is nothing but a strong expostula- tion and reproof, admirably calculated to shame the unbelief and alarm the fears of the Capernaites. Suppose I had an enemy, whose obstinate — hatred had resisted for years the constant tokens of my love ; and suppose ~ I said to him, “ Your obduracy is astonishing; if I had shown to the fiercest tiger the kindness which I have shown you, I could have melted — the savage beast into love ;” would it be right, from such a figurative supposition, to conclude that I absolutely believed I could haye tamed the fiercest tiger ? But this passage, taken in a literal sense, far from proving the absolute _ Teprobation of Sodom, demonstrates that Sodom was never reprobated in the Calvinian sense of the word : for if it had been absolutely reprobated VINDICATION OF THE DECREES. © 449 from all eternity, no works done in her by Christ and his apostles could have overcome her unbelief. But our Lord observes that her strong unbelief could have been overcome by the extraordinary means of faith, which could not conquer the unbelief of Capernaum. Mr. T. goes on :— Are. XLII. (Jbid.) “ But though God knew the citizens of Sodom would [or might] have reformed their conduct, had his providence made use of effectual [Mr. T. should say of every effectual] means to that end ; still these effectual [Mr. T. should say, all these extraordinary and peculiar| means were not vouchsafed.” True: because, according to the election of grace, God uses more means and more powerful means to conyert some cities than he does to convert others: witness the case of Nineveh, compared with that of Jericho. ‘This is strongly maintained in my Essay on the Partial Reprobation of Distinguishing Grace, where this very passage is produced. But still we affirm two things: (1.) God always uses means sufficient to demonstrate that his goodness, patience, and mercy, are over all his works, (though in different degrees,) and to testify that he is unwilling that sinners should die, unless they have first obstinately, and without necessity, refused to “ work out their own eternal salvation” with the talent of temporary salvation, which is given to all, for the sake of Him whose “ saving grace has appeared to all men,” and who “enlightens [in various degrees] every man that comes into the world.” (2.) As the men of Sodom were not absolutely lost, though they had but one talent of means, no more were the men of Capernaum absolutely saved, though God favoured them with so many more talents of means than he did the menof Sodom. Hence it appears that Mr. T. has run upon the point of his own sword; the passage which he appeals to proving that God does not work so irresistibly upon either Jews or Gentiles as to secure his absolute approbation of some, and his absolute reprobation of others. Arc. XLII. Page 52. Mr. T., to prop up Calvyinian reprobation, quotes these words of Christ : “ Fill ye up the measure of your fathers,” Matt. xxiii, 32, and he takes care to produce the words, “ Fill ye up,” in capitals ; as if he would give us to understand that Christ is extremely busy in getting reprobates to sin and be damned. For my part, as I believe that Christ never preached up sin and wickedness, I am per- suaded that this expression is nothing but a strong, zronical reproof of sin, like that in the Revelation, « Let him that is unjust, be unjust still ;’ or that in the Gospel, “Sleep on now and take your rest;” or that in the book of Ecclesiastes, “ Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, and walk in the ways of thy heart, &c, but know,” &c. I shudder when I consider “doctrines of grace,” so called, which support themselves by representing Christ as a preacher of wickedness. Calvinism may be compared to that insect which feeds on putrefying carcasses, lights only upon real or apparent sores, and delights chiefly in the smell of cor- _ ruption. If there be a fault in our translation, Calvinism will pass over a hundred plain passages well translated, and will eagerly light upon the error. ‘Thus, pp. 53 and 57, Mr. Toplady quotes, “being disobedient, whereunto they were appointed,” 1 Pet. u, 8. He had rather take it for granted that the God of Manes absolutely predestinates some people to be disobedient, than do the holy God the justice to admit this godly © sense, which the original bears, “ Being disobedient, whereunto they Vou. Il. 29 ‘ 450 ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S 4 have set, or disposed themselves.” (See the proofs, Scales, pages 78, 104.) «4 Are. XLIV. Page 52. Mr. T., still pleading for the “horrible — decree” of Calvinian reprobation, says, “St. Matthew, if possible, expresses it still.more strongly: ‘It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; but to them it is not given,’ Matt. xiii, 11.” I answer: (1.) If by “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,” you understand the mysteries of Christianity, it is absurd to say that all who are not blessed with the knowledge of these mysteries are Calvinistically reprobated. This I demonstrate by verses 16, 17, and by the parallel place.in St. Luke: “ All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father ; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. [That is, the mystery of a relative personality of Father and Son in the Godhead has not been expressly revealed to others, as I choose to reveal it to you, my Christian friends :] and [to show that this was his meaning] he turned him unto his disciples, and said, privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things which ye see: for I tell you that many prophets [such as Samuel, Isaiah, Daniel, &c,] and kings [such as David, Solomon, Josiah, Hezekiah, &c, St. Matthew adds, ‘and righteous men,’ such as Noah; Abraham, &c,] have desired to see the things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear the things which ye hear, and have not heard them,” Luke x, 22-24; Matt. xii, 17. Is not Mr. T. excessively fond of reprobating people to” death, if he supposes that because “it was not given to those prophets, — kings, and righteous men, to know the mysteries of the” Christian dis. pensation, they were all absolutely doomed to continue im sin, and be damned ? But, (2.) Should it be asserted, that by “the mysteries of the king- dom,” we are to understand here every degree of saving light, then the reprobation mentioned in Matt. xii, 11, is not the partial reprobation of grace, but the impartial reprobation of justice: and, in this case, to ‘appeal to this verse in support of a chimerical reprobation of free wrath, argues great inattention to the context ; for the very neat verse fixes the reason of the reprobation of the Jews, who heard the Gospel of Christ without being benefited by it: a reason this, which saps the foundation of absolute reprobation. “But unto them it is not given :” for they are Calvinistically reprobated! No: “Unto them it is not given: for, whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abun. dance : but whosoever hath mot, [to purpose] from him shall be taken — away, even that he hath,” Matt. xiii, 12. This anti-Calvinian sense is strongly confirmed by our Lord’s words two verses below: “To them — it is not given, &c, for this people’s heart is waxed gross: [NoTE: itis — waxed gross, therefore it was not so gross at first as it isnow :] and their — ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any — time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should he: them,” Matt. xiii, 15. To produce, therefore, Matt. xiii, 11, as a capil proof of Calvinian reprobation, is as daring an imposition upon the cre. dulity of the simple, as to produce Exodus xx, in defence of adultery” and murder. Hewever, such arguments will not only be swallowed — VINDICATION OF THE DECREES. 451 down in Geneva as tolerable, but the author of P. O. will cry them up as “ most masterly.” Are. XLV. Page 53. Mr. T. concludes his Scripture proofs of Calvinian reprobation by these words : “ Now I leave it to the decision of any unprejudiced, capable man upon earth, whether it be not evident, from these passages, &c, that God hath determined to leave some men to perish in their sins and to be justly punished for them? In affirming which, I only give the scripture as I found it.” That the scriptures produced by Mr. T. prove this, is true; we maintain it as well as he: and if he will impose no other reprobation upon us, we are ready to shake hands with him. Nor needs he call his book, “ More Work for Mr. Wesley,” but, A Reconciliation with Mr. Wesley: for, when we speak of the reprobation of susricr, we assert that “God hath deter- mined to leave some men, [namely, the wise and prudent in their own eyes, the proud and disobedient, who do despite to the Spirit of grace to the end of their day of salvation] to perish in their sins, and to be justly punished for them.” But, according to Mr. T.’s system, the men “ left to perish in their sins,” are not the men whom the scriptures which he has quoted describe ; but poor creatures absolutely sentenced to neces- sary, remediless sin, and to unavoidable, eternal damnation, long before they had an existence in their mother’s womb. And, in this case, we affirm that their endless torments can never be just: and, of conse- quence, that the Calvinian reprobation of unborn men, which Mr. T. has tried to dress up in Scripture phrases, is as contrary to the Scripture reprobation of stubborn offenders, as Herod’s ordermg the barbarous destruction of the holy innocents, is different from his ordering the righteous execution of bloody murderers. SECTION VII. An answer to the arguments by which Mr. T. tries to reconcile Calvinism with the doctrine of a future judgment, and aBsoLuTE necessity with MORAL agency. Turvy who indirectly set aside the day of judgment, do the cause of religion as much mischief as they who indirectly set aside the immor- tality of the soul. Mr. Wesley asserts that the Calvinists are the men. His words are: “On the principle of absolute predestination, there can be no future judgment. It requires more pains than all the men upon earth, than all the devils in hell will ever be able to take, to reconcile the doctrine of [Calvinian] reprobation, with the doctrine of a judgment day.” Mr. 'T. answers :— Arc. XLVI. Page 82. “The consequence is false; for absolute predestination is the very thing that renders the future judgment certain : ‘God hath arrornrep a day in which he will judge the world in right- | .eousness by the man whom he hath orparnep,’” If Mr. T. had put __ the words ‘‘in righteousness” in capitals, instead of the words “appointed” sand “ ordained,” (which he fondly hopes will convey the idea of the Calvinian decrees,) he would have touched the knot of the difficulty: for the question is not, whether there will be a day of judgment; but 452 ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S whether, on the principle of absolute predestination, there can be a = > of judgment, consistently with Divine equity, justice, wisdom, and sin- — cerity: and that there can, Mr. ‘I’. attempts to prove by the following reasoning :— Arc. XLVII. Page 83. “The most flagrant sinners sin voluntarily, notwithstanding the znevitable accomplishment of God’s effective and permissive decrees.” Now they who sin voluntarily are accountable: and accountable sinners are judicable: and if judicable, they are — punishable.” Mr. T. has told us, p. 45, that “fallen men are involuntary beings ;” and in this page he tells us that they sin voluntarily. Now we, who never learned Mr. T.’s logic, cannot understand how “ involuntary beings” can sin voluntarily. But, letting this contradiction pass, and granting that sinners offend voluntarily, I ask, Is their wild at hiberty to choose otherwise than it does, or is it not? If you say it is at liberty to — choose otherwise than it does, you renounce necessitating predestina- tion, and you will allow the doctrine of free will, which is the bulwark of the second Gospel axiom, and the Scripture engine which batters down Calvinian reprobation ; and, upon this Scriptural plan, it is most certain that God can “ judge the world in righteousness,” that is, in a manner which reflects praise upon his essential justice and wisdom. But if you insinuate that the will of sinners is absolutely bound by “ the efficacious purposes of Heaven,” and by the “effective decrees” of Him who “‘worketh all things in all men, and even wickedness in the wicked ;” if you say that God’s decree concerning every man is irreversible, whe- ther it be a decree of absolute election to life, or of absolute reprobation to death, “ because God’s own decree secures the means as well as the end, and accomplishes the end by the means ;” (p. 17;) or, which comes to the same thing, if you assert that the reprobate always sin necessarily, having no power, no liberty to will righteousness, you an- swer like a consistent Calvinist, and pour your shame, folly, and un- righteousness upon the tribunal where Christ will judge the world in righteousness. A just illustration will convince the unprejudiced reader, that this is really the case. "By the king’s “efficacious permission,” a certain strong man, called Adam, binds the hands of a thousand children behind their backs with a chain of brass, and a strong lock, of which the king - himself keeps the key. When the children are thus chained, the king commands them all, upon pain of death, to put their hands upon their breasts, and promises ample rewards to those who will do it. Now, as the king is absolute, he passes by seven hundred of the bound children, and as he passes them by he hangs about their necks a black stone, witk this inscription, “ Unconditional reprobation to death :” but being merei- ful too, he graciously fixes his love upon the rest of the children, just three hundred in number, and he ordains them to finished salvation by hanging about their necks a white stone, with this inscription, “ Uncon- ditional election to life.” And, that they may not miss their reward by non-performance of the above-mentioned condition, he gives the key of the locks to another strong man, named Christ, who, in a day of irre- sistible power, looses the hands of the three hundred elect children, and chains them upon their breasts, as strongly as they were before chained . VINDICATION OF THE DECREES. ; 453 behind their backs. When all the elect are properly bound, agreeably to orders, the king proceeds to ‘judge the children according to their works, that is, according to their having put their hands behind their backs, or upon their breasts. In the meantime a question arises in the court: Can the king judge the children concerning the position of their hands, without rendering himself ridiculous? Can he wisely reward the elect favourites with life according to their works, when he has abso- lutely done the rewardable work for them by the stronger man? And can he justly punish the reprobate with eternal death, for not putting their hands upon their breasts, when the strong man has, according to a royal decree, absolutely bound them behind their backs? “Yes, he can;” says a counsellor, who has learned logic in mystic Geneva; “ for the children have hands, notwithstanding the inevitable accomplishment of the king’s effective and permissive decrees: now children who have hands, and do not place them as they are bid, are accountable, and’ac- countable children are judicable ; and if judicable, they are punishable.” This argument would be excellent, if the counsellor did not speak of hands which are absolutely tied. But it-is not barely the having hands, but the having hands free, which makes us accountable for not placing them properly. Apply this plain observation to the case in hand, and you will see, (1.) That it is not barely the having a will, but the having free will, which constitutes us accountable, judicable, and punishable. (2.) That, of consequence, Mr. Toplady’s grand argument is as inconclusive as that of the counsellor. (3.) That both arguments are as contrary to good sense, as the state of hands at liberty is contrary to the state of hands absolutely tied ; as contrary to reason, as free will is contrary to a will absolutely bound. And, (4.) That, of consequence, the doctrine of the day of judgment is as incompatible with Calvinian predestination, as sense with nonsense, and Christ with Belial. However, if Mr. T. cannot carry his point by reason, he will do it by Scripture ; and therefore he raises such an argument as this:—We often read in the Bible that there will be a day of judgment; we often meet also in the Bible with the words “must” and “necessity ;” and, therefore, according to the Bible, the doctrine of a day of judgment is consistent with the doctrine of the absolute necessity of human actions : just as if, in a thousand cases, a decree of necessity, or a must, were not as different from absolute necessity, as the want of an apartment in the king’s palace is different from the absolute want of a room in any house in the kingdom. The absurdity of this argument will be better under- stood by considering the passages whiclt Mr. T. produces, to prove that when men do good or evil, God’s absolute decree of predestination ne- cessitates them to doit. Arc. XLVIII. Page 60. “Jt must needs be that offences come. There must be heresies among you. Such things [wars, &c,] must needs be.” When Mr. 'T. builds Calvinian necessity upon these scriptures, he _is as much mistaken as if he fancied that Mr. Wesley and I were fatal- ists, because we say, “Considering the course and wickedness of the world, it cannot but be Christendom will be distracted by heresies, law- suits, wars, and murders : for so long as men wiil follow worldly maxims, rather than evangelical precepts, such things must come to pass,” 454 ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S Again :—Would not the reader think that I trifled, if I attempted te — prove absolute necessity from such Scriptural expressions as these : “Seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. New wine must be put into new bottles. He must needs go through Samaria. Ihave bought — a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it. How can I sin against God? I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. The multitude must needs come together [to mob Paul,] (Acts xxi, 22.) A bishop must be blameless. Ye must needs be subject [to rulers] not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake ?” Once more: who does not see that there is what the poverty of lan guage obliges me to call, (1.) A necessity of duty: “I must pay my debts: I must preach next Sunday.” (2.) A necessity of civility: “I must pay such a visit.” (3.) A necessity of circumstance: “in going from Jerusalem to Galilee, ‘I must needs pass through Samaria,’ because the high way lies directly through Samaria.” (4.) A necessity of convenience: “I am tired with writing, I must leave off.” (5.) A necessity of decency: “I must not go naked.” (6.) A necessity of pru- dence: ‘I must look before I leap, &c.” Now, all these sorts of neces- sity, and a hundred more of the like stamp, do not amount to one single grain of Calvinian, absolute, insuperable necessity. However, a rigid Predestinarian (such is the force of prejudice !) sees his imaginary neces- sity in almost every must; just as a jealous man sees adultery in almost every look which his virtuous wife casts upon the man whom he fancies to be his rival. Are. XLIX. Page 61. “Absolute necessity, then, is perfectly con- sistent with willingness and freedom in good agency, no less than in bad. For it is a true maxim, Ubi voluntas, ibi libertas ;” that is, where there is a will, there is liberty. ‘This maxim, which has led many good men into Calvinism, I have already exposed. (See Scales, page 186.) To what is there advanced, I add the following remark :—As there may be liberty, where there is not a will, so there may be a will, where there is not liberty. The first idle school boy whom you meet will convince you of it. I ask him, “ When you are at school, and have a will, or (as you call it) a mind to go and play, have you liberty, or freedom to do it?” He answers, “No.” Here is then @ will without liberty. ask him again: “ When you are at school, where you have freedom or liberty to ply your book, have you a will to do it?” He honestly answers, “No,” again. Here is then liberty without a will. How false therefore is this proposition, that “ where there is a will there is liberty!” Did judicious Calvinists consider this, they would no more say, “If all men were redeemed, they would all come out of the dungeon of sin.” For there may be a freedom to come out consequent upon redemption, where there is no will exercised. “O, but God makes us willing in the day of his power.” ‘True: in the day of salvation he restores to us the faculty of choosing moral good with some degree of ease ; and, from time to time, he peculiarly helps us to make acts of willingness. But to suppose that he absolutely wills for us, is as absurd as to say, that when, after a quinsy, his gracious providence restores us a degree of liberty to swallow, he necessitates us to eat and drink, or actually swallows for us. rem L. Page 61. In his refusal to dismiss the Israelites, &c, VINDICATION OF THE DECREES. 458° “he [Pharaoh] could will no otherwise than he did, Exod. vii, 3, 4.” Is not this a mistake? When Pharaoh considered, did he not alter his mind? Did he not say to Moses, “Be gone, and bless me also?” If Omnipotence had absolutely hardened him, could he have complied at last? Do the unchangeable decrees change as the will of Pharaoh changed ? Are. LI. Pages 61, 62. “So when Saul went home to Gibeah, it is said, ‘There went with him a band of men, whose hearts God had touched.’ In like manner, God is said to have ‘stirred up the spirit of Cyrus. Then rose up, &c, the Levites, with all them whose spirit God had raised up.’ Will any man say that these did not will freely, only because they willed necessarily ?” 1. I (for one) say, that while they willed necessarily, (in the Calvinian sense of the word “necessary,”) they could not will freely in the moral sense of the word free. Mr. Toplady is not morally free to will, so Tong as he is absolutely bound to will one thing, any more than a man is free to look to the left, who is absolutely bound to look to the right, let the object he looks at engage his heart and eye ever so pleasingly. God’s Spirit prevents, accompanies, and follows us in every good thing : all our good works are “ begun, continued, and ended in him ;” but they are not necessary, in the Calvinian sense of the word. In moral cases, God does not absolutely necessitate us, though he may do it in prophetic and political cases. ‘Thus, he necessitated Balaam, when he blessed Israel by the mouth of that covetous prophet ; and thus he necessitated Balaam’s ass, when the dumb animal reproved his rider’s madness. But then, whatever we do under such necessitating impulses, will not be rewarded as our own work, any more than Balaam’s good prophecy, and his ass’ good reproof, were rewarded as their own works. 2. From the above-mentioned passages, Mr. Toplady would make us believe, that upon the whole, the touches of God’s grace act necessarily like charms: but what says the stream of the Scriptures? God “touched the hearis” of all the Israelites, and stirred them up to faith: but the effect of that touch was so far from being absolutely forcible, that their hearts soon “started aside like a broken bow;” and, after having been “saved in Egypt through faith, they perished in the wilder- ness through unbelief.” “God gave King Saul a new heart ;” and yet Saul cast away the heavenly gift. “God gave Solomon a wise and understanding heart ;” and yet Solomon, in his old age, “made himself a foolish heart, darkened” by the love of heathenish women. God stirred up the heart of Peter to confess Christ, and to walk upon the sea; and yet, by and by, Peter sunk, cursed, swore, and denied his Lord. Awful demonstrations these, that, where Divine grace works most powerfully, when its first grand impulse is over, there is an end of the overbearing power; and the soul, returning to its free agency, chooses without necessity the good which constitutes her rewardable ; or the evil which constitutes her punishable. Of this Mr. Toplady himself produces a remarkable instance, 2 Cor. viii, 16, 17, “ Thanks be to God,” says the apostle, “ who put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you; of his own accord he went unto you.” If a gentleman, who delights to be in houses of ill fame, more tham in the house of God, sees, in a circle of ladies, one whom he suspects 456 ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S of being immodest, he singles her out as one that may suit his purpose: and to her he makes his bold addresses. I am sorry to observe that this is exactly the case with Calvinism unmasked. We find, in the Scriptures, a few places where God’s suffermg some men to do a lesser evil, in order to prevent, or to punish a greater evil, is expressed in a strong, figurative manner, which seems to ascribe sin to him, just as, in~ other places, jealousy, repentance, wrath, and fury, together with hands, — feet, ears, and a nose, are figuratively attributed to him. Now as popish idolatry screens herself behind these metaphors, so Calvinian Anti- nomianism perpetually singles out ‘hose metaphorical expressions which — seem to make God the author of sin. Accordingly,— Arc. LIT. Page 61, &c. Mr. Toplady produces these words of Joseph: “It was not you that sent me hither, but God ;” these words of David: “The Lord said to him, [Shimei,] Curse David ;” these words of the sacred historian: “ God had appointed to defeat the good — counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the Lord might bring evil upon Absalom ;” and these words of the prophet: “ Howbeit, he [the Assy- rian king, turned loose upon Israel to avenge God’s righteous quarrel with that hypocritical people] meaneth not so, neither does his heart think so: but it is in his heart to destroy ;” these words in the Revela- tion: “God hath put it into their hearts [the hearts of the kings who shall hate the mystic harlot and destroy her, and burn her with fire] to fulfil his will, and to agree, and to give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God shall be fulfilled ;” and the words of Peter: “’They [the accomplishers of the crucifixion of Christ] were gathered together to do whatsoever God’s hand, and God’s counsel had predestinated to be done,” &c. With respect to the last text, if it be mghtly* translated, it is ex- plained by these words of Peter, Acts ii, 23: “ Christ was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God :” by his gracious “counsel,” that Christ should lay down his life as a ransom for all; and by his clear “ foreknowledge” of the disposition of the Jews to take * With Episcopius, and some other learned critics, I doubt it is not. Why should it not be read thus? Acts iv, 26-28, ‘‘ The rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ. For ofa truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, (both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gen- tiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,) for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” By putting the clause ‘“* Both Herod,” &c, ina parenthesis, you have this evangelical sense which gives no handle to the pleaders for sin: ‘‘ Both Herod and Pilate, &c, were gathered toge- ther against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed to do whatsoever thy hand and counsel determined before to be done.” I prefer this reading to the common one, for the following reasons: (1.) It is perfectly agreeable to the Greek ; and the peculiar construction of the sentence is expressive of the peculiar earnestness with which the apostles prayed. (2.) It is attended with no Manichean inconyeniency. (3.) It is more agreeable to the context: for if the sanhedrim was ‘gathered by God’s direction and decree,” in order to threaten the apostles, with what propriety could they say, verse 29, ‘‘ Now, Lord, behold their threaten- ings?” And, (4.) It is strongly supported by verse 30, where Peter (after having observed, verses 27, 28, according to our reading, that God had anointed his holy child Jesus to do all the miracles which he did on earth) prays, that now Christ 1s gone to heaven, the effects of this powerful anointing may continue, and “signs and wonders may still be done by the name of his holy child Jesus.” VINDICATION OF THE DECREES. 457 that precious life away. This passage then, and all those which Mr. T. has produced, or may yet produce, only prove :— (1.) That God foresees the evil which is in the hearts of the wicked, and their future steps in peculiar circumstances, with ten thousand times more clearness and certainty, than a good huntsmen foresees all the windings, doublings, and shifts of a hunted fox; and that be overrules their wicked counsels to the execution of his own wise and holy designs, as a good rider overrules the mad prancings-of a vicious horse, to the display of his perfect skill in horsemanship, and to the treading down of the enemy in a day of battle. (2.) That God “catches the wise in their own craftiness,” and that, to punish the wicked, he permits their wicked counsels to be defeated, and their best-concerted schemes to prove abortive. (3.) That he frequently tries the faith, and exercises the patience of good men, by letting loose the wicked upon them, as in the case of Job and of Christ. (4.) That he often punishes the wicked- ness of one man by letting loose upon him the wickedness of another; and that he frequently avenges himself of one wicked nation by letting loose upon it the wickedness of another nation. Thus he let Absalom and Shimei loose upon David. Thus a parable spoken by the Prophet ‘Micaiah informs us that God, after having let a lying spirit loose upon Zedekiah, the false prophet, let Zedekiah loose upon wicked Ahab. Thus the Lord let loose the Philistines upon disobedient Israel, and the Romans upon the obdurate Jews, and their accursed city ; using those wicked heathen as his vindictive scourge, just as he used swarms of frogs and locusts when he punished rebellious Egypt with his plagues. ’ (5.) That he sometimes let a wicked man loose upon himself, as in the case of Ahithophel, Nabal, and Judas, who became their own executioners. (6.) That, when wicked men are going to commit atrocious wickedness,’ he sometimes inclines their hearts so to relent, that they commit a less crime than they intended. For instance: when Joseph’s brethren were going to starve him to death, by providential circumstances God inclined’ their hearts to spare his life: thus instead of destroying him, they only sold him into Egypt. (7.) With respect to Rey. xvii, 17, the context, and the full stream of the Scripture require that it should be understood thus :—“ As God, by providential circumstances, which seemed to favour their worldly views, suffered wicked kings to agree, and give their king- dom unto the beast, to help the beast to execute God’s judgments upon corrupted Churches and wicked states; so he will peculiarly let those kings loose upon the whore, and they shall agree to hate her, and shall make her desolate and naked.” Upon the whole, it is contrary to all the rules of criticism, decency, and piety, to take advantage of the dark construction of a sentence, or to avail one’s self of a parable, a hyperbole, a bold metaphor, or an un- guarded saying of a good man, interwoven with the thread: of Scripture history, in order to make appear, (so far as Calvinism can,) that “ God worketh all things in all men, even wickedness in the wicked.” Such a method of wresting the oracles of God, to make them speak the lan- guage of Belial and Moloch, is as ungenerous, as our inferring from these words, “I do not condemn thee,” that Christ does not condemn adulterers, that Christianity encourages adultery, and that this single sentence, taken in a filthy, Antinomian sense, outweighs all the sermon 458 ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S upon the mount, as well as the holy meaning of the context: for these words being spoken to an adulteress, whom the magistrates had not con- demned to die, and whom the Pharisees wanted Christ to “ condemn to be stoned according to the law of Moses;” it is evident that our d’s words, when taken in connection with the context, carry this edifying meaning :—“I am come to act the part of a Saviour, and not that of a magistrate : if the magistrates have not ‘condemned thee to be stoned,’ neither do I condemn thee to that dreadful kind of death; avail thyself of thy undeserved reprieve : ‘ Go and’ repent, and evidence the sincerity of thy repentance by ‘sinning no more.’” Hence I conclude that all — the texts quoted by the fatalists prove that God necessitates men to sin” by his decrees, just as John viii, 11, proves that Christ countenances = filthy sin of adultery. Are. LIII. Page 64. Mr. T. thinks to demonstrate that the doctrine of the absolute necessity of all our actions, and consequently of all our sins is true, by producing “ St. Paul’s case as a preacher. * Though preach the Gospel I haye nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me, yea, wo is me if I ‘preach not the Gospel,’ 1 Cor. ix, 16. Yet he preached the Gospel freely, &c; necessity, therefore, and freedom, are very good friends, notwithstanding all the efforts of Arminianism te set them at variance.” The apostle evidently speaks here of a necessity of precept on God’s part, and of duty on his own part: and such a necessity, — being perfectly consistent with the alternative of obedience or of disobe-— dience, is also perfectly consistent with freedom and with a day of judg. ment : and Mr. T. trifles when he speaks of “all the efforts of Arminianism, to set such a necessity at variance with freedom ;” for it is the distin- guishing glory of our doctrine to maintain both the freedom of the will, and the indispensable necessity of cordial obedience. But, in the name — of candour and common sense, I ask, What has a necessity of precept and duty to do with Calvinian necessity, which, in the day of God’s power, absolutely necessitates the elect to obey and the reprobate to dis- obey ; entirely debarring the former from the alternative of disobedience, — and the latter from the alternative of obedience? That the apostle, in the text before us, does not mean a Calyinian, absolute necessity, is evident — from the last clause of the verse, where he mentions the possibility of — his disobeying, and the punishment that awaited him in case of disobe- dience : “ Wo is me,” says he, “if I preach not the Gospel.” A necessity of precept was laid on Jonah to preach the Gospel to the Ninevites ; but THIs necessity was so far from Calvinistically binding him to preach, that, — (like Demas and the clergy, who fleece a flock which they do not feed,) he ran away from his appointed work, and incurred the “ wo” mentioned — by the apostle. Therefore, St. Paul’s words, candidly taken together, — far from establishing absolute necessity, which admits of no alternative + are evidently subversive of this dangerous error, which exculpates the _ sinner, and makes God the author al sin. * Hence Mr. Wesley says, with great truth, that if the doctrines of absolute predestination and Calvinian necessity are true, there can be no sin; seeing “it cannot be a sin in a spark to rise, or in astone to fall.” And therefore “the reprobate [tending to evil by the irresistible _ power of Divine predestination, as unavoidably as stones tend to the © centre, by the irresistible force of natural gravitation] can have no sin VINDICATION OF THE DECREES. 459 at all.” This is a just observation, taken from the absurdity of an absolute necessity, originally brought on by God’s absolute and irresisti ble decrees. Let us see how Mr. T. shows his wit on this occasion. Are. LIV. Pages 71, 72. “The reprobate can have no sin at all. Indeed? ‘They are quite sinless, are they? As perfect as Mr. Wesley himself? O excellent reprobation! &c. What then must the elect be? &ec. Beside: if reprobates be sinless—nay, immutably perfect, so that _ they can have no sin at ail, will it not follow that Mr. Wesley’s own perfectionists are reprobates? For surely if reprobates may be sinless, the sinless may be reprobates. Did not Mr. John’s malice outrun his craft, when he advanced an objection, &c, so easily retortible ?” This illogical, not to say illiberal answer, is of a piece with the chal- lenge, which the reader may see illustrated, at the end of sec. i, by my remarks upon a consequence as just as that of Mr. Wesley: for it is as evident that if the reprobate are “involuntary beings ;” beings abso- lutely necessitated by efficacious, irresistible predestination to act as they do; they are as really sinless, as a mountain of gold is really heavier than a handful of feathers. And Mr. Wesley may believe that both consequences are just, without believing either that “the wicked are sinless,” or that “there is a mountain of gold.” On what a slender foundation does Logica Genevensis rest her charges of craft and malice! And yet this foundation is as solid as that on which she raises her doc- trines of unscriptural grace and free wrath. But Mr. T. advances other arguments :— Are. LV. Pages 69,70. “The holy Baptist, without any ceremony or scruple, compared some of his unregenerate hearers to stones ; say- ing, ‘ God is able even of these stones to raise up children to Abraham, &e. Ye therefore, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, &c. They [the elect] shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts—in the day when I make up my jewels:’ now, unless I am vehemently mistaken, jewels are but another name for precious stones.” Hence the reader is given to understand that when Mr. Wesley opposes the doctrine of absolute necessity, by saying, that “it cannot be a sin in a stone to fall,” he turns “the Bible’s own artillery against itself, and gives us too much room to fear, that it is as natural to him to pervert, as it is for a stone to sink.” By such arguments as these, I could prove transubstantiation: for Christ said of a bit of bread, “This is my body.” Nay, I could prove any other absurdity: I could prove that Christ could not “think,” and that his disciples could not “ walk :” for he says, “I am the vine, and ye are the branches ;” and a vine can no more think, than branches can walk. I could prove that he was a “hen,” and the Jews “ chickens :” for he says that he “would have gathered them, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings.” Nay, I could prove that Christ had no more hand in our redemption, than we are supposed by Calvinists to have in our conversion ; that his “ poor free will,” (to use Mr. Toplady’s expressions, page 70, with respect to us,) “had no employ,” that he was “absolutely passive, and that [redemption] is as totally the operation of [the Father] as the severing of stones from their native quarry, and the erecting them into an elegant building, are the effects of human agency.” If the astonished reader ask, How I can prove a proposition so subver- 460 ANSWER TO TOPLADY’S sive of the gratitude which we owe to Christ for our redemption? | reply, By the very same argument by which Mr. T. proves that we “ absolutely passive” in the work of conversion, and that “ conversion totally the operation of God :” that is, by producing passages where Chris is metaphorically called a “stone ;” and of these there are not a few “Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, [ lay in Zion a stone, a tried stone, precious corner stone, a sure foundation, Isa. xxviii, 16. Whosoeve shall fall on this stone, shall be broken ; but on whomsoeyer it shall it will grind him to powder, Matt. xxi, 34. The stone which the bui ers rejected is become the head of the corner, Acts iv, 11. To whon coming as to a living stone,” &c, 1 Pet. ii, 4. If to these texts we add those in which he is compared to a “ foundation,” to a “rock,” an to “jewels,” or precious “ stones,” I could demonstrate, (in the Calvinian way,) that Christ was once as “absolutely passive” in the work of our redemption as a stone. When I consider such arguments as these, | cannot help wondering at the gross impositions of Pagan, popish, and Calvinian doctors. I find myself again in the midst of Ovid’s Me morphoses. Jupiter, if we believe the poet, turned Niobe into a rock The tempter wanted Christ to turn a “stone” into “bread.” Logiec Romana turns “bread” into Christ. But Logica Genevensis carries the bell; for she can, even without the hocus pocus of a massing priest, turn Christ into a stone. Mr. Toplady, far from recanting his argue ment a lapide, confirms it by the following :— Arc. LVI. Page 71. “A stone has the advantage of you: mans rebellious heart is, by nature, and so far as spiritual things are concerned, more intractable and unyielding than a stone itself. I may take up a stone, and throw it this way or that, and it obeys the impulse of my arm. Whereas, in the sinner’s heart, there is every species of hatred and opposition to God: nor can any thing, but omnipotent power, slay its enmity.” Iam glad Mr. T. vouchsafes, in this place, to grant that “ omnipo- tent power can slay the enmity.” I hope he will remember this con- cession, and no more turn from the Prince of life, and preach up the monster death, as the slayer of the enmity. But to come to the argu- ment : would Mr. T. think me in earnest, if I attempted to prove that a stone “had [once] the advantage” of him, with respect to getting learn- ing, and that there was more omnipotence required to make him a scholar, than to make the stone he stands upon fit to take a degree in the university? However, I shall attempt to do it: displaying my skill in orthodox logic, I personate the school master, who taught Mr. Top. lady grammar, and probably found him once at play, when he should have been at his book, and I say, “Indeed, master, a stone has the a vantage of you. A boy’s playful heart is by nature, so far as grammi is concerned, more intractable and unyielding than a stone itself.” [Now for the proof!] | “I may take up a stone, and throw it this way or that, : and it instantly, and without the least degree of resistance, obeys the im- pulse of my arm: whereas you resist my orders ; you run away from your book ; or you look off from it. In your playful heart there is every species of hatred and opposition to your accidence ; and therefore more power is required to make you a scholar, than to make that stone a grammarian.” Mr. Toplady’s “voluntary humility” claps this argument as excellent; but — that, if God should enter into judgment with us, [according to the Chns ess law given to Adam before the fall.] we should be damned. or there neither is nor was any man born mto this world, who could , Lam clean from sin, [I fulfil the Adamic law of imnocence,] except a eed het cmc web all scan to prny eal Devt Cleanse thou me from my secret faults :” for «if thou wilt mark what } 4s done amiss, Lord, who may abide it’ If thou wilt judge us accord- “lug to the law of paradisiacal perfection, “what man living shall be ee Bat Christ has so completely fulfilled our Creator's paradisiacal law of imnocence, which allows neither of repent- ‘ance nor of renewed obedience, that we shall not be judged by that law, bat by a law adapted to our present state and circumstances, a milder las, called « the law of Christ,” i. e. the Mediator’s law, which is, like «full of erangelical grace and truth.” Eg eRUeM Reta eL have wdeanced 2 the Gbcckawie of this law. I shall add one more, taken from Heb. vii, 12 :— “- 494 _ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. «The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change — also of the law.” From these words I conclude, that if the law unde1 which the Jews were, was of necessity changed when God substitute the priesthood of Christ for that of Aaron, much more was the Adami¢ law of paradisiacal innocence of necessity changed, when God gave to Adam by promise “the Bruiser of the serpent’s head, the High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.” For if a change in the external more did the institution of the priesthood itself necessarily imply a change of the Adamic law, which was given without any mediating priest ! ; q If Mr. Hill, therefore, will do our doctrine justice, we entreat him to consider that “ we are not without law to God,” nor yet under a Chris less law with Adam; byt “under a law to Christ, ” that is, under the law of our royal Priest, the evangelical “law of liberty :” a more gracious law this, which allows a sincere repentance, and is fulfilled by loving faith. Now as we shall be “judged by this law of liberty,” we main tain not only that it may, but also that it must be kept; and that it is actually kept by established Christians, according to the last and fulles edition of it, which is that of the New Testament. Nor do we think it “shocking,” to hear an adult believer say, * The law of the Spirit of of For what the law [of innocence, or the letter of the Mosaic law] coul not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be [evangelically] fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,” Rom. viii, 2, &ec. Reason and Scripture seem to us to confirm this doctrine: for we think it is far less absurd to say that the king and parliament make laws” which no Englishman can possibly keep; than to suppose that Christ and his apostles have given us precepts which no Christian is able to observe: and St. James assures us the evangelical law of Christ and liberty is that by which we shall stand or fall in judgment: “So ye, and so do,” says he, “as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty,” James u, 12. We find the Christian edition of that law, in all parts of the New Testament, but especially in our Lord’s sermon on the mount, and in St. Paul’s description of charity. We are persuaded, with St. John and St. Paul, that as “sin is the transgression,” so penitential, pure “love is the fulfilling of that evangelical law ;” and therefore do not scruple to say with the apostle, “that he who loveth another hath fulfilled it; and that there is no occasion of stumbling, i. e. no sin im him ;” fulfilling the law of Christ, and sinning, (in the evangelical sense of the word,) being as diametrically opposite to each other as obeying and disobeying, working righteousness and working iniquity. ; We do not doubt but, as a reasonable, loving father never requires | of his child, who is only ten years old, the work of one who is thirty years of age; so our heavenly Father never expects‘of us, in our debili- ” tated state, the obedience of immortal Adam in paradise, or the uninter- rupted worship of sleepless angels in heaven. We are persuaded, therefore, that, for Christ’s sake, he is pleased with an humble obedience to our present light; and a loving exertion of our present powers; ae . LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 495 | accepimg our Gospel services “according to what we have, and not according to what we have not.” Nor dare we call that lovmg exertion of our present power, sin, lest by domg so we should contradict the confound sm and obedience, and remove all the landmarks | which divide the devil’s common from the Lord’s vineyard. And if at ts a Saar an Christ’s law, we our error, and confess that, by this mean, we have Cal- # To conclude. We believe, that although adult, established believers, or perfect Christians, may admit of many imvoluntary mistakes, errors, and faults ; and of many involuntary impropricties of speech and be- haviour; yet so long as their will is bent upon doing God’s will; so long as they walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; sd long as they fulfil the law of liberty by pure love, they do not sin according to the _ Gospel : because (evangelically speaking) « ‘sin is the transgression, and love is the fulfilling of that law.” Far then from thinking that there is tue least absurdity in saying daily, « Vouchsafe to keep me this day without sin,” we doubi not but in the believers, who “walk in the light as Christ is in the light,” that deep petition is answered,—ihe righteous- ness of the law, which they are under, is fulfilled ; and, of consequence, am evangelically sinless perfection is daily experienced. I say evan- gelically sinless, because, without the word evangelically, the phrase “sinless perfection” gives an occasion of cavilling to those who seek it, as Mr. Wesley intimates in the following quotation, which is taken from his «Plain Account of Christian Perfection?’ p. 66:—*To explain my- so called, that is, an tvvojuniary transgression of a Divine law, known or unknown, needs the atonmg blood. (2.) I believe there is no such per-, fection im this life as excludes these inmvoluniary transgressions which I Mets Gotemniy. Gy 1 on the ignorance and mistakes from mortality. (3.) Therefore sinless perfection is a I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself (4.) I a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these m- transgressions. (5.) Such transgressions you may call sins if you please: I do not, for the reasons above mentioned.” SECTION IE. Pious Calvinists have had, at times, nearly the same views of Christian perfection as we have—They dissent from us chiefly because they confound the anti-evangelical law of innocence, and the evangelical law of liberty; Adamic and Christian perfection; and because they do not consider that Christian perfection, falling infinitely short of God's absolute perfection, admits of a daily growth. oT Eiclipagt ian soomegaa doctrine of Chnstian per- stated in the preceding pages, by almost numberless quotations the most judicious pilin: Galezcte, the sentiments of two or | | | : 496 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. three of them may edify the reader, and give him a specimen of the candour with which they have written upon the subject, when a spring. tide of evangelical truth raised them above the shallows of their system. ; +” If love be sincere,” says pious Mr. Henry, “it is accepted as the fulfilling of the law. Surely we serve a good Master, that has summed up all our duty in one word, and that a short word, and a sweet word, love, the beauty and harmony of the universe. Loving and being loved is all the pleasure, joy, and happiness of an intelligent being. God is love ; and love is his image upon the soul. Where it is, the soul is well moulded, and the heart fitted for every good work.” (Henry's Ex- position on Rom, xiii, 10.) Again: “It is well for us that, by virtue of the covenant of grace, upon the score of Christ’s righteousness, sincerity is accepted as our Gospel perfection.” (Henry on Gen. vi, 2.) See the note on the word perfection, sec. 1. Pious Bishop Hopkins is exactly of the same mind. Consider,” says he, “for your encouragement, that this is not so much the absolu and legal perfection of the work, as the [evangelical] perfection of the worker, that is, the perfection of the heart, which is looked at an Geewarded by God. There is a twofold perfection, the perfection of the work, and that of the workman. ‘The perfection of the work is, when ‘the work does so exactly and strictly answer the holy law of God, that there is no irregularity in it. The perfection of the werkman is nothin g but inward sincerity and uprightness of the heart toward God, which may be where there ‘are many imperfections and defects intermingled, If God accepted and rewarded no work, but what is absolutely perfeet in respect of the law; this would take off the wheels of all endeavours, for our obedience falls far short of legal perfection in this life; [the Adamic law making no allowance for the weakness of fallen man.] But we do not stand upon such terms as these with our God. It is not so much what our works are, as what our heart is, that God looks at and will reward. Yet know, also, that if our hearts are perfect and sincere, we shall endeavour, to the utmost of our power, that our works may be perfect, according to the strictness of the law.” Archbishop Leighton pleads also for the perfection we maintain, and by Calvinistically supposing that perseverance is necessary to Christian perfection, he extols it above Adam’s paradisiacal perfection. Take his own words abridged :—“ By obedience, sanctification is here inti mated : it signifies both habitual and actual obedience, renovation of the heart, and conformity to the Divine will: the mind is illuminated by the Holy Ghost to know and believe the Divine will; yea, this faith is the’ great and chief part of this obedience, Rom. i, 8. The truth of the doctrine is impressed upon the mind, hence flows out pleasant obedience and full [he does not say of sin, but] of love: hence all the affections, and the whole body with its members, learn to give a willing chet and submit to God ; whereas before they resisted him, being under the standard of Satan. This obedience, though imperfect, [when it ist measured by the Christless law of paradisiacal innocence] yet has a certain, if I may so say, imperfect perfection. [It is not legally but evangelically perfect.] It is universal [or perfect] three manner of ways. ‘1.) In the subject: it is not in the tongue alone, or in the hand, &c, EAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 497 but has its root in the heart. (2.) In the object: it embraces the whole law, &c. It accounts no command little, which is from God, because he is great and highly esteemed; no command hard, though contrary to the flesh, because all things are easy to love; there is the same authority in all, as St. James Divinely argues. And this authority is the golden chain to all the commandments, [of the law of lberty preached by St. James, | which, if broken in any link, falls to pieces. (3.) In the duration : the whole man is subjected to the whole law, and that constantly. That this threefold perfection of obedience is not a picture drawn by fancy, is evident in David, Psalm ecxix.” (Archbishop Leighton’s Com. on St. Peter, p. 15.) ‘That learned prelate, as a pious man, could not but be a perfectionist ; though, as a Calvinist, he frequently spoke the language of the imper- fectionists. Take one more quotation, where he grants all that we con- tend for:—“To be subject to him [God] is truer happiness than to command the whole world. Pure love reckons thus, though no farther reward were to follow ; obedience to God (the perfection of his creature, and its very happiness) carries its full recompense in its own bosom. Yea, love delights most in the hardest services, &c. It is love to him, indeed, to love the labour of love, and the service of it; and that not so much because it leads to rest, and ends in it, but because it is service to him whom we love: yea, that labour is in itself a rest, it is so natural and sweet toa soul that loves. As the revolution of the heavens, which is a motion in rest, and rest in motion, changes not place, though run- ning still; so the motion of love is truly heavenly, and circular still in God ; beginning in him, and ending in him; and so not ending, but moving still without weariness, &c. According as the love is, so is the soul: it is made like to, yea, it is made one with that which it loves, &c. By the love of God it is made Divine, is one with him, &c. Now though fallen from this, we are invited to it; though degenerated and accursed im sinful nature, yet we are renewed in Christ, and this commandment ig renewed in him, and a new way of fulfilling it [even the way of faith in our Redeemer] is pointed out.” (Select Works of Archbishop Leighton, p. 461.) Where has Mr. Wesley ever ex- ceeded this high description of Christian perfection ? I grant that this pious prelate frequently confounds our celestial per- fection of glory with our progressive perfection of grace, and on that account supposes that the latter is not attainable in this life: but even then he exhorts us to quit ourselves like sincere perfectionists. “'Though men,” says he, “fall short of their aim, yet it is good to aim high. They shall shoot so much the higher, but not full so high as they aim Thus we ought to be setting the state of perfection in our eye, resolving* * T think I have said in one of the Checks that Archbishop Leighton doubted whether those who do not sincerely aspire after perfection, have saving grace = that doubt (if I now remember right) is Mr. Alleine’s, though this quotation from the archbishop shows that he was not far from Alleine’s sentiment, if he was not in it. Pious Dr. Doddridge is explicit on this head :— To allow yourself,” said he, ‘‘deliberately to sit down satisfied with any imperfect sttieniptciaih religion, and to look upon a more confirmed and improved state of it as what you do not desire, nay, as what you secretly resolve that you will not pursue, is one of the most fatal signs. we can well imagine, that you are an entire stranger to the first vrinciples of it.” (Doddridge’s Rise and Progress, chap. xx. Vox. Il. 32 498 _ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. not to rest content below that, and to come as near as we Can, e before we come at it, Phil. iii, 11, 12. This is to act as one that | such a hope, such a state in view, and is still advancing toward i (ibid. p. 184.) The mistake of the archbishop will be particularly pointed out where I shall show the true meaning of Phil. ili, 11, the passage behind which he screens the remains of his Calvinian prejudices eS. By the preceding quotations, and by two more from the Rey. Messrs, Whitefield and Romaine, which the reader will find at the end of sec. ix, it appears that pious Calvinists come at times very near the doctrine of Christian perfection; and if they do not constantly enforce it, it is, ¥ apprehend, chiefly for the followi ing reasons :— 1. They generally confound the Christless law of innocence with he evangelical law of Christ ; and because the former cannot be fulfilled by believers, they conclude that pure obedience to the latter is ae 7 2. They confound peccability with sin; the power of sinning y the actual use of that power. And so long as they suppose that a ba ro natural capacity to sin, is either original sin, or an evil propensity, we de hot wonder at their believing that original sin, or evil propensities, m remain in our hearts till death removes us from this tempting wor! cs J But on what argument do they found this notion? Did not God create angels and man peccable? Or, in other terms, did he not endue them with a power to sin, or not to sin, to disobey, or obey, as they pleased? Did not the event show that they had this tremendous power? But would it not be “blasphemous” to assert that God created them full of original sin and evil propensities? If an adult believer yields to temptation, and falls into sin as our first parents did, is it a proof that he never was clean from inbred sin? If sinning necessarily demonstrates that the h was always teeming with depravity, will it not follow that Adam Eve were tainted with sin before their will began to decline from orig righteousness? Is it not, however, indubitable, from the nature of € from Scripture, and from sad experience, that after having been crea in God’s sinless image and holy likeness, our first parents, as well ‘some angels, were “drawn away of their own self-conceited lust,” became evil by the power of their own free agency? Is it reaso to think that the most holy Christians, so long as the day of their tion and probation lasts in this tempting wilderness, are in that respect above Adam in paradise, and above angels in heaven? And may we not conclude that as Satan and Adam insensibly fell into sin, the from the height of his celestial perfection, and the other from the sun of his paradisiacal excellence, without any previous bias inclining hit to corruption ; so may those believers, whose hearts have been com. pletely purified by faith, gradually depart from the faith, and fall so low as to “account the blood of the covenant, wherewith they were sanctifiec an unholy thing ?” of... 3. The prejudices of our opponents are increased by their confoun¢ ing Adamic* and Christian perfection; two perfections, these, wh * Betweén Adamic and Christian perfection we place the gracious innocence little children. They are not only full of peccability like Adam, but debili in all their animal and rational faculties, and, of consequence, fit to “become | easy prey to temptation; through the weakness of their reason, and the corruption — of their corftupiscible and irascible powers. Nevertheless, till they begin per- LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 499 are as distinct as the garden of Eden and the Christian Church. Adamie perfection came from God our Creator in paradise, before any trial of Adam’s faithful obedience : and Christian perfection comes from God our Redeemer and Sanctifier in the Christian Church, after a severe trial of the obedience of faith. Adamic perfection might be lost by doing despite to the preserving love of God our Creator; and Christian perfection may be lost by doing despite to the redeeming love of God our Saviour. Adamic perfection extended to the whole man: his body was perfectly sound in all its parts, and his soul in all its powers. But Christian perfection extends chiefly to the will, which is the capital, moral power of the soul; leaving the understanding ignorant of ten thousand things, and the body “dead because of sin.” 4, Another capital mistake lies at the root of the opposition which our Calvinian brethren make against Christian perfection. They imagine that, upon our principles, the grace of an adult Christian is like the body of an adult man, which can grow no more. But this conse- quence flows from their fancy, and not from our doctrine. We exhort the strongest believers to “ grow up to Christ in all things ;” asserting that there is no holiness and no happiness in heaven, (much less upon earth,) which does not admit of a growth, except the holiness and hap- piness of God himself; because, in the very nature of things, a being absolutely perfect, and in every sense infinite, can never have any thing added tohim. But infinite additions may be made to’beings a way finite, such as glorified saints and holy angels are. Hence it appears that the comparison which we make between the ripeness of a fruit, and the maturity of a believer’s grace, cannot be carried into an exact parallel. For a perfect Christian grows far more than a feeble believer, whose growth is still obstructed by the shady thorns of sin, and by the draining suckers of iniquity. Beside, a fruit which is come to its perfection, instead of growing, falls and decays: whereas a “babe in Christ” is called to grow till he becomes a perfect Christian ; a perfect Christian, till he becomes a disembodied spirit ; a disembodied spirit, till he reaches the perfection of a saint glorified in body and soul ; and such a saint, till he has fathomed the infinite depths of Divine perfection, that is, to all eternity. For if we go on from faith to faith, and are spiritually “ changed from glory to glory,” by peholding God “ darkly through a glass” on earth ; much more shall we experience improving changes, when we shall “ see him as he is,” and behold him face to face in various, numberless, and still brighter dis- coveries of himself in heaven. If Mr. Hill did but consider this, he would no more suppose that Christian perfection is the Pharisaic rickets sonally to prefer moral evil to moral good, we may consider them as evangelically or graciously innocent. I say graciously innocent, because, if we consider them in the seed of fallen Adam, we find them naturally ‘‘ children of wrath,” and under the curse : but if we consider them ‘“‘in the seed of the woman,” ite was promised to Adam and to his posterity, we find them graciously placed in a state of redemption and evangelical salvation. For “‘ the free gift which is come upon all men to justification,” belongs first to them, Christ having sanctified infancy first. And therefore we do not scruple to say, after our Lord, ‘“‘ Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Now the kingdom of heaven is not of sinners as Sinners, but of little children, as being innocent through the free gift; or of adults, as being penitent, that is, turned from their sins to Christ. 500 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. which put a stop to the growth of believers, and turn them into “ te porary monsters.” Again :— ~ Does a well-meant mistake-defile the conscience? You imadyertently encourage idleness and drunkenness, by kindly relieving an idle, drunken beggar, who imposes upon your charity by plausible lies: is this loving error a sin? A blundering apothecary sends you arsenic for alum; you use it as alum, and poison your child; but are you a murderer, if you give the fatal dose in love? Suppose "the tempter had secretly mixed gathered for use ; would she have sinned if she had inadvertently eaten of it, and given a share to her husband? ‘After humbly confessing” and deploring her undesigned error, her secret fault, her accidenta offence, her involuntary trespass, would she not have been as innocent as ever? I go farther still, and ask, May not a man who holds many right opinions, be a perfect lover of the world? And by a parity of reason, may not a man who holds many wrong opinions, be a perfect lover of God? Have not some Calvinists died with their hearts over. flowing with perfect love, and their heads full of the notion that God set his everlasting, absolute hatred upon myriads of men before the founda. tion of the world? Nay, is it not even possible that a man, whose heart is renewed in love, should, through mistaken humility, or through weak- ness of understanding, oppose the name of Christian perfection, when he desires, and pérhaps enjoys the thing ? Once more. Does not St. Paul’s rule hold in spirituals as well as in temporals? “It is accepted according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not.” Does our Lord actually require more of believers than they can actually do through his grace? And when they do it to the best of their power, does he not see some perfection in their works, insignificant as those works may be? “ Remove this immense heap of stones,” says an indulgent father to his children, “and be diligent according to your strength.” While the eldest, a strong man, removes rocks, the youngest, a little child, is as cheerfully busy as any of the rest in carrying sands and pebbles. Now, may not his childlike obedience be as excellent in its degree, and, of consequence, as acceptable to his parent, as the manly obedience of Ifts eldest brother’ p Nay, though he does next to nothing, may not his endeavours, if they are more cordial, excite a smile of superior approbation of his loving father, who looks at the disposition of the heart more than at the ap pearance of the work? Had the believers of Sardis cordially laid out all their talents, would our Lord have complained that he did not “find their works perfect before God?” Rev. ili, 2. And was it not accord. ing to this rule of perfection that Christ testified the poor widow, who had given but two mites, had nevertheless cast more into the treasury than all the rich, “ though they had cast in much ;” because, our Lo i himself being Judge, she had “ given all that she had?” Now could she give, or did God require more than her all? And when she ia heartily gave her all, did she not do (evangelically speaking) a perfect work, according to her dispensation and circumstances ? We flatter ourselves that if these Scriptural observations and rational — queries do not remove Mr. Hill’s prejudice, they will at least mt way for a more @andid perusal of the following pages. LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 501 e SECTION III. Several objections raised against our doctrine are solved merely by con- sidering the nature of Christian perfection—It is absurd to say that all our Christian perfection is in the person of Christ. I repeat it, if our pious opponents decry the doctrine of Christian perfection, it is chiefly through misapprehension ; it being as natural for pious men to recommend exalted piety, as for covetous persons to extol great riches. And this misapprehension frequently springs from their inattention to the nature of Christian perfection. To prove it, I need only oppose our definition of Christian perfection to the opsECTIONS which are most commonly raised against our doctrine. I. “Your doctrine of perfection leads to pride.” Impossible! if Christian perfection is “ perfect humility.” Il. “It exalts believers ; but it is only to the state of the vain-glori- ous Pharisee.” Impossible! If our perfection is “perfect humility,” it makes us sink deeper into the state of the humble, justified publican. iil. “It fills men with the conceit of their own excellence, and makes them say to a weak brother, Stand by, I am holier than thou.” Impos- sible again! We do not preach Pharisaic, but Christian perfection, which consists in “perfect poverty of spirit,’ and in that “perfect charity which vaunteth not itself, honours all men, and bears with the infirmities of the weak !” IV. “It sets repentance aside.” Impossible! for it is “ perfect repentance.” V. “Jt will make us slight Christ.” More and more improbable! How can “perfect faith” m Christ make us shght Christ? Could it be more absurd to say that the perfect love of God will make us despise God? VI. “It will supersede the use of mortification and watchfulness ; for, if sin be dead, what need have we to mortify it and to watch against it ?” This objection has some plausibility ; I shall therefore answer it in various ways: (1.) If Adam, in his state of paradisiacal perfection, needed perfect watchfulness and perfect mortification, how much more do we need them who find “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” planted, not only in the midst of our gardens, but in the midst of our houses, markets, and churches? (2.) When we are delivered from sin, are we delivered from peccability and temptation? When the inward man of sin is dead, is the devil dead? Is the corruption that is in the world _ destroyed? And have we not still our five senses and our appetite, “to keep with all diligence,” as well as our “hearts,” that the tempter may _ not enter into us, or that we may not enter into his temptations? Lastly: Jesus Christ, as son of Mary, was a perfect man: but how was he kept so to the end? Was it not by “keeping his motth with a bridle, while the ungodly were in his sight,” and by guarding all his senses with a perfect assiduity, that the wicked one might not touch them to his hurt? And if Christ our head kept his human perfection only through watchfulness, and constant self denial; is it not absurd to suppose that his perfect members can keep their perfection without treading in his steps? e 502 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. VII. Another objection probably stands in Mr. Hill’s way: it thus :—“ Your doctrine of perfection makes it needless for perft tians to say the Lord’s prayer: for if God vouchsafes to eee us t tarily, and ck the law of love, yet he Fi breaks the law of Ada perfection through the imperfection of his bodily and mental powers : and he has frequently a deeper sense of these involuntary trespasses thar many weak believers have of their voluntary breaches of the moral law. (2.) Although a perfect Christian has a witness, that his sins are now forgiven, in the court of his conscience, yet he “knows the terrors of the Lord:” he hastens to meet the awful day of God: he waits for the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the character of a righteous’ Judge: he keeps an eye to the awful tribunal, before which he must soon “be justified or condemned by his words:” he is conscious tha his final justification is not yet come; and therefore he would think himself a monster of stupidity and pride, if, with an eye to his absolu- tion in the great day, he scrupled saying to the end of his life, “ Forgive us our trespasses.” (3.) He is surrounded with sinners, who daily “trespass against him,” and whom he is daily bound to “ forgive ;” and his praying that he may be forgiven now, and in the great day, ‘as he forgives others,” reminds him that he may forfeit his pardon, and binds him more and more to the performance of the important duty of forgiy=— ing his enemies. And, (4.) His charity is so ardent that it melts him, as it were, into the common mass of mankind. Bowing himself, there- fore, under all the enormous load of all the wilful trespasses which his fellow mortals, and particularly his relatives and his brethren, daily commit against God, he says, with a fervour that imperfect Christians seldom feel, Forgive us our trespasses, dee; “we are heartily sorry for our misdoings, [my own and those of my’ fellow sinners;] the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the burthen of them is into. lerable.”” Nor do we doubt but, when the spirit of mourning leads a numerous, assembly of supplicants into the vale of humiliation, the per- son who puts the shoulder of faith most readily to the common burden of sin, and heaves most powerfully in order to roll the enormous load into” the Redeemer’s grave, is the most perfect penitent—the most exac observer of the apostolical precept, “ Bear ye one another’s burdens, at so fulfil the law of Christ ;”’ and, of consequence, we do not seruple to sa that such person is the most perfect Christian in the whole assembly. If Mr., Hill consider these answers, we doubt not but he will confess) ‘ that his opposition to Christian perfection chiefly springs from his — inattention to our definition of it, which I once more sum up in these — comprehensive lines of Mr. Wesley :-— a ty O let me gain perfection’s height ! Mat O let me into nothing fall ! (As less than nothing in thy sighté,) And feel that Christ is all in all! ip VIII. Our opponents produce another plausible objection, which runs thus :—* It is plain from your account of Christian perfection that adult 7 believers are free from sin, their hearts being purified by perfect faith, LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 503 and filled with perfect love. Now sin is that which humbles us, and drivestus to Christ ; and therefore, if we were free from indwelling sm, we should lose a most powerful incentive to humility, which is the greatest ornaiment of a irue Christian.” —We answer, Sin never humbled any soul. Who has more sin than Satan? And who is prouder? Did sin make our first parents humble? If it did not, how do our brethren suppose that its nature is altered for ‘the better? Who was humbler than Christ? But was he indebted to ‘sin for his humility? Do we not see daily that the more sinful men are, the prouder they are also? Did Mr. Hill never observe that the holier a believer is, the humbler he shows himself? And what is holiness but the reverse of sin? If sin be necessary to make us humble and keep us near Christ, does it not follow that glorified saints, whom all acknow- ledge to be sinless, are all proud despisers of Christ? If humility is obedience, and if sin is disobedience, is it not as absurd to say that sin will maké us humble, i. e. obedient, as it is to affirm that rebellion will make us loyal, and adultery chaste? See we not sin enough, when we look ten or twenty years back, to humble us to the dust for ever, if sin can do ' it? Need we plead for any more of it in our hearts and lives? If the ‘sins of our youth do not humble us, are the sins of our old age likely to ‘do it? If we contend for the life of the man of sin that he may subdue our pride, do we not take a large stride after those who say, Let us sin that grace may abound. Let us i | full of indwelling sin that humility may increase! What is, after all, the evangelical method of gettime humility? Is it not to look at Christ in the manger, in Gethse- mane, or on the cross; to consider him when he washes his disciples’ feet ; and obediently to listen to him when he says, “ Learn of me to be meek and lowly m heart?” Where does the Gospel plead the cause of the Barabbas, and the thieves within? Where does it say that they may indeed be nailed to the cross, and have “their legs broken,” but their life must be left whole within them, lest we should be proud of their death ? Lastly : what is indwelling sin but indwelling pride? At least, is not inbred pride one of the chief ingredients of indwelling sm? And how can pride be productive of humility? Cana serpent beget a dove? And will not men gather grapes from thorns, sooner than humility of heart from haughtiness of spirit ? 1X. The strange mistake which I detect would not be so prevalent among our prejudiced brethren, if they were not deceived by the plausi- bility of the followimg argument :—“ When believers are humbled for a thing, they are humbled by it: but believers are humbled for sin; and therefore they are humbled dy sin.’ . The flaw of this argument is in the first proposition. We readily _ grant that penitents are humbled for sin; or, in other terms, that they humbly repent of sm; but we deny that ‘they are humbled by sm. To show the absurdity of the whole argument, I need only produce a sophism exactly parallel: “ When people are blooded for a thing, they are blooded by it: but people are sometimes blooded for a cold; and therefore people are sometimes blooded by a cold.” _ X. “We do not assert that all perfection is imaginary. Our mean- ing is, that all Christian perfection is in Christ; and that we are perfect in his person, and not in our own.” 504 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. Awswer. If you mean by our being perfect only in Christ, that we _ can attain to Christian perfection no other way, than by being perfeetly grafted in him, the true vine; and by deriving, like vigorous branches the perfect. sap of his perfect righteousness, to enable us to bring forth fruit unto perfection, we are entirely agreed: for we perpetually assert that nothing but “Christ in us the hope of glory,” nothing but “ Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith,” or, which is all one, nothing but “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, can make us free from the law of sin, and perfect us in love.” But as we never advanced that Christian perfection is attainable a other way than by a faith that “roots and grounds us” in Christ, we doubt some mystery of iniquity lies hid under these equivocal phrases: “ All our perfection is in Christ's person : we are perfect in him and not in ourselves.” om Should those who use them insinuate by such language that we need not, cannot be perfect, by an inherent personal conformity to od’s” holiness, because Christ is thus perfect for us; or should they mean that we are perfect in him, just as country freeholders, entirely strangers to state affairs, are perfect politicians in the knights of the shire who represent them in parliament; as the sick in a hospital are perfectly healthy in the physician that gives them his attendance; as the blind man enjoyed perfect sight in Christ, when he saw walking men like | moving trees; as the filthy leper was perfectly clean in the Lord, before’ he had felt the power of Christ’s gracious words, “I will, be thou clean ;” or, as hungry Lazarus was perfectly fed in the person of the rich man, at whose gate he lay starving; should this, I say, be their meaning, we are in conscience bound to oppose it, for the reasons con- tained in the following queries :— 1. If believers are perfect, because Christ is perfect for them, — does the apostle exhort them to “go on to perfection ?” . 2. If all our perfection be inherent in Christ, is it not strange that St. Paul should exhort us to “perfect holiness in the fear of God, by cleansing ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and*spirit?” Did not Christ perfect his own holiness? And will his personal sanctity be —_ perfect, till we have cleansed ourselves from all defilement? , 3. If Christ be perfect for us, why does St. James say, “ Let potion ce have her perfect work,” that ye may be perfect? Is Christ’s perfection — suspended upon the perfect work of our patience ? “—? 4. Upon the scheme which I oppose, what does St. Peter mean, — when he says, “ After ye have suffered awhile, the Lord make you per- — fect?” What has our suffering awhile to do with Christ’s perfection? Was not Christ “ made perfect through his own sufferings ” * 5. If believers were perfect in Christ’s person, they would all be equally perfect. But is this the case? Does not St. John talk of some who are perfected, and of others who “are not yet made perfect in — love?” Beside, the apostle exhorts us to be perfect, not in Antinomian ~ notions, but “in all the will of God, and in every good work ;” and — common sense dictates, that there is some difference between our ae works and the person of Christ. . 6. Does not our Lord himself show that his personal rieitesingell will by no means be accepted instead of our personal perfection, where 4 > LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 505 the says, “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, [or whose frurt neyer grows to any perfection, see Luke viii, 14,] my Father taketh away,” far from imputing to it his perfect fruitfulness ? 7. In the nature of things can Christ’s perfection supply the want of that perfection which he calls us to? Is there not a more essential dif- ference between Christ’s perfection and that of a believer, than there is between the perfection of a rose and that of the grass of the field? between the perfection of a soaring eagle, and that of a creeping insect ? Tf our Lord is the head of the Church, and we are the members, is it not absurd to suppose that his perfection becomes us in every respect? Were I allowed to carry on a Scriptural metaphor, | would ask, Is not the perfection of the head very different from that of the hand? And do we not take advantage of the credulity of the simple, when we make them believe that an impenitent adulterer and murderer is perfect in Christ ; or, if you please, that a crooked leg and cloven foot are per- fectly’ handsome, if they do but somehow belong to a beautiful face ? 8. Let us illustrate this a little more. Does not the Redeemer’s per- sonal perfection consist in his being Gop and man in one person ; in his being eternally begotten by the Father as the “Son of God ;” and unbe- gotten in time by a father, as “the son of man;” im his having * given his life a ransom for all ;” in his having “taken it up again; and his standing in the midst of the throne, able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God fhrough him?” Consider this, candid believer, and say if any man or angel can decently hope that such an mcommunicable perfection can ever fall to his share. 9. As the Redeemer’s personal perfection cannot suit the redeemed, no more can the personal perfection of the redeemed be found in the Redeemer. A believer’s perfection consists in such a degree of faith as works by perfect love. And does not this high degree of faith chiefly imply uninterrupted self diffidence, self denial, self despair? A heart- felt, ceaseless recourse to the blood, merits, and righteousness of Christ ? And a grateful love to him, “because he first loved us,” and fervent charity toward all mankind “for his sake?” ‘Three things, these, which, in the very nature of things, either cannot be in the Saviour at all, or cannot possibly be in him in the same manner in which they must be in believers. 10. Is not the doctrine of our being perfect in Christ’s person big with mischief? Does it not open a refuge of lies to the loosest ranters in the land? Are there none who say, We are perfect in Christ’s person? In him we have perfect chastity and honesty, perfect temper- ance and meekness ; and we should be guilty of Pharisaic insolence if we patched his perfection with the filthy rags of our personal holiness ? And has not this doctrine a direct tendency to set godliness aside, and to countenance gross Antinomianism ? Lastly. When our Lord preached the doctrine of perfection, did he not do it m such a manner as to demonstrate that our perfection must be personal? Did he ever say, “If thou wilt be perfect, only believe that I am perfect for thee?” On the contrary, did he not declare, “If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast ; [part with all that stands in thy way ;] and follow me” in the way of perfection ? And again: “ Do good to them that hate you, that ye may be the children of your Father 506 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. who is in heaven; for he sendeth rain upon the just and the unjust, &e, Be ye therefore perfeet, even as your Father who is in heayen is per- fect?” Who can read these words and not see that the perfection which Christ preached, is a perfection of holy dispositions, productive of holy actions in all his-followers? And that, of consequence, it is a personal perfection, as much inherent in us, and yet as much derives from him, and dependent upon him, as the perfection of our bodily health? ‘The chief difference consisting in this, that the pepe of our health comes to us from God in Christ, as the God of narur whereas our Christian perfection comes to us from God in Christ, as the God of Grace. SECTION Iv. Mr. Hill’s first argument against Christian perfection is taken from the ninth and fifteenth articles of the Church of England—These articles properly understood, are not contrary to that doctrine—That our Church holds it, is proved by thirteen arguments—She opposes Phari- saic, but not Christian perfection—Eight reasons are produced t show that it is absurd to embrace the doctrine of a death purgatory because our reformers and martyrs, in following after the perfection of humility, have used some unguarded expressions, which seem to bear hard upon the doctrine of Christian perfection. rc. In the preceding sections I have laid the axe at the root of some prejudices, and cut up a variety of objections. The controversial ld is cleared. The engagement may begin: nay, it is already begun ; for Mr. Hill, in his Creed for Perfectionists, and Mr. Toplady, in his Cavea against unsound Doctrines, have brought up, and fired at our doctrin two pieces of ecclesiastical artillery ;—the ninth and fifteenth articles of our Church: and they conclude that the contents of these doctrinal cannons absolutely demolish the perfection we contend for. The report of their wrong-pointed ordnance, and the noise they make about ou subscriptions are loud ; but that we need not be afraid of the shot, will I hope, appear from the following observations :— . The design of the fifteenth article of our Church is pointed out by the title, “« Of Christ alone without Sin.” From this title we conclude the scope and design of the article is not to secure to Christ the hoi of being alone cleansed from sin; because such an honour would be reproach to his original and uninterrupted purity, which placed him above the need of cleansing. Nor does the article drop the least xbout the impossibility of our being “ cleansed from sin” before w into the purgatory of the Calvinists: I mean the chambers of de What our Church intends, is to distinguish Christ from all mankind, especially from the Virgin Mary, whom the Papists assert to have always totally free from original and actual sin. Our Church does by maintaining, (1.) That Christ was born without the least tain original sin, and never committed any actual transgression. (2.) all other men, the Virgin Mary and the most holy believers not excepted, — > LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 50T are the very reverse of Christ in both these respects; all being con- ceived in original sin, and offending in many things, even after baptism,* and with all the helps which we have under the Christian dispensation to keep us “ without sin” from day to day. And, therefore, (3.) That “if we say we have no sin;” if we pretend, like some Pelagians, that we have no original sin; or if we intimate, like some Pharisees, that “we never did any harm in all our lives,” that is, that we have no aciual sin, “ we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us ;” there being absolutely no adult person without sin in those respects, except our Lord Jesus Christ. That this is the genuine sense of the article appears, (1.) By the absurdity which follows from the contrary sentiment. For if these words, “ Christ alone without Sin,” are to be taken in an absolute and unlimited sense ; if the word alone entirely excludes all mankind, at all times ; if it is levelled at our being cleansed from sin, as well as at our having been always free from original and actual poilution ; if this is the case, I say, it is evident that not only fathers in Christ, but also Enoch and Elijah, St. John and St. Paul, are to this day tainted with sin, and must to all eternity continue so, lest Mr. Hill’s opinion of Christ alone without sin should not be true. ' 2. Our sentiment is confirmed by the article itself, part of which runs thus :—“ Christ, in the truth of our nature, was made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh and in his spirit. He came to be a Lamb without spot; and sin, as St. John says, was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, [i. e. although we have from our infancy all the helps that the Christian dispensation affords men to keep them without sin,] yet we offend in many things, [after our baptism,] and if we say, [as the above-mentioned Pelagians ‘and Pharisees,] that we have no [original or actual] sin, [i. e. that we are like Christ, in either of these respects; our conception, infancy, childhood, youth, and age, being all taken into the account,] we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Having thus opened the plain, rational, and Scriptural sense in which we subscribe to our fifteenth article, it remains to make a remark upon the ninth. Some bigoted Pelagians deny original sin, or the Adamic infection of our nature; and some bigoted Papists suppose that this infection is entirely done away in baptism: in opposition to both these, our Church prudently requires: our subscription to her ninth article, which asserts, (1.) That “the fault and corruption of our nature” is a melancholy reality : and, (2.) That this “ fault, corruption, or infection doth remain in them who are regenerated ;” that is, in them who are « baptized, or made children of God,” according to the Christian dispensation. For * The Rev. Mr. Toplady, in his Historic Proof, p. 235, informs us that a popish archbishop of St. Andrews condemned Patrick Hamilton to death, for holding among other doctrines, ‘‘ That children incontinent after baptism are sinners,” or, which is all one, that baptism does not absolutely take away original sin. This anecdote is important, and shows that our Church levels at a popish error the words of her articles, which Mr, Hill and Mr. Toplady suppose to be levelled at Christian perfection. 508 _ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. every person who has attentively read our liturgy, knows that these ex. pressions, baptized, regenerated, and made a member of Christ, and @ child of God, are synonymous in the language of our Church. because we have acknowledged, by our subscription to our ninth articll that “the infection of.our nature” is not done away in baptism, but “does remain in them which are regenerate,” or baptized, Mr. Hiil thinks himself authorized to impose upon us the yoke of indwelling sin for life; supposing that we cannot be fair subseribers to that article, unless we renounce the glorious liberty of God’s children, and embrace the Antinomian gospel, which is summed up in these unguarded words of Luther, quoted by Bogatsky in his Golden Treasury :* “The sins of a Christian are for his good, and if he had no sin, he would not be so- well off; neither would prayer flow so well.” Can any thing be either more unscriptural or absurd? What unprejudiced person does not see” we may, with the greatest consistency, maintain that baptism does not remove the Adamic infection of sin, and that nevertheless this infection may be removed before death? Nevertheless, we are willing to make Mr. Hill all the concessions we can, consistently with a good conscience. If by “the infection of nature,” he understand the natural ignorance which has infected our understanding ; the natural forgetfulness which has affected our memory ; the inbred debility of all our mental powers, and the poisonous seeds of mortality which infect all men from head to foot, and hinder the strongest believers from serving God with all the fervour they would be capable of, were they not fallen from paradisiacal perfection, under the curse of a body sentenced to die, and “dead because of sin:” if Mr. Hill, T say, understand this by the “infection of nature,” we believe that such an infection, with all the natural, innocent appetites of the flesh, remains, not only in those whom the Scriptures call “ babes in Christ, » but a in “fathers ;” there being no adult believer that may not say, as well as Christ, Adam, or St. Paul, “I thirst. I am*hungry. I want a help- meet for me. I know but in part. I see darkly through a glass. groan, being burdened. He that marrieth sinneth not. It is better to marry than to burn,” &c. But if Mr. Hill, by “the infection of nature,” mean the sinful lusts of the flesh, such as drunkenness, gluttony, whoredom, &c; or, if he understand unloving, diabolical tempers, such as envy, pride, stubborn- ness, malice, sinful anger, ungodly jealousy, unbelief, fretfulness, impa- tience, hypocrisy, revenge, or any moral opposition to the will of God: if Mr. Hill, I say, understand this by “the infection of nature ;” and if he suppose that these evils must radically and necessarily remain in mi hearts of all believers (fathers in Christ not excepted) till death comes to “cleanse the thoughts of their hearts” by the inspiration of his ill- smelling breath, we must take the liberty of dissenting from him; and we produce the following arguments to prove that, whatever Mr. Hill may insinuate to the contrary, the Church of Enpland i is not against the © doctrine of evangelical perfection which we vindicate. ya I. Our Church can never be so inconsistent as to level her articles — against what she ardently prays for in her liturgy: but she ardently — prays for Christian perfection, or for perfect love in this life. Therefore * See the edition printed in London in 1773, p. 328. LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 509 she is not against Christian perfection. The second proposition of this argument can alone be disputed, and I support it by the well-known collect m the communion service, “ Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Here we see, (1.) The nature of Christian perfection ; it is perfect love. (2.) The seat of this perfect love, a heart cleansed from its own thoughts. (3.) The blessed effect of it, a worthy magnifying of God’s holy name. (4.) Its author, God, of whom the blessing is asked. (5.) The imme- diate mean of it, the inspiration of his Holy Spirit. And, lastly, the gracious procurer of it, our Lord Jesus Christ. Il. This vein of godly desire after Christian perfection runs through her daily service. In her confession she prays: “Restore thou them that are penitent, according to thy promises, &c, that hereafter we may live a godly, righteous, and sober life, to the glory of thy holy name.” Now, godliness, righteousness, and sobriety, being the sum of our duty toward God, our neighbour, and ourselves, are also the sum of Christian perfection. Nor does our Church absolve any but such as desire “ that the rest of their lives may be pure and holy, so that at the last they may come to God’s eternal joy ;” plainly intimating that we may get a pure heart, and lead a pure and holy life, without going into a death purga- tory ; and those who do not attain to purity of heart and life, that is, to perfection, are in danger of missing God’s eternal joy. , Ill. Hence it is that she is not ashamed to pray daily for sinless pu- rity in the Te Deum :—*« Vouchsafe, O Lord, to keep us this day without sin,” that is, sinless ; for, I suppose, that the title of our fifteenth article, « Of Christ alone without Sin,” means, Of Christ alone sinless from his conception to his last gasp. This deep petition is perfectly agreeable to the collects for the ninth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth Sundays after Trinity : “Grant to us the Spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful, that we may¥ be enabled to live according to thy yill,” i. e. to live without sin. “We pray thee, that thy grace may always pre- vent and follow us, and make us to be continually given to all good works,” &e. “Grant thy people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and with pure hearts and minds to follow thee.” “Mercifully grant that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts.” Again: “ May it please thee, that by the wholesome medicines of the docirine delivered by him, [Luke, the evangelist and physician of the soul,] all the diseases of our souls may be healed,” &c. (St. Luke’s Day.) “ Mortify and kill in us all vices, [and among them envy, selfishness, and pride,] and so strengthen us by thy grace, that by the imocency of our lives, and constancy of our faith unto death, we may glorify thy holy name,” &c. (The Innocents’ Day.) “Grant us the help of thy grace, that in keeping thy commandmezts we may please thee both in will and deed.” (First Sunday after Trinity.) « Direct, sanctify, and govern both our hearts and bodies, in the ways of thy laws, and in the works of thy commandments, that we may be preserved [in these ways and works] in body’and soul.” “Prevent us in‘all our doings, &c, and farther us with thy continual help; that in all our works, begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy name.” (Communion Service.) Once more: “ Grant that in all our 510 _ LAST CHECK TO ANTTNOMIANISM. ' sufferings here on earth, &c, we may steadfastly look up to heaven, and by faith behold the glory that shall be revealed ; and being filled — with the Holy Ghost, may learn to bless our persecutors by the example — of thy first maftyr,” &c. (St. Stephen’s Day.) It is worth our notice, ; that blessing our persecutors and murderers is the last, beatitude, the — highest instance of Christian perfection, and the most difficult of all the — duties, which, if we may believe our Lord, constitute us perfect in our sphere, “as our heavenly Father is perfect :” see Matt. v, 11, 44, 45, 48. IV. Perfect love, i. e. Christian perfection, instantaneously springs — from perfect faith: and as our Church would have all her members perfect in love, she requires them to pray thus for perfect faith, which ~ must be obtained in this life or never: “Grant us so perfectly, and without all doubt, to believe in thy Son Jesus Christ, that our faith in thy sight may never be reproved.” (St. Thomas’ Day.) 2 V. Our Lord teaches us to ask for the highest degree of Christian perfection, where he commands us “when we pray to say, &c, Thy kingdom come ; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” And our Church, by introducing this deep prayer in all her services, shows how greatly Mr. Hill is mistaken, when he supposes that she looks upon our doctrine of Christian perfection as “ shocking.” Should this gentleman object that although our Church bids us pray © for Christian perfection in the above-cited collects, and in our Lord’s ~ prayer, yet she does not intimate that these deep prayers may be an- swered in this life: I oppose to that argument not only the word on earth, which she so frequently mentions in the Lord’s prayer, but also her own words: “ Everlasting God, who art more ready to hear than ~ we to pray, and art wont to give more than we desire, &c, pour down — upon us the abundance of thy mercy,” &c. (Twelfth Sunday after Trinity.) . Mr. Hill must therefore excuse us, if we side with our praying — Church, and are not ashamed to say, with St. Paul, “Glory be to him — that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or” think, according to the power that worketh in us,” Eph. iii, 20. 2 Vi. That our Church cannot reasonably be against Christian perfec- | tion, I farther prove thus: what the Church of England recommends as the end of baptism, can never be contrary to her doctrine: but she ~ recommends a “death unto sin,” or Christian perfection, as the end of baptism; therefore she cannot be against Christian perfection. The second proposition, which alone is disputable, I prove by these words of her catechism: “ What is the inward or spiritual grace in baptism? A death unto sin, and new birth unto righteousness.” Hence she prays at the grave, “ We beseech thee to raise us from the death of sin to the ~ life of righteousness, that when we shall depart this life, we may rest in him,” {Christ.] Now, that a death to sin is the end of baptism, and that this end is never fully answered till this death has fully taken place, . is evident by the following extract from our baptismal office: “ Grant that the old Adam in this person may be so buried that the new may be — raised up in him.” Grant that all carnal affections [and consequently all the carnal mind and all inbred sin] may die in him, and that all things belonging to the Spirit may live and grow in him.” “Grant that the person now to be baptized may receive the fulness of thy grace. Grant that he being dead to sin, and living to righteousness, and being buried ‘ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMTANISM. 511 with Christ in his death, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin.” How can we maintain, with our Church, that we are to crucify, mortify, (i. e. kill,) and utterly abolish the whole body of sin ; so as to be dead to sin, and to have the old Adanf buried in this life ; and yet hold, with Mr. Hill, that this « whole body of sin,” which we are utterly to abolish, is to remain wholly and utterly unabolished till death come to abolish it? Vil. Our Church is not agaist that end of the Lord’s Supper which she constantly inculcates: but that end of the Lord’s Supper which she constantly inculcates is Christian perfection: therefore our Church is Rot against Christian perfection. The second proposition, which alone needs progf, is founded upon these deep words of our Communion Ser- vice :—*“ Grant us to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his precious blood, and that we may evermore duell in him and he in us.” ‘These words express the height of Christian perfection, nor has the Lord’s Supper had its full end upon us till that prayer is answered. - VIEL. Our Church is not against what she considers the end of Christ’s _ Bativity, and of his being presented in the temple : but what she considers as that end, is Christian perfection : therefore she is not against Christian perfection. ‘The second proposition of this argument is founded, (1.) Upon the proper preface to Christmas day in the Communion Service :-— « Christ, &c, was made very man, &c, without spot of sin, to make us clean from all sin.” And, (2.) Upon these words of the collect for the presentation of Christ in the temple :—“ We humbly beseech thee, that as thy only begotten Son was presented in the temple in substance of our fiesh, so we may bé presented unto thee with pure and clean hearts.” IX. The same argument helds good with respect to our Lord’s cir- cumcision, his keeping of the passover with unleavened bread, his ascending into heaven,*and his sending the Comforter from thence. That, according to our Church, the end of these events is our Christian perfection, appears by the following extracts from her collects :—“ Grant us the true circumcision of the Spirit, that our hearts and all our members being mortified from all worldly and carnal lusts, we may in all things obey,” &c. (The Circumcision of Christ.) “Grant us so to put away the leayen of malice and wickedness, that we may alway serve thee in pureness of living and truth.” (First Sunday afier Easter.) “Grant, &e, that we may also in heart and mind thither [to heaven] ascend, and with him [Christ] continually diwell,” &c. (Ascension Day.) “ Grant us, by the same Spirit, to have a right judgment in all things, and evermore to Fejoice in his holy comfort.” ( Whitsuntide.) X. Our Church cannct reasonably oppose what she ardently wishes to all her communicants, and what she earnestly asks for and strongly recommends to all her members: but she thus wishes, asks, and recom- mends deliverance from all sin, and perfect charity, that is, Christian perfection: and therefore she cannot be against Christian perfection. The second proposition is founded, (1.) Upon these words of the absolu- tion which she gives to all communicants :—“ Almighty God, &c, pardon and deliver you from all your sins, confirm and strengthen you in all Boodness:” (2.) Upon her collect for Quinquagesima Sunday :—“ Send 512 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. thy Holy Ghost, ‘and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity, the very bond of peace and of all virtues :” (St. Paul calls it “the bond of perfection.”) And, (3.) Upon the definition which she: gives us of charity, in her homilies :—* Charity,” says she, “ is to love God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our power and strength. With all our heart; that is to say, that our heart, mind, and study be set to believe his word, and to love him above all things that we love best in heaven or in earth. With all our soul; that is to say, that our chief joy and delight be set upon him, and our whole life given to his service, With all our power ; that is to say, that, with our hands and feet, with our eyes and ears, our mouths and tongues, and with all our parts and powers, both of body and soul, we should be given to the keeping of his commandments. This is the principal part of charity, but it is not the ~ whole ; for charity is also to love every man, good and evil, friend and _ foe, whatsoever cause be given to the contrary.” (Hom. on Charity.) “ Of charity [St. John] says, He that doth keep God’s word and com- mandment, in ‘ him is truly the perfect love of God, &e. And St. John wrote not this as a subtle saying, &c, but as a most certain and necessary truth.” (Homily of Faith, part ii.) “ Thus it is declared unto you what true charity or Christian love is, &c, which love, whosoever keepeth, - not only toward God, whom he is bound to love above all things, but also” toward his neighbour, as well friend as foe, it shall surely keep him from all offence of God, and just offence of man.” (Homily on Charity, part ii.) Again: “ Every man persuadeth himself to be in charity ; but let him examine his own heart, his life and conversation, and he shall truly discern whether he be in perfect charity or not. For he that followeth not his own will, but giveth himself earnestly to God, to do all his will and commandment, he may be sure that he loveth God above all things, or else surely he loveth him not, whatsoever he pretend.” (Homily on Charity.) Once more: perfect “patience careth not what, nor how much it suffereth, nor of whom it suffereth, whether of friend or foe, but studieth to suffer innocently. Yea, he in whom perfect charity is, careth so little to revenge, that he rather studieth to do good for evil, according to the most perfect example of Christ upon the cross. Such charity and love as Christ showed in his passion, should we bear one to another, if we will be his true servants. If we love but them that love us, what great thing do we do? We must pe perfect in our charity, even as our Father in heaven is perfect.” (Homily for Good Friday.) dl XI. That state which our Church wants all her priests to bring their flocks to is not a “ shocking” or chimerical state: but she wants all her priests to bring all their flocks to “ perfectness in Christ,” that is, to Christian perfection: and therefore the state of Christian perfection is neither shocking nor chimerical. ‘The minor, which alone is contestable, rests upon this awful part of the charge which all her bishops give to her priests :—* See that you never cease your labour, care, and dili until you have done all that lieth in you to bring all such as shall be committed to your charge unto that agreement of faith, and that ripeness and perfectiess of age in Christ, that there be no place left among you for error in religion, « or viciousness in life.” (Ordin. Office. XII. Nor is our Church less strict with the laity than with the clergy; for she receives none into her congregation but such as profess a deter — , LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 513 mination of coming up to Christian perfection. Accordingly, all her members have solemnly promised and vowed by their sponsors at their baptism, and in their own persons when they were confirmed by the bishop: (1.) “To renounce the devil and all his works,"the pomps and vanities of this wicked world, without reserve, and all in sinful lusts of the flesh. (2.) To believe all the articles of the Christian faith. And, (3.) To keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of their life.” And is not this vowing to “ perfect holiness in the fear of God?” Does the first part of this sacred engagement leave any room for a moment’s agreement with the devil, the world, or the flesh? Does the second make the least allowance for one doubt with respect to any one article of the Christian faith? Or the third for one wilful breach of God’s commandments? Again: are not these commandments thus summed up in our Church catechism :—“I learn in them my duty toward God, which is to love him with all my heart ; and my duty toward my neighbour, which is to love him as myself?” Is not this perfect love, or Christian perfection? And have we not “vowed to walk in the same all the days of our life?” As many Churchmen, therefore, as make conscience of keeping their baptismal yow, must not only “go on, but attain unto perfection :” and if there have been no perfect Christians in our Church, all her members have died in the actual breach of the awful promise which they made in their baptism: a supposition too shocking either to make or allow. If you ask, Where are those perfect Churchmen or Christians? I answer, that if the perfect love that keeps the co:iwmandments is not attain- able, our baptismal vow is absurd and detestabie ; for it is both irrational, and very wicked, to vow things absolutely i rapossible. But this is not all: upon that supposition- the Bible, which makes such frequent mention of the perfect and of perfection; is not better than a popish legend ; for that book ought to rank among religious romances, which recommends imaginary things as if they were indubitable realities. So sure then as the Bible is true, there are, or may be perfect Chaktans; ; but Virtutem incolumem odimus, Sublatam ex oculis querimus, invidi. « While we honour dead saints, we call those who are alive enthusiasts, hypocrites, or heretics.” It is not proper, therefore, to expose them to the darts of envy and malice. And suppose living witnesses of perfect love were produced, what would be the consequence? Their testimony would be excepted against by those who disbelieve the doctrine of Chris- tian perfection, just as the testimony of the believers, who enjoy the sense of their justification, is rejected by those who do not believe that a clear experience of the peace and pardoning love of God is attainable in this life. If the original, direct perfection of Christ himself was hor- ribly blackened by his bigoted opposers, how could the derived, reflected perfection of his members escape the same treatment from men, whose hearts are tinctured with a degree of the same bigotry ? Add to this, that in order to harden unbelievers, “the accuser of the brethren” perpetually obtrudes upon the Church, not only false witnesses of pardoning grace, but also vain pretenders to perfect love: for he knows that by putting off as many counterfeits as he possibly can, he wiil give the enemies of the truth room to say that there is in the Church Vou. II. 33 514 _ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. no gold purified seven times,—no coin truly stamped with the king’: image, perfect love; and bearing the royal inscription, “ Holiness unt the Lord.”* ’ : Therefore, instead of saying that this or the other eminent believe has attained Christian perfection, we rest the cause-upon the experienc of St. John, and of those with whom that apostle could say, “There is no occasion of stumbling in him that loveth. Herein is our love mac perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment, because [with respect to holiness] as He is [in his human nature] so are we it this world—pure, undefiled, and filled with perfect love ; with this differ. ence nevertheless, that he is in the kingdom of glory, and we in the kingdom of grace; he has a glorified, and we a corruptible body ; he has the original perfection of a tree, and we the derived perfection of branches growing upon it. Or, to use another comparison, he shine with the communicative perfection of a pure, bright, unextinguishab fire; and we with a borrowed, and yet inherent perfection of a coa entirely lighted. The burning mineral was black, cold, and filthy, bes fore it was impregnated with the perfection of the fire; it continues bright, hot, and pure, only so long as it remains im the fire that kindled it: for if it fall from it by any accident, the shining perfection which it had acquired gradually vanishes, and it becomes a filthy cinder, th black emblem of an apostate. So true is that saying of our Lord, “Without me [or rather separate from me] ye can do nothing ;” ye can neither get, nor keep light or heat, knowledge or love. But when we live not, and Ghrist liveth in us; when our life is hid with Christ 1 God, when we dwell in God, and God dwells in us; then it is that our love is made perfect, and that, loving one another even as Christ hath loved us, as he is loving, “so are we in this world,” 1 John iy, 17. Such was the avowed experience of fathers in Christ in the apostoli times, and such it undoubtedly is also in our days. Nor can I persuade myself that our Church trifles with her children when she describes the perfect Christian thus, in our Homily for Good Friday :—* He in whon perfect charity is, careth so little to revenge, that he rather studieth to do good for evil, according to the most perfect example of Christ upon the cross.” oe XI. If Mr. Hill reply, that our Church speaks there of a mere non entity ; and that we can never have a grain of perfect charity in this life, because the old leaven of indwelling sin will always corrupt sweetness of our tempers before God; J answer his objection by fp ducing my last proof, that our Church holds the very doctrine for wh we are called perfectionists. Hear her pressing perfect love and pur (1.) Upon all her communicants :—“ Have a lively and steadfast in Christ, &c, and be in perfect charity with all men.” (Com. Office. * Among the professors, who have lately set up as witnesses of perfect love, — Tam not a little surprised to find Mr. Hill himself. This gentleman, who treated Mr. Wesley with such severity, for standing up in defence of perfect Ii or Christian perfection, most solemnly ranks himself among the perfect lovers of their neighbours, yea, of their adversaries! Hear him make his astonishing pro- fession before the world, at the end of his pamphlet called, The yr meee - monished. ‘‘I most solemniy declare,” says he, ‘‘that I am in perfect cha with Dr. Adams, as well as with you, sir, my unknown antagonist.” I never heard a perfectionist make so solemn and so public a profession of perfect love. F eee LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 515 And, (2.) Upon all her feeble children :—* Though your power be weak,” says she to them, “yet Christ is risen again to strengthen you in your battle: his Holy Spirit shall help your infirmities. In trust of his mercy take you in hand to purge the leaven of sin, that corrupteth and soureth the sweetness of our life before God; that ye may be as new and fresh dough, void of all sour leaven of wickedness ; so shall ye show yourselves to be sweet bread to God, that he may have his delight in you.” (Hom. on the Resur.) All the preceding arguments support our sense of the ninth and fif- teenth articles; and if Mr. Hill urge that our Church contradicts herself, and sometimes pleads for Christian imperfection and a death purgatory ; we reply, that, supposing the charge were well grounded, yet we ought rather to follow her, when she soberly follows Scripture, than when she hastily follows inconsistent Augustine. But we would rather hope that when she speaks of human depravity in a manner which seems to bear hard upon the preceding quotations, it is either when she speaks of human depravity in general, or when she inculcates the perfection of humility; or when she opposes the feigned perfection of those whom she ironically calls “proud, just, perfect, and holy Pharisees.” (Hom. on the Misery of Man.) From these and the like words, therefore, we have as much reason to conclude that she renounces true Christian holi- ness, as to infer that she decries true Christian perfection. Beside, the delusion of those Pharisees, who have missed a perfection of evangelical righteousness and humility, and have attained a perfection of self right- eousness and pride, is so horrible and so diametrically*opposite to the spirit of Christianity, that our reformers deserve to be excused, if they have sometimes opposed that error in an unguarded manner ; especially as they have so clearly and so frequently asserted the glorious liberty of God’s children. I shall close this vindication of the Church of England with some remarks upon her “ martyrs,” whom Mr. Hill produces also in his creed, to keep the doctrine of Christian imperfection in countenance. 1. If any of our martyrs, speaking of his converted, renewed, and sanctified state, said, “I am all sin,” or words to that purpose, he spoke the words of unguarded humility, rather than the words of evangelical soberness: for a man may have grace and zeal enough to burn for one truth, without having time and prudence enough properly to investigate and state every truth. 2. In our state of weakness, the very perfection of humility may betray an injudicious martyr into the use of expressions which seem to clash with the glorious liberty of God’s children; just as an excessive love for our friends may betray us into an injudicious and teasing officiousness. 3. When a martyr considers himself in his fallen state in Adam, or in his former state of disobedience, he may say, “I am all sin,” in the very same sense in which St. Paul said, “I am the chief of sinners.” But allow him time t6 explain himself, and he will soon give you to understand that he “rejoices in the testimony of a good conscience, purged from dead works to serve the living God;” and that, far from harbouring any sin in himself, he is determined to “strive against sin in 516 | LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. others, resisting unto blood.” And is not such a disposition as 5 this of the highest steps in the ladder of Christian perfection ? 4 4, Hence it appears that the unguarded expressions of our martyz were levelled at Pharisaic pride, or at absolute perfection, and not Christian perfection. Like some pious Calvinists in our days, the embraced Christian perfection in deed, while, through misapprehension they disclaimed it in word. And therefore their speeches against t glorious liberty of God’s children, show. only that Christian perfection F a perfection of humility aad love, and not a perfection of wisdom ant knowledge. 5. If it can be proved that any of those who rank among our martyr died full of indweiling sin, I will not scruple to say that he died a bigo and not a martyr; for to die full of indwelling sin is to die full of secre obstinacy and uncharitableness ; and St. Paul declares that were an apostle himself to “give his body to be burned” in such a wane mn. “it would profit him nothing.” ‘d 6. As many brave Englishmen have laid down their lives in the field of battle, to defend their country against the French, without being pi perly acquainted with the liberties and boundaries of the British empil res so many Pfotestants have laid down their lives in Smithfield, to defen their religion against the Papists, without being acquainted with all landmarks which divide the land of spiritual Israel from that of the Philistines, and perfect Christianity from Antinomian dotages. 7. The Jews can produce their maftyrs as well as the Protestants. The Maccabees, for example, died entirely satisfied with the Mo covenant, and strangers to the transcendent glory of the Christian dis- pensation. But is this a sufficient reason for preferring Judaism to Christianity? Yes, if Mr. Hill be in the right, when he decries the doctrine of perfect faith and perfect love, and imposes upon us the doe. trine of a death purgatory, because some good men formerly died with out having clear views of the doctrine of Christian perfection; thoug! like men who eat honey in the dark, they tasted its sweetness, am delightfully experienced its power. a 8. To conclude: I am persuaded that were all our reformers anc martyrs alive, none of them would object to this argument, which sums up the doctrine of the Church of England with respect to purgatory; “If death cleanseth us from indwelling sin, it is not Christ’s blood applied by the Spirit through faith. But the only purgatory whe we [Christian men] trust to be saved, is the death and blood of Chi which, if we apprehend it with a true and steadfast faith, purgeth cleanseth us from all our sins,‘ The blood of Christ,’ says St. ‘hath cleansed us from all sin.” (Homily on Prayer, part iii.) fore. the doctrine, that “death, &c, cleanseth us from all indwel sin,” or the doctrine of a death purgatory, is as contrary to the doet of our Church as to that of St. John. ’ > 4 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 517 SECTION V. Mr. Hill intimates that the apostles were imperfectionists—St. Peter and St. James, far from pleading for a death purgatory, stand up for Christian perfection. Wuew Mr. Hill has so unadvisedly brought the Church of England against us, it is not surprising to see him press four apostles, “ Peter, Paul, James, and John,” into the field to “cut up,” (as he calls it,) “root and branch, my favourite doctrine of perfection.” Never were these holy men set upon a more unholy piece of work. Methinks I hear them say, Let Mr. Hill rank us with the Gibeonites : let him make us “ hewers of wood” to the congregation for ever: but let him not set us upon cutting up, root and branch, the lovely and fruitful tree of Christian perfection. Uappily for that rare tree, Mr. Hill only pro- duces the names of the apostolic woodmen, while we produce their aze, and show that they lay it at the root of Antinomianism; a deadly tree this, which is, to our favourite tree, what the fatal tree in paradise was to the tree of life. Mr. Hill appeals first to Peter; let then Peter first answer for himself. . . 1. Where does that apostle plead for Christian imperfection, and a death purgatory? Is it where he says, “ As He who has called you is holy : so be-ye HoLy IN ALL manner of conversation. Seeing you have \ purified your souls, &c, love ‘one another with a PURE HEART FER- ventiy. Christ left us an example, that ye should follow his steps; who did no sin—who bare our sins, that we, being DEAD To sty, should live to righteousness: forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same mind; for he that hath suffered in the flesh, hath ceased from sim. The God of all grace, &c, after that ye have suffered awhile, make you perrect.” Had Peter been against our doctrine, is it probable that he would thus haye excited believers to attain perfection; wishing it them, as we wish our flocks “the peace of God which passes all understanding ?” If that apostle pleads not for the necessary indwelling of sin in his first epistle, doth he do it in the second? Is it where he says, that “ exceeding great and precious promises are given us, that by these we might be partakers of the Divine nature, having escaped the pollution that is in the world through lust?” Is there indwelling sin in the Divine nature? And can those people, whose hearts are still full of sin and indwelling corruption, be said to “ have escaped the pollution that is in the world through lust?” Might not a man, whose lungs are still full of dangerous ulcers, be said with as much propriety to have escaped the misery that is in the world through consumptions? Is it where St. Peter describes Christian perfection, and exhorts believers to attain it, or to rise higher in it, by adding with “all diligence to faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity,” the ke¥ of the arch, and the bond of perfection? Is it where he states the difference between fallen believers, weak believers, and perfect Christians ; hinting that the first “ Lack these things,” i. e. Christian graces ; that “ these things are in” the second: and that they “,sounpD” in the third? Or is it where he bids “ us be diligent that we 518 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM, may be found of God in peace, without spot and blameless ?” “orm my part I do not see here the shadow of a plea for the root of every evil ix the hearts of believers till they die, any more than for the fruit of adul. tery, murder, and incest in their lives till they go hence. © But what principally strikes us in Mr. Hill’s appeal to St. Peter is, that although Peter was naturally led by his subject to speak of the necessary indwelling of sin in our hearts during the term of life, if that doctrine had been true, yet he does not,so much as drop one hint about it. The design of his first epistle was, undoubtedly, to confirm believe under the fiery trials which their faith meets with. “You are kept,” says he, “ by the power of God, through [obedient] faith unto salvation. wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season (if need be) ye are in heaviness, through manifold temptations.” What a fair opportuni ty had Peter to say here, without an if need be, “ You must be in heavi ness, not only through manifold temptations, but also through the rema 3 ing corruptions of your hearts: the Canaanites and wild beasts must still dwell in the land, to be goads in your sides, and thorns in your eyes or you would grow proud and careless ; your heart leprosy must clea to you, as Gehazi’s leprosy cleaved to him. Death radically cured oa and nothing but death can radically cure you. ‘Till then, your heads “must remain full of imputed righleousness, and your hearts full “~ 7 dwelling sin.” But, happily for the honour of Christianity, this A nomian, this impure gospel has not the least countenance from St. Peter Bly and he cuts up the very roots of it where he says, “ Who shall harm you, if you be followers of that which is good? Commit the keepi og of your souls unto God in well doing. ['The very reverse of sinning.] You are his daughters, [the daughters of him to whom God said, Walk before me, and ‘be thou perfect, | so long as ye DO WELI, and are not AFRAID with any amazement,” that is, so long as your conduct and tem- pers become the Gospel. And every body knows that a man’s temper are always as his heart; and that, if his heart be “ full of evil,” his tempers cannot be “ full of goodness,’ ? Rom. xy, 14. Il. If St. Peter, the first of Mr. Hill’s witnesses, does not say one word to countenance Antinomianism, and to recommend Christian i i perfection ; let us see if St. James pleads for Baal in the hearts, any more than for Baal in the lives of perfect believers. Turn to his epis si O ye that thirst after holiness! To your comfort you will find, that in the first chapter | he shows himself a bold asserter of Christian perfection. “Let patience,” says he, “have her perrecr work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” He speaks the same language in other places: “ Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and con- TINUETH THEREIN, he, being a doer of the work, shall be blessed in his deed,’ ” And again : “ If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man.” Nor is it difficult to demonstrate from his second chapter, pee believers, or perfect Christians, “keep the royal, Sy of liberty ;” and that those who “break it in one point are” in a ¢ plorable case. IfMr. Wesley had written an epistle to Antinomian believers, to make them go on to Christian perfection, could he have expressed himself in — a ply manner than St. James does in the following passages?— “Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned, [or 3 . : LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 519 o damned,| James v, 9. Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that judgeth his brother, judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able fo save and to destroy” [those believers who keep or break his royal law,] James iv, 11, 12. Again: “If ye FULFIL THE ROYAL LAw, according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy- self, ye Do wei: but [if ye do not fulfil it] if ye have respect to per- Sons, ye commit sin. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend [i. e. commit sin] in one point, he is guilty of all, &c. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty,” James ii, 8, &c. What follows demonstrates that fallen believers, if they do not repent and rise to the state of Christian perfection, will be condemned for one sin. St. James properly instances in the sin of uncharitableness, be- cause it is directly contrary to our Lord’s new commandment of loving one another as he has loved us, and because charity is the fulfilling of “the royal law, and the bond of perfection.” ‘Can faith save him” [the uncharitable believer ?] says St. James. “Ifa brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you [believers] say, Be ye warmed and filled, notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit? Even so, faith, if it hath not works, /and of consequence, the fallen believer, if he has sin unrepented of, ] isdead.” Sucha one “is of the devil, for he committeth sin, and sin is the ion of the law of libefty, by which he shall be judged, yea, by which he shall have judgment without mercy, that has (thus) showed no mercy ;” whether he sinned negatively by not relieving his poor brother in deed, though he gave him good words; or whether he did it positively, by “having respect to persons, or by grudging against his brother :” com- pare James ii, 13, &c, with 1 John i, 4, &c, to the end of both chap- ters, which are~two strong~batieries raised on purpose to defend the doctrine of Christian perfection, and to demolish the doctrine of Chris- tian imperfection, which is all one with Antinomianism. Should it be objected, that, “at this rate, no Christian believer is safe, fill he has obtained Christian perfection :” we reply, that all Christian believers are safe, who either stand in it, or press after it. And if they do neither, we are ready to prove that they rank among fallen believers, and are in as imminent danger of bemg “spued out of Christ’s mouth,” as the Laodiceans were. Let Mr. Hill candidly read the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, and the First of St. John, and let him doubt of it if he can. Should Mr. Hill object that « St. James himself says, In many things we offend all ; and that this one saying abundantly proves that he was a strong imperfectionist ;” I beg leave to involve my honoured opponent in the following dilemma:—dAre the offences, of which St. James speaks, involuntary ? .Or are they voluntary? If Mr. Hill says, “They are involuntary,” I answer, Then they are not proper breaches of *the law of liberty,” which St. James preaches; because that law curses us for no involuntary offences ; and therefore such offences, (like St. Baul’s reproving of the high priest more sharply than he would have done, had hé known what high dignity his unjust judge was invested with,) such offences, I say, are not sins acrording to the royal and evangelical 520 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. law of our Neldsaelans and therefore they do not prove that all be. — lievers remain full of indwelling sin till death. If Mr. Hill reply, that _ “the many offences, of which St. James speaks, are voluntary offences, and therefore real breaches of the law of liberty ;” I answer, that this — genuine sense of the words, taken in connection with the context, con- | firms our doctrine of Christian perfection, and our opposition to Anti- nomianism ; and I prove it thus :— 1 The text and context run thus :—“My brethren, be not many mas- — ters ; [i. e. lord it not over one another ; 3 knowing that we [who do so] shall receive the greater condemnation” if we do not learn humility. “JT say we, because I would not have you think that God our Judge isa respecter of persons, and will spare an apostle, who breaks the law of — liberty and does not repent, any more than he would spare you. For — if [ represented God as a partial Judge, Judas’ greater condemnation would prove me mistaken. And I insist the more upon this awful doc- trine, because ‘in many things we offend all,’ especially im word, till we are made peewee in love, that ‘love which is the fulfilling of the ~ law,’ and enables us to ‘keep our tongue as it were with a bridle’ all the day long.” If Mr. Hill ask, by w hat means I can show that this is really St. Jame? meaning ; I reply, By that plain rule of divinity and criticism, which bids us take the beginning of a verse in connection with the end. And if we do this here, we find the doctrine of Chris- tian perfection in this very text, thus :—“ We shall receive the greater damnation” if we do not repent and cease tor“ be many masters ; for in many things we from time to time offend all,” especially by our words, till we are perfected in love. “If any man offend not in word, the same is, what each of us should be, a perfect man, and able also to bridle his whole body,” James iii, 1, 2. So certain, therefore, as there are men able to bridle their tongue, and their whole bodies, there are men perfect in the body, perfect before death, according to the agai contained in this controverted passage of St. James. «But St. James says also, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy, James iv, 5.” ' I reply, 1. It is usual for modest teachers to rank themselves with the persons, of whom they say something disagreeable: and this they do to take away the harshness of their doctrine,and to make way for the severity of their charges. Thus Peter writes: “The time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when — we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquet- — ings, and abominable idolatries ;” though it is evident that Peter, a poor, — industrious, godly Jew, never “ walked in abominable idglatries, working the will of the Gentiles.” Now the same delicacy of charity, which — made St. Peter rank himself with heathens, who walked in drunkenness, — whoredom, and gross idolatry, makes St. James rank himself with the — = Christians, who are possessed by an envious spirit. : 2. Nay, St. James himself, using the same figure of speech, says, “The tongue is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison, &c; therewith curs@we men, who are made after the similitude of God.” But would — it be reasonable to infer from these words that his tongue was still “full — of deadly poison,” and that he therewith continued to curse his neigh- bour! ‘Thereforevall that is implied in his words about envy, is that, till LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 521 we are made perfect in the “ charity which envieth not, and is not puffed up, the spirit that is in us lusteth to envy” and pride. And that we, who have not vet attained Christian perfection, need not be always envious and proud, is evident from the very next words, “ But he giveth more grace, wherefore he says, God resisteth the proud, envious man, but giveth grace to the humble: resist the devil and he will flee from you; purify your hearts, ye double minded: be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy into heaviness.” So severe was St. James to those adulterers and adulter- esses, those genteel believers, who stopped short of Christian perfection, loved the world, and envied-one another! Therefore, to press him into the service of Solifidianism, is as. rash an attempt as to call his epistle an epistle of straw, worthy of being committed to the flames: and (if the preceding remarks are-just) Mr. Hill is as much mistaken, when he appeals to St. James, as when he quotes St. Peter, in defence of Christian imperfection. SECTION VI. . St. Paul preached Christian perfection, and professed to have attained it—A view of the different sorts of perfection which belong to the dif- ferent dispensations of grace and glory—The holy child Jesus’ im- perfection in knowledge and suffering, and his growing in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man, were entirely consistent with his perfection of humble love. Sr. Paut’s name appears upon Mr. Hill’s list of witnesses against Christian perfection ; but it is without the apostle’s consent: for Peter and James did not plead more strenuously for the glorious liberty of God’s children, than St. Paul. Nay, he professed to have attained it, and addressed fathers in Christ as persons that were pariakers of it together with himself. “We speak wisdom,” says he, “among them that are perfect,” 1 Cor. ii,6. “Let us, as many as be perfect, be thus minded,” Phil. ini, 15. Nor did St. Paul fancy that Christian perfection was to be confined to the apostolic order: for he wanted all believers to be like him in this respect. Hence it is, that he exhorted the Corinthians “to perfect holiness in the fear of God, 2 Cor. vii, 1; to be perfect, 2 Cor. xiii, 11; to be perfectly joined together in the same mind,” 1 Cor. i, 10; and showed them the perfect, or “ more excellent way,” 1 Cor. xiii. He told the Ephesians, that “God gave pastors for the perfecting of the saints, till all come in the unity of tke faith,—unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,” Eph. iv, 12,13. He “taught every man, &c, that he might present every man perfect in Christ Jesus,’ Col. i, 28. He wanted the Colossians fully to “put on charity, which is the bond of perfection, that they might stand perfect and complete in all the will of God,” Col. ii, 14; iv, 12. He would have “the man of God to be perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work,” 2 Tim. ui, 27. He exhorted his converts, “‘ whether they did eat, drink, or do any thing else, to do all to the glory of God, and 522 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. = ie ee m the name of the Lord Jesus; rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, and in every thing giving thanks ;” that is, he exhorted them to walk according to the strictest rules of Christian perfection. 2 blamed the Hebrews for being still such “as have need of milk, and not of strong meat ;” observing that “strong meat, sos1 réAeiwy, belongeth to them that are ‘perfect, even to them who by reason of use, [or experi- ence, | have their [spiritual] senses exercised to discern both good and evil,” Heb. v, 12, &c. He begins the next chapter by exhorting them to “go on to perfection ;” intimating that if they do not, they may insensibly fall away, “ put the Son of God to open shame, and not be- renewed again to repentance.” And he concludes the whole epistle by” a pathetic wish that “the God of peace would make them perfect im every good work to do his will.” Hence it appears that it would not be less unreasonable to set St. Paul upon “ crucifying Christ afresh, than to make him attack Christ’s well-known doctrine, “ Be ye [moral ly] perfect, [according to your narrow capacity and bounded power,] even as your heavenly Father is [morally] perfect” [in his infinite na- ture, and boundless Godhead,] Matt. v, 48. Mr. Hill will probably attempt to set all these scriptures aside, by saying that nothmg can be more absurd than to represent Paul as a perfectionist, because he says himself, “« Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect,” Phil. iii, 12. But some remarks upon the different’ sorts of perfection, and upon the peculiar perfection which the apostle said he had not yet attaimed, will easily solve this difficulty. Mr. Hill is too well acquainted with divinity, not to know that abso- lute perfection belongs to God alone; and that Christ himself, with respect to his humanity, fell and still falls short of infinite perfection, Omniscience, and a wisdom admitting of no growth, are essential to absolute perfection: but the man Christ was not omniscient ; for he did not know the day of judgment : nor was his wisdom infinite ; ioe he grew mm wisdom. Nay, his happiness is not yet absolute ; for it daily increases -as he sees his seed, and is more and more satisfied. God alone is s premely perfect: all beings are imperfect, when they are compared to him; and though all his works were perfect in their places, yet, as he gave them different degrees of perfection, they which have inferior degrees of goodness, may be said to be imperfect im comparison of them which are endued with superior degrees of excellence. Thus archangels are perfect as archangels, but imperfect in comparison of Jesus Christ. Angels are perfect as angels, but imperfect in compari- son of archangels. Enoch, Elijah, and the saints who arose with our Lord, are perfect as glorified saints; and, in comparison of them, the departed “spirits of just men made perfect” continue in a state of im- perfection: for the risen saints are glorified in body and soul; but the mouldered bodies of departed saints, not having yet felt “the power of P Christ’s resurrection,” are still under the power of corruption. Imper- — fect as St. Paul and St. John are now, in comparison of Enoch, Elijah, — and the twenty-four elders so often mentioned by St. John; yet they are far more perfect than when they were pressed down by a corrupti- — ble body, under which they “groaned, being burdened :” for the disem-— bodied spirits of “ just men made perfect” are more perfect than the LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. ° 523 most perfect Christians, who are yet in a “body dead because of sin.” And, as among rich men, some are richer than others; or among tall men, some are taller than others; so among perfect Christians, some are more perfect than others. According to the gradation which belongs to all the works of God; according to the doctrine of the dispensations of Divine grace ; the least perfect of all perfect Christians, is more perfect than the most _ perfect Jew; yéa, than John the Baptist, whose dispensation linked together Judaism and Christianity. Or, to speak the language of our Lord, “ He that is least in the [Christian] kingdom of God, is greater than John ;” though John himself was “the greatest born of a woman” under any preceding dispensation.. By the same rule, he that is per- fect under the Jewish dispensation, is more perfect than he that is only perfect according to the dispensation of the Gentiles. The standard of these different perfections is fixed in the Scriptures. “To fear God and work righteousness,” that is, to do to others as we would be done to, from the principle of the fear of God, is the standard of a Gentile’s perfection. The standard of a Jew’s perfection, with | vespect to morality, may be seen in Deut. xxvii, 14—26, and in Psa. xv. And, with respect to devotion, it is fixed in Psalm cxix. The whole of | this perfection is thus summed up by Micah :—“O Israel, what does the Lord thy God require of thee, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” The perfection of infant Christianity, which is called, in the Scrip- _ tures, “the baptism of John,” is thus described by John and by Christ : —* He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none, &c. If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast, give to the poor, and follow me. If any man ‘come to me and hate not [i. e. is not willing for my sake to leave] his father and mother, his wife and children, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever does not bear his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” With respect to adult perfect Christianity, which is consequent upon _ the baptism of the Holy Ghost, administered by Christ himself, its per- fection is described in the sermon on the mount ; in 1 Cor. xiii; and mm all those parts of the epistles where the apostles exhort believers to walk agreeably to “the glorious liberty of God’s children.” The perfection of disembodied spirits is thus described by a voice from heaven :—“ Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord: even so, saith the Spirit. for they rest from their labours, [not from their sins; this | they did before death,] and their works follow them.” And the com- | plete perfection of glorified saints is thus described by St. John and St. Paul :—“ They shall live and reign with Christ in a city wherein there is no temple, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it, and the city hath no need of the sun to shine in it, for the glory of God enlightens it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And there shall be no curse : but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall serve him, and they shall see his face ; and his name shail bevon their foreheads, and they shall reign for ever and ever” in glorified bodies. For “this corruptible body shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory ; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: it is sown a natural ) 524 . LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. ody, it is raised a spiritual body: as is the heavenly Adam, such are they also that are heavenly: and as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly: for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God:” but the spiritual, i. e. the glorified body shall inherit the heavenly Canaan. " Persons, whose orthodoxy consists in obstinately refusing to peep over the wall of prejudice, will probably say that these observations upen the different sorts and degrees of perfection are “ novel chimeras,” and that I-multiply perfections, as I do justifications, “inventing them by the dozen.” To this I answer, that we advance nothing but what, we hope, recommends itself to the candour of those who have a regard for reason and revelation. 4 1. Reason tells us that all God’s works are perfect in their places; and that, some having a higher place than others upon the scale of beings, they are of consequence more perfect. If Mr. Hill will not believe it, we appeal to his banker, and ask, if there is not an essential difference between the metallic perfection of brass, that of silver, and that of gold i We appeal to his jeweller, and ask if the perfection of an agate is not inferior to that of an emerald—the perfection of a ruby to that of a diamond ; and if some diamonds cannot be said to be more perfect than others? We appeal to his gardener, and ask if a blackberry is not inferior to a strawberry, a strawberry to a nectarine, and a nectarine to a pineapple: and if, nevertheless, those various fruits have not each their perfection? Nay, we will venture to ask his under gardener, if ithe perfection of the fruit does not imply the perfection of the blossom 5 if the perfection of the blossom does not presuppose that of the bud and if a bud, whose perfection is destroyed by the frost in March, is likely to produce perfect blossoms in May, and perfect fruit in October? Should the fear of becoming a perfectionist make Mr. Hill refuse his assent to these obvious truths, we will address him as a master of arts, a gentleman who is versed in natural philosophy, as well as in Calvinism Is it absurd to say that some just men rise progressively from the per- fection of a lower, to the perfection of a higher dispensation in the spiritual world? Do we not see a similar promotion, even among the _ basest classes of animals in the natural world? Consider that beauti fu insect, which exults to display its crown, and expand its wings in the sun. Will you not say that it is a perfect butterfly? Nevertheless, three weeks ago it was a perfect aurelia, quietly sleeping in its silken tomb. Some months before, it was a perfect silkworm, busily preparing itself for another state of existence, by spinning and weaving its shroud. And had you seen it a year ago, you would have seen nothing but a pe fect egg. Thus, in one year, it has experienced three grand changes, which may be called metamorphoses, births, or conversions. Each change was perfect in its kind: and, nevertheless, the last is as far superior to the first, as a beautiful, flying butterfly exceeds a black, crawling worm; and such a worm, the invisible seed of life, that lies ” dormant in the diminutive egg of an insect. 2. Scriprure and experience do not support our doctrine of the dif: ference of perfections, less than reason and philosophy. We read, Gen. vi. 9, that ‘“ Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation.” We read also, Jobi, 1 “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose 2 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. : 525 name was Job, and that man was perrect.” Now, whatever the per- fection of Noah and Job consisted in, it is evident that it was not Jewish perfection : for the perfection of Judaism requires the sacrament of — cireumcision; and Mr. Hill will hardly say that men were circumcised in the land oF Uz, and before the flood. Hence I conclude that Noah and Job had attained the perfection of Gentilism, and not that of Judaism. Again : “ Mark the perfect man,” says David, “ for his end is peace.” No doubt he spake this of the perfect Jew; and such were, | think, Moses, Samuel, and Daniel: if Mr. Hill will not allow it, I produce Simeon or Anna, or Zacharias and Elizabeth, “who were both right- eous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of God blameless,” Luke i, 16. Now these excellent Jews were not perfect according to the dispensation of John the Baptist; for water baptism was not less essential to a perfect disciple of John, than circum- cision was to a perfect disciple of Moses, and they, or some of them, probably died long before John opened his dispensation by “ preaching the baptism of repentance.” Once more: John the Baptist was undoubtedly perfect according to his own dispensation ; his penitential severity, his great reputation for holiness, and the high encomium which our Lord passed upon hin, naturally lead us to conclude it. But that he was not a perfect Christian is evident from the following considerations: (1.) Our Lord said, that “the least in the Christian kingdom of God should be greater than John.” (2.) John himself confessed the imperfection of his baptism, or dispensation, in comparison of the perfection of Christ’s baptism and spiritual dispensation: “I have need to be baptized of thee,” said he to Christ, “and comest thou to me?” And to his disciples he said, “I indeed baptize you with water, but he [the Lamb of God] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” (3.) John was beheaded before Christ was crucified ; and the outpouring of the Spirit, the bap- tism of the Holy Ghost, did not begin til] after Christ’s ascension ; the apostle St. John having particularly mentioned that “the Holy Ghost was not yet given,” or that a full dispensation of the Spirit was not yet opened, ‘‘ because Jesus was not yet glorified,” John vii; 39 : an impor- tant observation this, which is confirmed by Christ’s own words to his disciples, John xvi, 7, “I tell you the truth ; it is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you: [the full dispensation of the Holy Ghost shall not be opened :] but if I depart, I will send him to you.” Agreeably to this, “he commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, [i. e. the promised Spirit,] which, says he, ye have heard of me ; for John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost noi many days hence.” And when they had been thus baptized, they began to preach the full baptism of Christ, which has two branches, the baptism of water, and the baptism of the Spirit, or of celestial fire. Therefore, when the penitent Jews asked, * Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter answered, “ Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; for the promise of it is unto you, and unto your children, and to all that are afar off; even as many as the Lord 526 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. our God shall call” to the perfection of the Christian dispensation: « we are witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God [since the day of pentecost] hath given to them that obey him,” i. e. to obedient believers: compare Acts ii, 38, and v, 32, with John vii, 38. a From the preceding reasons, we conclude that the case of John the Baptist was as singular as that of Moses. Moses knew Joshua, and pointed him out as ‘the man who was to lead the Israelites into the land of promise: but Moses died before Joshua opened the way. Thus Moses saw the good land: he was not far from the typical kingdom of God; but he did not enter into it. In like manner the Baptist knew Christ, and pointed him out as the wonderful person who was to introduce believers into the spiritual kingdom of God. But John was beheaded before Christ glorified opened his peculiar kingdom. Thus John saw the kingdom of heaven: he was not far from it. But yet he did not enter into it. He died a “just man, made perfect” according to his owr incomplete dispensation, but not according to the dispensation of Christ and his Spirit. This was the Baptist’s grief, not his guilt: for he earn. estly desired to be baptized of Christ with the Holy Ghost; but the Holy Ghost was not yet given in the Christian measure. The gift of the Spirit was rather distilled as a dew, than poured out as a shower; “because Jesus was not yet glorified :” but now, that he is ascended on high to receive that unspeakable gift for men in its fulness; now tha the promise of the Father is fulfilled to all who plead it aright; we are culpable if we rest satisfied with the inferior manifestations of the Spiri which belong to the baptism of John or to infant Christianity: and we act in an unchristian-like manner if we ridicule the kingdom of the Holy Ghost, and speak evil of perfect Christianity. ¥ To return: a perfect Gentile sees God in his works and providences ; but wanting a more particular manifestation of his existence and goodness, he sighs, O where shall I find him? A perfect Jew ardently expects his céming as Messiah and Emmanuel, or God with us; and he groans, O that thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down! , shining through his epistles, discourses, and conduct ; and I have pro » than to take advantage of a figurative mode of expression, to laotaa tang gh * fect faith, and perfect love, productive of the gracious tempers which .the more willingly we acknowledge them to God and men. ‘This is 534 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. . can do what the “ bewitched Galatians” could not do; that is, they ca “crucify the flesh with all its affections and lusts,” and walk as pe Christians who utterly destroy the whole body of sin, and “ fulfil the of Christ.” And, (3.) That to produce Gal. y, against the doctrine o} Christian perfection, is full as absurd as to quote the sermon upon mount in defence of Antinomian delusions. | I have dwelt so long upon this head, because I have before me* “ An Essay on Galatians y, 17,” lately published by an ingenious divine, who takes it for granted that the apostle contends, in this verse, for the necessary indwelling of sin. Mr. Hill will probably say, “That he does not rest the doctrine of Christian imperfection so much upon the experience of the fallen Gal tians, as upon that of St. Paul himself, who, in Romans vii, frankly ‘ae knowledges that he was still a wretched, carnal man, sold under sin, and serving with the flesh the law of sin. Whence it follows that it is high presumption in modern believers to aspire at more perfection, and a greater freedom from sin upon earth, than had been attained by St. Paul, who was ‘not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles, but laboured more abundantly than they all.’” To this common objection I answer :— 1. The perfection we preach is nothing but Ry per- St. Paul Himaself describes, 1 Cor. xiii. We see those blessed tempers in the preceding section that he himself’ professed Christian perfecti This objection, therefore, appears to us an ungenerous attempt to make St. Paul grossly contradict himself. For what can be more ungenerous good man’s character, and to traduce him as a slave of his fleshly lusts, a drudge to carnality, a wretch sold under sin? What would Mr. Hill think of me, if, under the plausible pretence of magnifying God’s grace to the chief of sinners, and of proving that there is no deliverance from sin in this life, ] made the following speech ?— ‘ «The more we grow in grace, the more clearly we see our sins ; and abundantly verified by the confessions that the most holy men haw e made of their wickedness. Paul himself, holy Paul, is not ashamed t humble himself for the sins which he committed, even after his conyer- sion. ‘I robbed other Churches,’ says he, ‘taking wages to do you service, 2 Cor. xi, 8. Hence it appears that the apostle had agreed to serve some Churches for a proper salary: but, being ‘ carnal, and sold under sin,’ he broke his word; he fleeced, but role to feed the flocks; and robbing the Churches, he went to the Corinthians, perhaps to see what he could get of them also in the end; for ‘the heart is decei above all things, and desperately wicked,’ Jer. xvii, 9. Nay, partial he was to those Corinthians, for whom he turned Church robber, showed that his love to them was not sinless and free from rage; once he threatened to come to them ‘ with a rod;’ and he gave one them to ‘Satan for the destruction of the flesh.’ With great proprie * The arguments by which the doctrine of the necessary indwelling of sin in ¢ believers till death is supported in that essay, will be considered in section xiv. ws LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 535 ’ therefore, did holy Paul say to the last, ‘I am the chief of sinners.’ And now, when the chief of the apostles thus abases himself before God, and publicly testifies, both by his words and works, that there is no deliverance from sin, no perfection in this life; who can help being _ frightened at the Pharisaic pride of the men who dare inculeate the doc- _ trine of sinless perfection ?” I question if Mr. Hill himself, upon reading this ungenerous and absurd, though in one sense Scriptural plea for St. Paul’s imperfection, would not be as much out of conceit with my fictitious explanation of 2 Cor. xi, as I am with his Calvinistic exposition of Rom. vii. -Nor do I thmk it more criminal to represent the apostle as a Church robber, than to traduce him as a “wretched, carnal man, sold under sin ;” another Ahab, that is, a man who did “evil in the sight of the Lord, above all that were before him.” 2. St. Paul no more professes himself actually a carnal man in Rom. vii, 7, than he professes himself actually a liar in Rom. ii, 7, where he says, “ But if the truth of God has more abounded through my lie, why am I judged as a smner?’ He no more professes himself a man _ actually sold under sin, than St. James and his fellow believers profes= _ themselves a generation of vipers, and actual eursers of men, when the one wrote and the others read, “The tongue can no man tame: it is | full of deadly poison; therewith curse we men.” When St. Paul | reproves the partiality of some of the Corinthians to this or that preacher, _ he imtroduces Apollos and himself; though it seems that his reproof was _ chiefly intended for other preachers, who fomented a party spirit in the corrupted Church of Corinth. And then he says, “These things, _ brethren, I have im a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos, for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that | which is written,” 1 Cor. iv, 6. By the same figure he says - himself, what he might have said of any other man, or of all mankind : «Though "I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I | am become as sounding brass.” ‘Thrice in three verses he speaks of | his not having charity: and suppose he had done it three hundred times, _ this would no more have proved that he was really uncharitable, than his saying, Rom. vii. “I am sold under sin,” proves that he “ served the _ Jaw of sin with his body,” as a slave is forced to serve the master who - bought him. ' _ 3. It frequently happens, also, that by a figure of rhetoric, which is called hypotyposis, writers relate things past, or things to come, in the present tense, that their narration may be more lively, and may make a stronger impression. Thus, Gen: vi, 17, we read, “ Behold IL, even [, do bring [i. e. I will bring one hundred and twenty years hence] a flood _ upon the earth to destroy all flesh.” Thus also, 2 Sam. xxii, 1, 35, 48, _ “When the Lord had delivered David out of the hands of all his ene- mies, and given him peace in all his borders, he spake the words of this song. He teacheth [i. e. he taught] my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is [i. e. was] broken by mine arms: it is God that avengeth [i. e. that hath avenged] me, and that bringeth [i. e. has brought] me fo _ from mine enemies.” A thousand such expressions, or this figure con- _ tinued through a thousand verses, would never prove, before unpreju- diced persons, that King Saul was alive, and that David was not yet 536 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. delivered for good out of his bloody hands. Now, if St. Paul, similar figure, which he carries throughout part of a chapter, related past experience in the present tense: if the Christian apostle, to humble himself, and to make his description more lively, and the opposition tween the bondage of sin and Christian liberty more striking; if apostle, I say, with such a design as this, appears upon the stage of instruction in his old Jewish dress, a dress this, in which he could s God day and night, and yet, like another Ahab, breathe threaten: 5 and slaughter against God’s children : and if in this dress he says, “ am eavnall sold under sin,” &c, is it not ridiculous to measure his growth as an apostle of Christ by the standard of his stature vo he was a Jewish bigot, a fiery zealot, full of good peers 2° and bad p formances ? “4 4, To take a scripture out of the context, is afte like taking th stone that binds an arch out of its place: you know not what to ake of it. Nay, you may put it to a use quite contrary to that for which if was intended. This our opponents do, when they so take Rom. vii, out of its connection with Rom. vi, and Rom. viii, as to make it mean the very reverse of what the apostle designed. St. Paul, in Romans fifth and sixth, and in the beginning of the seventh chapter, describes “the glorious liberty of the children of God” under the Christian dis. pensation. And as a skilful painter puts shades in his pie heighten the effect of the lights; so the judicious apostle introdu the latter part of Rom. vi, a lively description of the domin power of sin, and of the intolerable burden of guilt: a burde which he had so severely felt, when the convincing Spirit cha home upon his conscience after he.had broken his good resolutions; but especially during the three days of his blindness and fasting Damascus. Then he groaned, “O wretched man that I am,” &e, hanging night and day between despair and hope, between unbelief faith, between bondage and freedom, till God brought him into Christian liberty by the ministry of Ananias; of this liberty the apostle gives us% farther and fuller account in Rom. viii. Therefore the description of the man who groans under the galling yoke of sin, is brought in merely by contrast, to set off the amazing difference there is between the bondage of sin and the liberty of Gospel holiness: just as the generals, who entered Rome in triumph, used to make a show of the prince w they had conquered. On such occasions the conqueror rode in a umphal chariot crowned with laurel, while the captive king followed him on foot, loaded with chains, and making, next to the conqueror, the most striking part of the show. Now, if in a Roman triumph, some of the spectators had taken the chained king on foot for the victorious general in the chariot, because the one immediately followed the other, they would have beén guilty of a mistake not unlike that of our oppo. nents, who take the carnal Jew, “sold under sin,” and groaning as he goes along, for the Christian believer, who “ walks in the Spirit,” exult in the liberty of God’s children, and always triumphs in Christ. “ be , 5. To see the propriety of the preceding observation, we need only take notice of the contrariety there is between the bondage of the earna penitent, described Rom. vii, 14, &c, and the liberty of the spiritual 1 described in the beginning of that very chapter. “The one:says, Wi A 4 = ‘ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 4387 shall deliver me? -Sin revives: it works in him all manner of concu- piscence, yea, it works death in him: he is carnal, sold under sin,” forced by his bad habits to what he is ashamed of, and kept from domg what he sees his duty. ‘In him, that is, in his flesh, dwells no good thing: sin dwelleth in him. How to perform that which is good he finds not.” Though he has a desire to be better, yet still he « does not do good, he does evil; evil is present with him.” His “ inward man,” his reason and conscience approve, yea, delight in God’s law,” i. e. in that which is right ;» but still he does it not ; his good resolutions are no sooner made than they are broken: for “ another law in his members wars against the law of his mind,” that is, his carnal appetites oppose the dictates of his conscience, and “ bring him into captivity to the law of sin;” so that, like a poor chained slave, he has just liberty enough to rattle his chains, and to say, “O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death,” from this complete assemblage of corruption, misery, and death! _Is it not ridiculous to conclude, that because his groaning slave has now and then a hope of deliverance, and at times “ thanks God through Jesus Christ” for that hope ; he is act- ually a partaker of the liberty, which is thus described in the beginning of the chapter? “Ye are become dead to the law [the-Mosaic dispen- sation] that ye should be married to Him, who is raised from the dead, that [instead of omitting to do good, and doing evil] we should bring forth fruit unto God, For when we were in the flesh, [in the state of the carnal man sold under sin, a sure proof this that the apostle was no more in that state] the motions of sin which were by the law [abstracted from the Gospel promise] did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are deliyered from the [curse of the moral, as well as from the bondage of the Mosaic] law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we ‘should serve God in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter,” Rom. vii, 4,5, 6. Immediately after this glorious profession of liberty, the apostle, in his own person, by way of contrast, describes to the end of the chapter the poor, lame, sinful obe- dience of those who serve God in the oldness of the letter: so that nothing can be more unreasonable than to take this description for a description of the obedience of those who “serve God in the newness of the Spirit.” We have, therefore, in Rom. vii, 4,.5, 6,+a strong rampart against the mistake which our opponents build on the rest of the chapter. 6. This mistake will appear still more astonishing, if we read Rom vi, where the apostle particularly describes the liberty of those who « serve God in newness of the spirit,” according to the glorious privileges of the new covenant. Is darkness more contrary to light than the pre ceding description of the carnal Jew is to the following description of the spiritual Christian? “How shall we that are’ dead to sin live any longer therein? Our old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we might not serve sin. [Note: the carnal Jew, though against his conscience, still serves the law of sin, Rom. vii, 25.] Now he that is dead is freed from sm. Reckon ye yourselves also to be dead indeed unto sin. Yield yourselves unto God _as those that are alive from the dead. [Note: the carnal Jew says, « Sin revived and I died,” Rom. vii, 9, but the spiritual Christian is alive 538 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. from the dead. ] Sin shall not have dominion over you [now you are spiritual : you need not say, I do the evil that I hate, and the evil I would not, that I do:] for you are not under the law [under the weak dispen- sation of Moses ;] but under grace [under the powerful, gracious dis- pensation of Christ.] God be thanked that [whereas] ye were the servants of sin, when you carnally served God in the oldness of the letter, ye have obeyed f from the heart the form of doctrine which was delivered you ; [that is, yé have heartily embraced the doctrine of Christ, who gives rest to all that come to him travailing and heavy laden.] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness: for when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.— But now being—carnal, sold under sin, [ ye serve the law of sin? No: just the reverse :] but now being made free from sinyand become the servants of God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life,’ Rom. vi, 2-22. Is it possible to reconcile this:deseription of Christian liberty with the preceding description of Jewish bondage? Can a man at the same time exult in the one, and groan under the other? When our opponents assert it, do they not confound the Mosaic and the Christian dispensations ; the workings of the spirit of bondage, — and the workings of the Spirit of adoption? And yet, astonishing ! they charge us with confounding Law and GospzL ! 7. We shall see their mistake in a still more glaring light if we pass to Rom. viii, and consider the description which St. Paul continues to” give us of the glorious liberty of those who have done with * the oldness of the [Jewish] letter, and serve God in newness of the Spirit.” The poor Jew carnally sticking in the letter, is condemned for all he does, if his conscience be awake. “ But there is now no condemnation to’ them which are in Christ Jesus, [who ate come up to the privileges of the Christian dispensation,] who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus [the power of the quickening Spirit given me, and my fellow believers, under the spi- ritual and perfect dispensation of Christ Jesus] hath made me free from — the*law of sin and death. For what the law [the letter of the Mosaic” dispensation] could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son, condemned sin in the flesh ; that the righteousness of the law,” the spiritual obedience, which the moral law of Moses, adopted by Christ, requires, “ might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For [so far from professing that I am carnal and sold under sin, I declare that] to be carnally minded is death : [well may then the carnal Jew groan, Who shall deliver me from the body of this death!| But to be spiritually minded is life and peace! So” then, they that are in the flesh, [i. e. carnal, sold under sin,] cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his:” he is, at best, a disciple of Moses, a poor, carnal Jew, and remains still a stranger to the glorious privileges of the Christian dispensation. “But if Christ be in you, the body is dead, [weak, and full of the seeds of death,] because of [original] sin ; but the — spirit is life, [strong and full of immortality,] because of [implanted and living] righteousness. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage — again to fear, [like the poor, carnal man, who through fear and anguish ~ . | LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 539 ! groans out, O wretched man that Iam !| But ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we [who walk in newness of the Spirit, and please _ God—we, who have the Spirit of Christ,] cry, Abba, Father! the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirits that we are the children of God; _and if children, then heirs; heirs of God,” whom we please, “and joint heirs with Christ,” through whom we please God, Rom. viii, 1-17. t This glorious liberty, which God’s children enjoy in their souls, under = perfection of the Christian dispensation, will one day extend to their which are dead [i. e. infirm and condemned to die] “because of [original] sin.” And with respect to the body only it is that the apostle says, Rom. viii, 23, « We ourselves, also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption” of our out- ward man, “that is, the redemption of our body: for,” with respect to the body, whose imperfection is so great a clog to the soul, “we are saved by hope.” In the meantime, “we hin that all things work | together for good to them that love God. Who shall separate us,” that eye God, and walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, “from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or distress,” &c, do it? “Nay, mm all 'these things,” much more in respect of sin and carnal mindedness, “we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us,” Rom. vill, i. @ : _ And that this abundant victory extends to the destruction of the carnal mind, we prove by these words of the context, “To be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace; because the carnal mind i is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh,” they that are carnally minded, “ cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh,” ye are not carnally minded, “ if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. For where the Spirit of the Lord is,” and dwells as a Spirit of adoption, “there is constant liberty : now if any man have not that Spirit,” or if he hath it only as a Spirit of bondage, to make him groan, O wretched man! he may indeed be a servant of God in the land of his spiritual captivity, but “he is none of Christ’s” freemen: he may serve God “in the oldness of the letter,” as a Jew; but he does not “serve him in newness of the Spirit,” as a Christian. For, I repeat it, “ where the Spirit of Christ is,” and dwells according to the fulness of the Chris- tian dispensation, “there is a liberty, a glorious liberty,” which is the very reverse of the bondage that Mr. Hill pleads for during the term of life: see Rom. vii, 14-21. Whether therefore we consider Rom. vii, Rom. vi, or Rom. viii, it ars indubitable, that the sense which our opponents fix upon Rom. vil, 14, &c, is entirely contrary to the apostle’s meaning, to the context, ) and to the design of the whole epistle, which is to extol the privilege of | those who are Christ’ s, above the privileges of those who are Noah’s or Moses’ ; or, if you please, to extol the privileges of spiritual Christians, who serve God “in newness of the Spirit,” above the privileges of carnal | heathens and Jews, who serve him only “in the oldness of the letter.” 940 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. SECTION VIII. An answer to the anes by which St. Paul’s supposed carnality Ot generally defended. Ir the sense which our opponents give to Rom. vii, 14, be true, doctrine of Christian perfection is a dream, and our utmost attainmen on earth is St. Paul’s apostolic carnality, and involuntary servitude to the law of sin ; with a hopeful prospect of deliverance in a death purgatory. It is therefore of the utmost importance to establish our exposition of that verse, by answering the arguments which are supposed to favour the Antinomian meaning rashly fixed upon that portion of Scripture. Are. I. “If St. Paul was not carnal and sold under sin when he wrote to the Romans, why does he say, ‘I am carnal? Could he not have said, I was carnal once, but now the law of the Spirit of life im Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death? Can give a good reason why, in Rom. vii, 14, the phrase, J am carnal, must mean, I was carnal? Is it right thus to substitute the past time for the present ?”” Answer. We have already shown that this figurative way of speak- ing is not uncommon in the Scriptures. We grant, however, that we ought not to depart from the literal sense of any phrase, without good reasons. Several such, I trust, have’ already been produced, to show the necessity of taking St. Paul’s words, “I am carnal,” in the sens stated in the ae section. I shall offer one more remark 1 2 diced. The states of all souls may in general be reduced to three: ay That of unawakened sinners, who quietly sleep in the chains of heir sins, and dream of self righteousness and heaven. (2.) That of awakened, uneasy, reluctant sinners, who try in vain to break the ga ling chains of their sins. And, (3.) That of delivered sinners, or victorious believers, who enjoy the liberty of God’s children. This last state i described in Rom. vii, 4,6. The rest of that chapter is judicio brought in, to show how the unawakened sinner is roused out of carnal state, and how the awakened sinner is driven to Christ for liberty by the lashing and binding commandment. ‘The apostle shows this bj observing, ver. 7, &c, how the law makes a sinner (or if you please made him) pass from the unawakened to the awakened state : had not known sin,” says he, “but by the law,” &e. When he described his unawakened state without the law, and began to des his awakened state under the law, nothing was more natural than to change the time or tense. But having already used the past tense in the description of the first or the unawakened state; and haying said, “ Without the law sin was dead: I was alive without the law onee: sin revived and I died,” &c, he could no more use that tense, when he be to describe the second, or the awakened state ; I mean the state in y , he found himself when the commandnfént had roused his sleepy con- science, and slain his Pharisaic hopes. He was therefore obliged to use another tense ; and none, in that case, was fitter than the present; just as if he had said, “ When the commandment slew the conceited Pharisee LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 541 in me; when I died to my self-righteous hopes; I did not die without a groan. Nor did I pass into the life of God without severe pangs: no; I struggled with earnestness, I complained with bitterness, and the language of my oppressed heart was, I am carnal, sold under sin,” 5c, to the end of the chapter.* It is, therefore, with the utmost rhetorical propriety that the apostle says, I am, and not, I was carnal, §e. But rhetorical propriety is not theological exactness. David may say asa poet, “ God was wroth: there went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.” But it would be ridiculous to take these expressions in a literal sense. Nor is it much less absurd to assert that St. Paul’s words, “I am carnal, sold under sin,” are to be understood of Christian and apostolic liberty. Are. II. “St. Paul says to the Corinthians, ‘I write not to you as to spiritual men, but as to carnal, even to babes in Christ.’ Now if the Corinthians could be at once holy and yet carnal ; why could not St. Paul be at the same time an eminent, apostolic saint, and a carnal, wretched man, sold under sin ?” Answer. (1.) The Corinthians were by no means established be- lievers in general, for the apostle concludes his fast epistle to them by bidding them “examine themselves whether they were in the faith.” (2.) If St. Paul proved carnal still, and was to continue so till death, with all the body of Christian believers, why did he upbraid the Corinth- jans with their unavoidable carnality? Why did he wonder at it, and say, “Ye are yet carnal, for whereas there is among you envyings and strife, &c, are ye not carnal?” Might not these carnal Corinthians have justly replied, Carnal physician, heal thyself? (3.) In the language of the apostle, to be carnal, to be carnally minded, to walk after the flesh, not to walk after the Spirit, and to be in the flesh, are phrases of the same import. This is evident from Rom. vii, 14; vii, 1-9; and he says, directly or indirectly, that to those who are in that state, “there is condemnation; that they cannot please God; and that they are in a state of death; because, to be carnal, or carnally minded, is death,” Rom. viii, 1, 6, 8. Now if he was carnal himself, does it not follow that he “could not please God,” and that he was in a state of “condemnation and death?” But how does this agree with the profes- sion which he immediately makes of being “led by the Spirit, of walking in the Spirit, and of being made free from the law of sin and death, by the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus?” (4.) We do not deny that the remains of the carnal mind still cleave to imperfect Christians; and that, when the expression carnal is softened and qualified, it may, in a low sense, be applied to such professors as those Corinthians were, to * Some time after I had written this, looking into ‘‘ Dr. Doddridge’s Lectures on Divinity,” p. 451, I was agreeably surprised to find that what that judicious and moderate Calvinist presents as the most plausible sense of Rom. vii, 14, is exactly the sense which I defend in these pages. Take his own words :—‘ St. Paul at first represents a man as ignorant of the law, and then insensible of sin ; ‘but afterward being acquainted with it, and then thrown into a kind of despair, ‘by the sentence of death which it denounces, on account of sins he is now con- scious of having committed; he then farther shows that even where there is so good a disposition as to ‘delight in the law,’ yet the motives are too weak to maintain that uniform tenor of obedience, which a good man greatly desires, and which the Gospel by its superior motives and grace does in fact produce.” 542 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. whom St. Paul said, “I could not speak to you as to spiritual. — could not the apostle be yet spoken to as a spiritual man? And does” not allow that, even in the corrupted Churches of Corinth and Gal; there were some truly spiritual men—some adult, perfect Christi See 1 Cor, xiv, 37, and Gal. vi, 1. (5.) When the apostle cails th divided Corinthians carnal, he immediately softens the expression by adding, “babes in Christ.” If therefore the word carnal is applied St. Paul i in this sense, it must follow that the apostle was but “a babe ii Christ ;” and if he was but a babe, is it not as absurd to judge of thi srowth of adult Christians by his growth, as to measure the stature of a man by that of an infant? (6.) And, lastly: the man described im Rom. vii, 14, is not only called carnal without any softening, qualifying phrase ; but the word carnal is immediately heightened by an ur.commot expression, “sold under sin ;” which is descriptive of the strong ges “ bondage of corruption.” Thus reason, Scripture, and criticism @ o set this argument aside. Are. IIL. “The carnal man, whose cause we plead, says, Rom. 3 Vil 20, «If I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin whi dwelleth i in me,’ that is, in my unrenewed part: and therefore he n ight be an eminent, apostolic saint in his renewed part ; and a carnal, wretch man, sold under sin, in his unrenewed part.” * : Answer. 1. The apostle, speaking there as a carnal, and ye awakened man, who has light enough to see his sinful habits, but no faith and resolution enough to overcome them ; his meaning is evidently this :—If I, as a carnal 1 man, do what I, as oe awakened man, woul not; it is no more I that do it, that is, I do not do it according to m awakened conscience, for my conscience rises against my conduct: bu it is sin that dwelleth in me ; it is the tyrant sin, that has full possessior of me, and minds the dictates of my conscience no more than an inex orable task master minds the cries of an oppressed slave. 4 2. Ifthe pure love of God was shed abroad in St. Paul’s heart and con strained him, he dwelt in love, and of consequence in God. Hor St John says, “ He that dwelleth im love, dwelleth in God, and God in He that is in you, is greater than he that is in the world.” Now if dwelt in Paul by his loving Spirit, it becomes our objectors to show an indwelling God and indwelling sin are one and the same thing; | 0 that the apostle had strangely altered his doctrine when he asked, wit indignation, “ What concord has Christ with Belial?’ For if ind ing sin, the Belial within, was necessary to nestle with Christ in Paul’s heart, and in the hearts of all believers, should not the 'apos have rather cried out with admiration, “See how great is the conec¢ between Christ and Belial! They are inseparable! They always in the same heart together: and nothing ever pried them, but what parts man and wife, that is, death.” 3. If a reluctance to serve the law of sin be a At that we are hol Paul was holy, is there not joy in heaven over the apostolic holines most robbers and murderers in the kingdom? Can they not sooner later say, “ With my mind, or conscience, I serve the law of God ; with my flesh the law of sin. How to perform what is good, I find not. 1 would be honest and loving, if I could be so without denying sala but I find a law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me Ra Hh \ Ns LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM 543 | For can any thing be stronger upon this head than the words of the | mbuman princess, who, being at the point of committing murder, cried | out, “My mind, [that is, my reason or conscience,] leads me to one thing, but my new, impetuous passion carries me to another, agaimst my | will. I see, I approve what is right, but I do what is criminal.”* | Are. IV. “The man whose experience is described in Rom. vii, is | said ‘to delight in the law of God after the inward man, and to serve the ; law of God with the mind;’ therefore he was partaker of apostolic holiness.” __ Answer. Does he not also cay, «“ With the flesh I serve the law of *sin?” And did not Medea say as much in her way before she imbrued her hands in imnocent blood? What else could she mean when she cried ' out, “I see approve with my mind what is right, though I do what is } eriminal ?” not the Pharisees for a time “ rejoice in the burning and “shining light” of John the Baptist ? And does not an evangelist form us that"Herod himself heard that man of God (udzw¢) “ with delight,” and “did many things” too? Mark vi, 20. But is this a proof that either Medea, the Pharisees, or Herod had attained apostolic holiness ? . Are. V. “The person who describes his unavailing struggles under the power of sin, cries out at last, Who shall deliver me, &c, and imme- diately expresses a hope of future deliverance, thanking God for i, | ‘through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. vii, 24, 25. Does not this show ) that the carnal man sold under sin was a Christian believer, and, of con- | sequence, Paul himself?” ' Answer. This shows only that the man sold under sin, and groaning for evangelical liberty, is supported under his unhappy circumstances by a hope of deliverance; and that when the law, like a severe school master, has almost brought him to Jesus Christ; when he is come to the borders of Canaan, and “is not far from the kingdom of God and the city of refuge,” he begins to look and long earnestly for Christ ; and has at times comfortable hopes of deliverance > through him. He has a faith that desires liberty, but not a faith that obtains it. He-has a degree _ of the “ faith to be healed,” which is mentioned Acts xix, 9; but ee has ‘not yet the actually healing, prevailing faith. which St. John calls the } victory, and which is accompanied with an internal witness that ‘ Christ | is formed in our hearts.” It is absurd to confound the carnal man who _ struggles into Christ and liberty, sayimg, “ Who shall deliver me,” &e, "with the Spiritual man who is come to Christ, stands in his redeeming | power, and witnesses that “the law of the Spirit of life m Christ Jesus _has made him free from the law of sin and death.” The one may say, “in his hopeful moments, «“[ thank God, I shall have the victory, through Jesus Christ :” but the other can say, “I have it now. Thanks be to ' God, who giveth us the victory though Jesus Christ our Lord,” 1 Cor. _ xy, 67. The one wishes for, and the other enjoys liberty : the one has ‘meffectual desires, and the other has victorious habits. Such is the contrast between the carnal penitent described in Rom. vii, 14, and the ~ obedient believer described in Rom. viii. “There is a great difference,” i bs says the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, « between good desires ‘and good habits. fen. * Sed trahit invitam nova vis, aliudque cupido, Lf Mens aliud suadet. Video meliora, proboque, “ Deteriora sequor.—Ovp. 544 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. Many have the one who never attain the other.” Many come upgto th experience of a carnal penitent, who never attain the experience of an obedient believer. “ Many have good desires to subdue sin, and yet, res ing in those good desires, sin has always had the dominion over the with the flesh they have always served the law of sine “A person of a fever may desire to be in health, but that desire is not health itself,” (Whitefield’s Works, vol. iv, page 7.) If the Calvinists would do justice to this important distinction, they would soon drop the argument whic I answer, and the yoke of carnality which they try to fix upon St Paul’s neck. Are. VI. “You plead hard for the apostle’s spirituality ; but his ow plain confession shows that he was really carnal. and sold under sin, Does he not say to the Corinthians, that ‘there was given him a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet him, iest he should hb exalted abové measure, by the abundance of the revelations which ha¢ been vouchsafed him?’ 2 Cor. xii, 7. Now what could this ‘thorn in the flesh’ be, but a sinful lust? And what ‘this messenger of Satan,’ but pride or immoderate anger? 'Thrice he besought the Lord that these plagues might depart from him; but God would not hear him. Indwell. ing sin was to keep him humble; and if St. Paul stood in need of that remedy, how much more we ?” Answer. 1. Indwelling anger keeps us angry and not meek : indwell ing pride keeps us proud, and not humble. The streams answer to the fountain. It is absurd to suppose that a salt spring will send forth fresh water. 2. You entirely mistake the apostle’s meaning. While you try ta make him a modest imperfectionist, you inadvertently represent him a an impudent Antinomian : for, speaking of his “ thorn in the flesh,” and of the “ buffeting of Satan’s messenger,” he calls them his infermitia and says, “ Most gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities.” Now if his infirmities were pride, a wrathful disposition, and a filthy lust, dit he not act the part of a filthy Antinomian, when he said that “he gl riedvin them ?” Would not even Paul’s carnal man have blushed to speak thus! Far from glorying in his pride, wrath, or indwelimg lust, a not groan, ‘“O wretched man that I am?” ’ 3. The apostle, still speaking of his thorn in the flesh, and of Sati buffeting him by proxy, and still calling these trials his infirmities, ex plains himself farther in these words :—“ Therefore I take pleasure infirmities, in reproaches, in persecutions, &c, for Christ’s sake ; fe when I am weak, then am I strong. Christ’s strength is made perfe in my weakness.” Those infirmities, that thorn in the flesh, ha buffeting of Satan, cannot, then, be indwelling sin, or any outbreaking of it; for the devil himself could do no more than to take pleasur his BU hednesss and in Rom. vii, the carnal penitent himself delights “in the law of God after the inward man,” instead of taking pleasu el his indwelling sin. 4, The infirmities in which St. Paul glories and takes pleasure were such as had been given him to keep him humble after his revelati “There was given to me a thorn in the flesh,” d&c, 2 Cor. xii, Those infirmities and that thorn were not then indwelling sin, for in. af dwelling sin was not given him after his visions, seeing it stuck fast in | | LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 545 | him long before he went to Damascus. It is absurd therefore to sup- - pése that God gave him the thorn of indwelling sin afterward, or indeed that he gave it him at all. 5. If Mr. Hill wants to know what we understand by St. Paul’s thorn in the flesh, and by the messenger of Satan that buffeted him ; we reply, that we understand his bodily infirmities—the great weakness, and the violent headache with which Tertullian ane St. Chrysostom inform us the apostle was afflicted. The same God, who said to Satan | concerning Job, « Behold he is in thine hand to touch his bone and his flesh, but save his life ;” the same God, who permitted that adversary | to “bind a daughter of Abraham with a spirit of bodily infirmity for eighteen years;” the same gracious God, I say, permitted Satan to afflict St. Pauls body with uncommon pains; and, at times, it seems, With preternatural weakness, which made his appearance and delivery | contemptible in the eyes of his adversaries. That this is not a conjec- _ ture, grounded upon uncertain tradition, is evident from the apostle’s own words two pages before. “His letters, say they, [that buffeted me in the name of Satan] are weighty and powerful; but his bodily pre- ence is weak, and his speech contemptible,” 2 Cor. x, 10. And soon ‘after, describing these emissaries of the devil, he says, “Such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of ‘Christ, [to oppose me, and to prejudice you against my ministry +] and fo marvel; for Satan himself [who sets them on] is transformed into an angel of light,’ 2 Cor. xi, 13. But if the thorn in the flesh be all ‘one with the buffeting messenger of Satan, St. Paul’s meaning is evi- dently this :—“God, who suffered the Canaanites to be scourges in the Sides of the Israelites, and thorns in their eyes, Josh. xxiii, 13, has suf- fered Satan to bruise my heel, while I bruise his head: and that adver- sary afflicts me thus, by his thorns and pricking briers, that is, by false apostles, who buffet me through malicious misrepresentations which ren- der me vile in your sight.” This sense is strongly countenanced by these words of Ezekiel :—*« They shall know that I am the Lord, and there shall “be no more a pricking brier to the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn Of all that are round about them that despised them,” Ezek. xxvin, 24. Both these senses agree with reason and godliness, with the text and the context. Satan immediately pierced the apostle’s body with preterna- tural pain; and, by the malice of false brethren, the opposition of false apostles within the Church, and the fierceness of cruel persecutors Without, he immediately endeayoured to cast down or destroy the zeal- ‘ous apostle. But Paul walked in the perfect way, and we may well say ‘of him, what was said of Job on a similar occasion, “In all this, Paul Sinned not,” as appears from his own words in this very epistle: “I am exceedingly joyful in all our tribulation. Our flesh had no rest, but We were troubled on every side: without the Church were fightings, "within were fears :” we had furious opposition from the heathens with- out ; and within, we feared lest our brethren should be discouraged by -he number and violence of our adversaries: “nevertheless God, who -comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us. We are troubled Yon every side, yet not distressed ; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; always oetiad i in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus. For which oL. Li. » 35 q ie ' 546 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish” through the thorns in our flesh, and the bufletings of Satan, “ yet the inward mai is renewed day by day ;” it grows stronger and stronger in the Lom When I see St. Paul bear up with such undaunted fortitude, under the bruising hand of Satan’s messengers, and the pungent operation of thi “thorns in his flesh,” methinks 1 see the general of the Christians waiving the standard of Christian perfection, and erying, “ Be ye fo lowers of me.” Be wholly spiritual. “Take unto you the whol armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, an having done all, to stand,” and to witness with me, that “in all these things we’are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” Are. VIL. “You extol the apostle too much. He certainly was carnal man still ; for St. Luke informs us, that the coed: [wapogvopos] was so sharp between Barnabas and him, that they departed asundei one from the other, Acts xv, 39. Now charity [s ropofuveras] is no provoked, or does not contend. Strife or contention is one of the fruit of the flesh, and if St. Paul bore that fruit, I do not see why you shouk scruple to call him.a carnal, wretched man, sold under sin.” Answer. 1. Every contention is not sinful. The apostle says him self, “ Contend for the faith. Be angry and sin not. It is good to b zealously affected always in a good thing.” Jesus Christ did not break the law of love, when he looked round with anger upon the Pharisee “being grieved for the hardness of their hearts.” Nor does Mose charge sin upon God, where he says, “The Lord rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation.” If St Paul had contended in an uncharitable manner, I would directly grat that in that hour he fell from Christian perfection; for we assert, tha as a carnal professor may occasionally cross Jordan, take a turn int the good land, and come back into the wilderness, as the spies did u the days of Joshua; so a spiritual man, who lives in Canaan, may o casionally draw back, and take a turn in the wilderness, especial before he is “ strengthened, established, and settled” under his heavenl vine, in the good land that flows with spiritual milk and honey. Bi this was not the apostle’s case. There is not the least intimation give of his sinning in the affair. Barnabas, says the historian, determine to take with them his own nephew, John Mark; but Paul thought m good to do it, because, when they had tried him before, he went not wi them to the work, but departed from them from Pamphylia, Acts xv, 38 Now by every rule of reason and Scripture, Paul was in the right: f we are to try the spirits, and lovingly to beware of men, especially | such men as have already made us smart by their cowardly ficklenes' as John Mark had done, when he had left the itinerant apostles in th midst of their dangers. With respect to the word (apoZvcu.G~) contention or provoking, it i used in a good, as well as in a bad sense. Thus, Heb. x, 24, we re of (rapogucuov wyanns) a contention or a provoking unto love and works. And therefore, granting that a grain of partiality to his ne made Barnabas stretch too much that fine saying, “ Charity hopet things ;” yet, from the circumstances of Barnabas’ parting with St. | we have not the least proof that St. Paul stained at all his Chri _perfection in the affair, ie Rie de a LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 547 if the reader will properly weigh these answers to the arguments, by _ which our opponents try to stain the character of St. Paul as a spiritual man, he will see, I hope, that the apostle is as much misrepresented by Mr. Hill’s doctrine, as Christian perfection is by his fictitious creed. ; \ SECTION IX. _ St. Paul, instead of owning himself a “carnal man,” still “sold under | sin,” presents us with a striking picture of the perfect Christian, by __ oecasionally describing his own spirituality and heavenly mindedness - and therefore his genuine experiences are so many proofs that Chris- tian perfection is attainable, and has actually been attained in this life—What Si. Augustine and the Rev. Mr. Whitefield once thought of Rom. vii—And how near this last divine, and the Rev. Mr. Ro- - maine, sometimes come to the doctrine of Christian perfection. } | i . . | Mr. Hitx’s mistake, with respect to St. Paul’s supposed carnality, is _ so much the more astonishing, as the apostle’s professed spirituality not ; y clears him, but demonstrates the truth of our doctrine. Having | therefore rescued his character from under the feet of those who tread his honour in the dust, and sell his person under sin at an Antinomian market, I shall retort the argument of our opponents ; and appealing to : St. Paul’s genuine and undoubted experiences, when he taught wisdom “among the perfect,” I shall present the reader with a picture of the _ perfect Christian, drawn at full length. Nor need I inform Mr. Hill that the misrepresented apostle sits for his own picture before the glass of evangelical sincerity; and that, turning spiritual self painter, with the pencil of a good conscience, and with colours mixed by the Spirit of truth, the draws this admirable portrait from the life | Be followers of me. This one thing I do; leaving the things that _are behind, I press toward the mark for the prize of the heavenly calling [a crown of glory.] Charity is the bond of perfection. ‘Love is the fulfilling of the law. IfI have not charity, I am nothing.” And what charity or love St. Paul had, appears from Christ’s words and from his own. “Greater [i. e. more perfect] love hath no man than this,” says our Lord, “that he lay down his life for his friends.” Now, this very love Paul had for Christ, for souls, yea, for the souls of his fiercest ad- yersaries, the Jews. Hear him :—“ The love of Christ constraineth us. For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. [long to depart and to be with Christ. I count not my life dear unto myself, that I may finish my course with joy. I am ready not to be bound only, but to die also for the name of the Lord Jesus. If I be offered upon the sacrifice and ser- | yice of your faith, I joy and rejoice with you all.” And in the next . L chapter but one to that in which the apostle is supposed to profess him- -) self actually “sold under sin,” he professes perfect love to his sworn ) enemies ; even that love by which “the righteousness of the law is ful- | filled in them who walk after the Spirit.” Hear him :—«I say the truth | in Christ, I lie not ; my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy | Ghost, that I, &c, could wish that myself were accursed, i. e. made a curse (aso Xpicrs) after the example of Christ, for my kinsmen accord- | ing to the flesh ;” meaning his inexorable, bloody persecutors, the Jews. Z n : 548 LAST omiaien TO ANTINOMIANISM. Nor was this love of St. Paul like a land flood : it constantly flow like a river. This living water sprang up constantly in his soul: ness these words :—“ Remember, that, by the space of three year ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. Of many is told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they mind e things: for our conversation is in heaven. Our rejoicing is this, th testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, n¢ with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our cony sation in the world. I know nothing [i. e. no evil] by [or of ] myse We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. Whether we ai beside [i. e. carried out beyond] ourselves, it is to God: or whether " be sober, [i. e. calm,] it is for your cause :*[i. e. the love of God 2 man is the only source of all my tempers.] Giving no offence in ¢ thing, but in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of Cody much patience, by pureness, by kindness, by love unfeigned ; bein filled with comfort, and exceedingly joyful in all our tribulation. I wi gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I loy you, the less I be loved: {a rare instance this, of the most perfect love! We speak before God in Christ, we do all things, dearly beloved, fo your edifying. I am crucified with Christ : nevertheless I live, yet no I, [see here the destruction of sinful self!} but Christ liveth in me; an the life I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God As always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whethe it be by life or by death: we worship God in the spirit, and rejoice i Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Mark them who wal so, as ye have us for an example. I have learned, in whatsoever st a I am, therewith to be content; every where and in all things I am & structed, both to abound and to suffer need: I can do all things throug Christ who strengtheneth me. Teaching every man in all wisdom, thé I may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus; whereunto also labour, striving according to his working which worketh in me mightily! This description of the perfect Christian, and of St. Paul, is so exceet ingly glorious, and it appears to me such a refutation of the Calvi mistake which I oppose, that I cannot deny myself the pleasure, and m readers the edification of seeing the misrepresented apostle give his ow lovely picture a few more finishing strokes :—*“ We speak not as ple ing men,” says he, “ but as pleasing God, who trieth our hearts. F neither at any time used we flattering words, &c, God is witness; 1 of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others. But we wer gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children. oo affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted to y not the Gospel of God only, but also our own souls ; labouring “con day, because we would not be chargeable to any of you. Ye are wi nesses, and God also, how holily, “and justly, and unblamably we I haved ourselves among you. The Lord make you abound in love ¢ toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you. Ch } hast fully known my manner of life, purpose, faith; long suffering charity; patience: I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the air Ju give in that day. ‘eli aithes I cue this wonderful experience of: St. Paul, 1 : le : LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 549 ' self, and see his doctrine of Christian perfection so gloriously exempli- - fied in his own tempers and conduct, I am surprised that good men _ should still confound Saul the Jew with Pavt rue Curistran : and should _ take the son of “the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children,” for the’son of “the Jerusalem from above, which is free, and 1s the mother of us all, who stand in the liberty wherewith Christ hath ' made us free.” But, upon second thoughts, I wonder no more : for if those who engross to themselves the title of Catholics, can believe that Christ took his own body into his own fingers, broke it through the mid- die, when he took bread, broke it, and said, “This is my body which is _ broken for you;” why cannot those who monopolize the name of ortho- dox among us, believe also that St. Paul spoke with a figure when he _ said, “<1 am carnal, and sold under sin, and brought into captivity to the law of sin which isin my members. Brethren, I beseech you be as I am: those things which ye have heard and seen in me, do, and the God __ of peace shall be with you.’ Now you have heard and seen, ‘that the evil which I would not, that I do; and that with my flesh I serve the law of sin.’ In short, you have heard and seen that ‘I am carnal and sold under sin.’” _ Tam not at all surprised that carnal and injudicious professors should contend for this contradictory doctrine, this flesh-pleasing standard of Calvinian inconsistency and Christian imperfection. But that good, and in other respects judicious men, should so zealously contend for it, ap- pears to me astonishing. They can never design to confound carnal bondage with evangelical liberty, and St. Paul’s Christian experience with that of Medea, and « Mr. Fulsome,” in order to countenance gross Antinomianism: nor can they take any pleasure in misrepresenting the holy apostle. Why do they then patronize so great a mistake? I answer sull, By the same reason which makes pious Papists believe that conse- crated bread is the real flesh of Christ. Their priests and the pope say _ SO: some figurative expressions of our Lord seem to countenance their Saying. We Protestants, whom the Papists call carnal reasoners and heretics, are of a different sentiment: and should they believe as we da, their humility and orthodoxy would be in danger. Apply this to the present case. Calvinian divines and St. Augustine affirm that St. Paul _ humbly spake his present experience when he said, I am carnal, &c. We, who are called “ Arminians and perfectionists,” think the contrary ; and our pious opponents suppose that if they thought as we do, they _ should lose their humility and orthodoxy. Their error therefore springs chiefly from mistaken fears, and not from wilful opposition to truth. Nor is St. Augustine fully for our opponents : we have our part in the bishop of Hippo as well as they. If he was for them when his contro- yersy with Pelagius had heated him; he was for us when he yet stood upon the Scriptural line of moderation. Then he fairly owned that the _ man whom the apostle personates in Romans vii, is homo sub lege positus ante gratiam; “a man under the [condemning, irritating] power of the law, who is yet a stranger to the liberty and power of Chnist’s Gospel.” Therefore, if Mr. Hill claim St. Augustine, the prejudiced controvertist, we claim St. Augustine, the unprejudiced father of the Church; or rather, setting aside his dubious authority, we continue our appeal to unprejudiced reason and plain Scripture. aq 550 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM, What I say of St. Augustirte may be said of the Rey. Mr. Whitefield. Before he had embraced St. Augustine’s mistakes, which are known among us by the name of & Calvinism,” he believed, as well as tha father, that the disconsolate man who groans, Who shall deliver me? is not a possessor but a seeker of Christian liberty. ‘To prove it, I need only transcribe the latter part of his sermon, entitled, The Marks of the New Birth :— ; “Thirdly,” says he, “I address myself to those who are under drawings of the Father, and are going through the Spirit of bondag but, not finding the marks [of the new birth] before mentioned, are ever crying out, [as the carnal penitent, Rom. vii,] Who shall deliver us from the body of this death? Despair not: for, notwithstanding your present trouble, it may be the Divine pleasure to give you the kingdom.” Hence it appears that Mr. Whitefield did not look upon such mourners as Christian believers ; but only as persons who might become such if they earnestly sought. He therefore most judiciously exhorts them : seek till they find. “The grace of God, through Jesus Christ,”, adda S he, “is able to deliver you, and give you what you want; even you may receive the Spirit of adoption, the promise of the Father. All things are possible with him; persevere, therefore, in seeking, and determine te find no rest in your spirit, till you know and feel that you are thus born again from above, and God’s Spirit witnesses with your spirits that you are the children of God.” What immediately follows is a demonstration that, at that time, Mr. Whitefield was no enemy to Christian perfection, and thought that some had actually attained it; or else nothing would have been more trifling than his concluding address to perfect Christians. Take his own words, and remember that when he preached them, by the ardour of his zeal, and the devotedness of his heart, he showed himself a young man m Christ, able to trample under foot the most alluring baits of the flesh and of the world. “ Fourthly and lastly,” says he, «I address myself to those who have received the Holy Ghost in all its sanctifying graces, and are a ripe for glory. Hail, happy saints! For your heayen is begun upo earth. You have already received the first fruits of the Spirit, and a patiently waiting till that blessed change come, when your harvest shall i] be complete. I see and admire you, though, alas, at* so great a dis- tance from you. Your life, I know, is hid with Christ n God. You have comforts, you have meat to eat, which a sinful, carnal world knows nothing of. Christ’s yoke is now become easy to you, and his burden light: you have passed through the pangs of the new birth, and now * At that time Mr. Whitefield was m oreers, and had ‘received the Spirit adoption.” As a proof of it, I appeal, (1.) To the account of his conversion at Oxford, before he was ordained ; and, (2.) To these his own words: “I cansa to the honour ofetich, free, distinguishing g grace, that I received the Spirit adoption before I had conversed with one man, or read a single book on | doctrine of free justification by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.” T. is, before he had any opportunity of being drawn from the simplicity of ue Ss ture Gospel, into the Calyinian refinements. (See his Works, vol, iv, Now, those "Christians, who leave babes and young men in Christ “at ve distance from them,” are the very persons whom we call “fath ‘* perfect Christians.” + LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. S51 rejoice that Christ Jesus is fermed in your hearts. You know what it is to dwell in Christ, and Christ in you. Like Jacob’s ladder, although your bodies are on earth, yet your souls and hearts are in heaven; and by your faith and constant recollection, like the blessed angels, you do always behold the face of your Father, which is in heaven. Ineed not then exhort you to press forward, Sc. Rather I will exhort you in patience to possess your souls: yet a little while, and Jesus Christ will. deliver you from the burden of the flesh, and an abundant entrance shall be administered unto you into the eternal joy, &c, of his heavenly king- dom.” I have met with few descriptions of the perfect Christian that _ please me better. JI make but one objection to it: Mr. Whitefield thought that the believers who “by constant recollection, like the blessed angels, always behold the face of their Father,” are so advanced in ce, that they “need not to be exhorted to press forward.” This is carrying the doctrine of perfection higher than Mr. Wesley ever did. _ For my part, were I to preach to a congregation of such “ happy saints,” I would not scruple taking this text: “So run that ye may [eternally] obtain :” nor would I forget to set before them the example of the per- fect apostle, who said, “This one thing I do, leaving the things that are behind, and reaching forth, I press toward the mark,” &c. Had I been in Mr. Whitefield’s case, I own I would either have refused to join the imperfectionists, or I would have recanted my address to perfect Christians. So strong is the Scriptural tide in favour of our doctrine, that it some- times carried away the Rev. Mr. Romaine himself. Nor can I confirm the wavering reader in his belief of the possibility of obtaining the glorious liberty which we contend for, better than by transcribing a fine exhortation of that great minister, to what we call Christian perfection, and what he calls the walk of faith :— “ The new covenant runs thus :—‘I will put,’ says God, ‘my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, &c. The Lord here engages to take away the stony heart, and to give a heart of flesh, upon which he will write the ten commandments, &c. The love of God will open the contracted heart, enlarge the selfish, warm the cold, and bring liberality out of the covetous. When the Holy Spirit teaches brotherly love, he overcomes all opposition to it, &c. He writes upon their hearts the two great commandments, ‘ on which hang all the law and the pro- phets. The love of God,’ says the apostle to the Romans, ‘is shed -abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost ;? and to the Thessalonians, *Ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.’ Thus he engages the soul to the holy law, and inclines the inner man to love obedience. It ceases to be a yoke and a burden. How easy is it to do what one loves! Ifyou dearly love any person, what a pleasure it is to serve him! What will not love put you upon doing or suffering to _ oblige him! Let love rule in the heart to God and to man, his law will then become delightful, and obedience to it will be pleasantness. The soul will run; yea, inspired by love, it will mount up with wings as eagles, in the way of God's commandments. Happy are the people that are m such a case.” Now, such a case is what we call, the stale of Christian perfection; to the obtaining of which, Mr. Romaine excites his own me the following excellent exhortation :— ol *. zs »' i “ This is the very tenor of the covenant of grace, which the almig Spirit has undertaken to fulfil, [if we mix faith with the promises, 2 Mr. Romaine himself will soon intimate,] and he cannot fail in his offie It is his crown and glory to make good his covenant engagements. O trust him then, and put honour upon his faithfulness, [that is, if I mistake _ not, make good your own covenant engagements.| He has promised | to guide thee with his counsel, and to strengthen thee with his might, &c. What is within thee, or without thee, to oppose thy walking in love with him, he will incline thee to resist, and he will enable thee te . overcome. O what mayest thou not expect from such a Divine Friend, — who is to abide with thee on purpose to keep thine heart right with God! [Query: when the heart is kept full of indwelling sin, is it kept | right with God?] What cannot he do? What will he not do for thee? ~ Such as is the love of the Father and of the Son, such is the love of the Holy Ghost: the same free, perfect, everlasting love. Read his pro-~ mises of it. Meditate on them. Pray to him for increasing faith to” mix with them; that he [not sin] dwelling in the temple of thy heart, thou mayest have fellowship there with the Father and with the Son. Whatever in thee is pardoned through the Son’s atonement, pray the Holy Spirit to subdue, that it may not interrupt communion with thy God. And whatever grace is to be received out of the fulness of Jesus, in order to keep up and promote that communion, entreat the Holy” Spirit to give it thee with growing strength. But pray in faith, nothing wavering. So shall the love of God rule in thy heart. And then thou | shalt be like the sun, when it goeth forth in its might, shining clearer and clearer to the perfect day. O may thy course be like his, as free, as regular, and as communicative of good, that thy daily petition may be answered, and that the will of thy Father may be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” (Walk of Faith, vol. i, page 227, &e.) p, I do not producesthis excellent quotation to insinuate that the Rey. — Mr. Romaine is a perfectionist, but only to edify the reader, and to show that the good, mistaken men, who are most prejudiced against our doc. trine, see it sometimes so true, and so excellent, that, forgetting them pleas for indwelling sin, they intimate that our daily petitions may be ” answered ; and that the “ will of our Father may be done. on-earth is in heaven;” ’ an expression this, which includes the height and depth a of all Christian perfection. 502 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM, | ry SECTION X. St. John is for Christian perfection, and not for a death peers 7 1 John i, 8, Fe, is explained agreeably to St. John’s design, the con teat, and the vein of holy doctrine which runs : er the rest of the episile. /~ € Tue Scriptures declare that “we are built upon the foundation of” the apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:” a St. Paul being deservedly considered as the chief of the ape ost! of consequence as the chief stone of the foundation on whieh, the corner stone, our holy religion is built, who can wond a . LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 553 pains which our opponents take to represent this important part of our foundation as carnal, wretched, and sold under sin? Does not every ) body see that such a foundation becomes the Antinomian structure ) which is raised upon it? And is it not incumbent upon the opposers of | Antmonuanism to uncover that wretched foundation by removing the } heaps of dirt in which St. Paul’s spirituality is daily buried; and by this means to rescue the holy aposile, whom our adversaries esukccimeae to sell under sin,” as a carnal wretch? This rescue has been atiempted in the four last sections. If I have succeeded in this charitable attempt, I may proceed to vindicate the holiness of St. John, who is the last apostle that Mr. Hill calls to the help of indwelling sin, Christian im- perfection, and a death purgatory. _ Before I show how the loving apostle is pressed into a service which is so contrary-to his experience, and to his doctrine of perfect love, I Shall make a preliminary remark. To take a passage of Scripture out from the context, and to make it speak a language contrary to the obyious design of the sacred writer, is the way to butcher the body of Scriptural divinity. This conduct injures truth, as much as the Gala- | tians would have injured themselves, if they had literally “pulled their ) yes out, and given them to St. Paul:” an edifying passage, thus dis- ‘placed, may become as loathsome to a ‘moral mind, as-a good eye, torn out of its bleeding orb in a good face, is odious to a tender heart. __ Among the passages which have been thus treated, none has suffered More yiolence than this :—“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,” 1 John i, 8. “That’s enough for me,” says a hasty imperfectionist: “St. John clearly pleads for the indwelling of sin in us during the term of life ; and he is so set against those who profess deliverance from sin, and Christian perfection m this life, that he does not scruple to represent them as lars and self deceivers.” Our opponents suppose that this argument is unanswerable. But to } convince them that they are mistaken, we need only prove that the ) sense which they so confidently give to the words of St. John is con- ‘rary, (1.) To his design. (2.) To the context. And, (3.) To the pure pee strict doctrine which he enforces in the rest of the epistle. et: With respect to St. John’s design, it evidently was to confirm be- jevers who were in danger of being deceived by Antinomian and anti- christian seducers. When -he wrote this epistle, the Church began to be corrupted by men, who, under pretence of knowing the mysteries of } the Gospel better than the apostles, imposed upon the simple Jewish | fables, heathenish dreams, or vain, philosophic speculations ; insinuating that their doctrinal peculiarities were the very marrow of the Gospel. Many such arose at the time of the reformation, who introduced stoical dreams into Protestantism, and whom Bishop Latimer and others steadily opposed under the name of “ Gospellers.” The doctrines of all these Gospellers centred in making Christ, indi- rectly at least, the minister of sin; and in representing the preachers of practical, self-denying Christianity, as persons unacquainted with Chris- _ tian liberty. It does not indeed appear that the Gnostics, or knowing ones, (for so the ancient Gospellers were called,) carried matters so far _as openly to s say that believers-smight be God’s dear children in the very -—~ ' 7 er «4 - s . 554 LAST CHECK TO. ANTINOMIANISM. commission of adultery and murder, or while they worshipped Milcon and Ashtaroth: but it is certain that they could already reconcile the verbal denial of Christ, fornication and idolatrous feasting, with true faith ; directly or indirectly “teaching and seducing Chrisi’s servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols,” Rev. ii, 20. At these Antinomians, St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude, levelled their epistles. St. Paul strongly cautioned Timothy, Titus, and the Ephesians against them: see Eph. iv, 14; v, 6. And St. John wrote his first epistle to warn the believers who had not yet been seduced into thei error: a dreadful, though pleasing error this, which, by degrees, led some to deny Christ’s law, and then his very name; hence the triumph of the spirit of antichrist. Now, as these men insinuated that believers might be righteous without doing righteousness ; and as they suppose¢ that Christ’s righteousness, or our own hnowledge and faith, would oappl the want of internal sanctification and external obedience; St. John maintains against them the necessity of that practical godliness whieh consists in not “committing sin,” and in “walking as Christ walked :?_ nay, he asserts that Christ’s “blood, through the faith which is our victory, purifies “from all sin, and cleanses from all unrighteousness.” —'To make him, therefore, plead for the necessary continuance of indwelling sin, till we go into a death purgatory, is evidently to make him defeat his own design. a Il. To be more convinced of it, we need only read the controverted text in connection with the conrExrT ; illustrating both by some notes in brackets. St. John opens his commission thus, First Epistle i, 5, 6, 7 :-—_ “This is the message which we have received of him [Christ] am declare unto you, that God is light, [bright, transcendent purity,] and in him is no darkness [no impurity] at all. If we [believers] say that v have fellowship with him, [that we are united to him by an actual living faith,] and walk in darkness, [in impurity or sin, | we lie, and d not the truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, [if w live up to our Christian light and do righteousness, | we have fellowshif one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. For let no man deceive you: he that does righteousness is righteous, even as he, Christ, is righteous; and in him is no sin,” 1 John iii, 5, 7. So far we see no plea, either for sin, or for the vinian purgatory. Should Mr. Hill reply, that “when St«John says, ‘ The blood i 0 Christ cleanseth us from all sin,’ the apostle does not mean all indwellin sin; because this is a sin from which death alune can cleanse us :” demand a proof, and in the meantime we answer, that St. John, in the above-quoted passages, says, that “ he who does righteousness,” in the full sense of the word, “is righteous, as Christ is righteous ;” observi that “in him [Christ] is no sin.” So certain, then, as there is” indwelling sin in Christ, there is no indwelling sin in a believer who does righteousness in the full sense of the word; for he is made “ pam in love,” and is “cleansed from all sin.” Nor was St. John } ashamed to profess this glorious liberty ; for he said, “ Our loye perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment 3 he [Christ] is [perfect in love, and of consequence without we in this world,” 1 John iv, 17. And-the whole context s = vs vi *',.” > — LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 555 |) the beloved apostle spake these great wonds of a likeness to Christ with pa a fulfils the law, abolishes tormenting eee Belewee to stand with bokincs i the depat pale ~” as being and « conformed to the image of God’s Son.” Hill urge that «the blood of Christ, powerfully applied by the or or amelie apie hag ee c having a reference to justification and pardon, but not to cation and holiness:” we reply, that this argument is not only atrar yto the preceding answer, but to the text, the context, and other — (1.) To the teat, where our being cleansed from all sm suspended on our humble and faithful walk: «If we walk hi as he is im the light, the blood of Christ cleanses us,” &c. Now every novice m Gospel grace knows that true Protestants do not @ simner’s justification on his “ walking im the light as God is m the ight.” (2.) It is contrary to the context; for in the next verse but _ ane, where Si. John evidently distinguishes forgiveness and holiness, he | peculiarly applies the word cleansing to the latter of these blessmgs: © _ “He is faithful to forgive us our sin,” by taking away our guilt; “and ee nn by taking away all the filth of 2B sin. And, (3.) It is contrary to other places of Scripture, . (Christ’s blood is represented as having a reference to purification, £ a God himself says, “ Wash ye; make you ed of your dames; cease’to do evil; learn to do well.” The washing and cleansing here spoken of, have undoubiedly a teference to the removal of the filth, as well as the guilt of sn. Accord- ) ingly we read that all those who “stand before the throne, have both washed their robes, and made them white im the blood of the Lamb;” » that is, they are jusiified by, and sanctified with his blood. Hence our Church prays “that we may so eat the fiesh of Christ, and dnnk his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our + souls washed fi. e. made clean also] through his most precious blood.” Do rob Chnist’s blood of its sanctifymg power, and to confine its efficacy atonement, is therefore an Antmomian mistake, by which our greatly injure the Saviour, whom they pretend to exalt. , Mr. Hill assert, that “ when St. John says, If we waik in the | light, &c, the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin, the loving apostle’s ‘ meaning is not that the blood of Christ radicaily cleanses us, but only | that it begets and carries on: a cleansing from all sin, which cleansing ; wall be completed ima death purgatory :” we answer : (1.) This assertion " Mr. Hill's doctrine open to all ithe above-mentioned difficulties. .) It overthrows the docirine of the Protestants, who have always that nothing is absolutely necessary to eternal salvation, and, to our perfect cleansing, but an obedient, steadfast faith, the full virtue of Christ’s purifying blood, according to ce 9,“ God giving them the Holy Ghost, put no difference between us, purifying their hearts by faith,”—not by death. (3.) Itis hea Enoch and Elijah having been translated to , and therefore having been perfecily purified even m body, with- song H ee y- But, (4.) What displeases us ihe evasive argument which I answer, is, that it puts the greatest 556 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. who sincerely wait to be now “made perfect in love,” that they may now worthily magnify God’s holy name. An illustration will prove it. I suppose that Christ is now in Engla ni ‘doing as many wonderful cures as he formerly did in Judea. — benevolent opponent runs to the Salop infirmary, and tells all the patie there that the great Physician, the Son of God, has once more visi the earth; and he again “heals all manner of sickness and diseases among the people, and cleanses” from the most inveterate leprosy by a touch or a word. All the patients believe Mr. Hill; some hop to thi wonderful Saviour, and others are carried to his footatonll They touch and retouch him; he strokes them round again and again: but not one of them is ea The wounds of some, indeed, are skinned over for a time ; but it soon appears that they still fester at the bottom, and that a painful core remains unextracted in every sore. ‘The poor creatur ow to Mr. Hill, « Did you not, sir, assure us upon your honour, a Christian gentleman, that Christ heals all manner of diseases, and pao from all kinds of leprosies?” «'True,” says Mr. Hill; but you must know that these words do not mean ‘that he radically cures any disease, or cleanses from any leprosy: they only signify that hi begins to cure every disease, and continues to cleanse from all soar ; but notwithstanding all his cures, begun and continued, nobody is cure before death. So, my friends, you must bear your festering sores as well as you can, till death comes radically to cleanse and cure you them all.” Instead of crying, “ Sweet grace! “Rich grace!” and clapping Mr. Hill for his evangelical message, the disappointed patie desire him to take them back to the infirmary, saying, “ We have there a chance for a cure before death ; but your great Physician pronounces us incurable, unless death comes to the help of his art: and we think that any surgeon could do as much, if he did not do more.” (See sec. xii argument xx.) ¢ If Mr. Hill say that I beat the air, and that the text-which he que les in his “ Creed for Perfectionists,” to show that it is impossible to he cleansed from all sin before death, is not 1 John i, 7, but the next ver reply, that if St. John assert in the seventh verse that “ Christ’s bloo powerfully applied by the Spirit of faith, « cleanses us from all sin,’ inspired writer cannot be so exceedingly inconsistent as to contradi himself in the very next verse. ; Should the reader ask, “ What then can be St. John’s mesnilemy that verse, where he declares that ‘ if we say that we have no sin, deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us? How ean these word possibly agree with the doctrine of a perfect cleansing from all sin ? Lis We answer, that St. John having given his first stroke to the Ar nomian believers of his day, strikes, by the by, a blow at Phari professors. There were in St. John’s time, as there are in our owl numbers of men who had never been properly convinced of sin, 2 who boasted, as Paul once did, that touching the righteousness 0 th law, they were blameless; they served God; they did their duty; the gave alms; they never did any body any harm ; they hae they were not as other men; but especially that they wer those mourners in Sion, who were no doubt very wicked, six made so much ado about God’s meicy, and a powerful appli ee LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 557 the Redeemer’s all-cleansing blood. How proper then was it for St. John to inform his readers that these whole-hearted Christians, these perfect Pharisees, were no better than liars and self decewvers ; and that true Christian righteousness is always attended by a genuine conviction of our native depravity, and by an humble acknowledgment of our actual transgressions. This being premised, it appears that the text so dear to us, and so mistaken by our opponents, has this fair, Scriptural meaning :—“If we {followers of Him who came not to call the righteous, but sinners to re- pentance] say, We have no sin [no native depravity from our first pa- rents, and no actwal sin, at least no such sin as deserves God’s wrath; fancying we need not secure a particular application of Christ’s atoning and purifying blood] we deceive ourselves, and the truth [of repentance and faith] is not in us.” That the words are levelled at the monstrous error of self-conceited, and self-perfected Pharisees, and not at “the glorious liberty of the children of God,” appears to us indubitable from the following reasons : (1.) The immediately preceding verse strongly asserts this liberty. (2.) The verse immediately following secures it also, and cuts down, the doc- trine of our opponents; the apostle’s meaning being evidently this :— “Though I write to you, that ‘if we say’ we are originally free from sin, and neyer did any harm, ‘ we deceive ourselves ;’ yet, mistake me not: I do not mean to, continue under the guilt, or in thé moral infection of any sin, original or actual. For if we penitently and believingly con- fess both, ‘he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,’ whether it be native or self contracted, internal or external. Therefore, if we have attained the glorious liberty of God’s children, we need not, through voluntary humility, say that we do nothing but sin. It will be sufficient, when we are ‘cleansed from all unrighteousness,’ still to be deeply humbled for our present infirmities, and for our past sins ; confessing both with godly sorrow and filial shame. For if we should say, ‘ We have not sinned, [note: St. John does not. write, If we should say, WE vo Nor stn,] we make him a liar, and the truth is not in us;’ common sense dictating that if ‘ we have not sinned,* we speak an untruth when we profess that Christ has forgiven our sins.” This appears to us the true ineaning of 1 John 1, 8, when it is fairly considered in the light of the context. Ili. We humbly hope that Mr. Hill himself will be of our sentiment if he compare the verse in debate with the pure and strict doctrine which St. John enforces throughout his epistle. In the second chapter he says, * We lmow that we know him, if we keep his commandments, &c. Whoso krEPETH His worD, in him verily is the love of God perrecTED. He that abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked, &c. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light [where the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin] and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.” The same doctrine runs also through the next chapter: “ Every one that hath this hope in him, purrrreru wiMseLr as HE (Christ) 1s PURE. - Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, &c, and ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins, [1. e. to destroy them root and branch;] and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth ‘ —" « -. * ~ tion to “the things of God.” ‘ 558 r LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. not : whosoever sinneth, does not [properly] see him, neither know him he that does righteousnbss i is righteous, even as he [Christ] i is righteous He that Committeth sin, [i. e. as appears by the context, he that trans gresseth the law,] is of the devil ; for the devil sinneth from the begin ning: for this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God [ whosoever is made partaker of God’s holiness, according to the perfection of the Christian dispensation] doth not commit sin, [i. e. does not transgress the law ;] for his seed,” the ingrafted word, made quick and powerful by the indwelling Spirit, “remaineth in him, and [morally speaking] h cannot sin because he is [thus] born of God. For if ye know he is righteous, ye know that every one that doth righteousness 1 born of him ;? ;” and that he that doth not righteousness,—he “ that com- mitteth sin,” or transgresseth the law,—is, so far, of the devil, for “ the devil” transgresseth the law, 1. e. “sinneth from the beginning. In his the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil.* Who. soever does not righteousness, [i. e. whosoever sinneth, taking _ the wore in its evangelical meaning,] is not of God,” 1 John iii, 3-11 ; ii, 29. If Mr. Hill cry out, “ Shotking! Who are those men that do not sin? I reply, All those whom St. John speaks of, a few verses below: “ Be. loved, if our heart condemn us; [and it will condemn us if we sin, bu God much more, for] God is greater than our hearts, &c. Beloved, if our hearts condemn us not, we have confidence toward God, &c, cause we keep lus commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight,” 1 John iii, 20, &c. Now, we apprehend, all the sophistry in the world will never prove that, evangelically speaking, “ cual God’s commandments,” and “doing what pleases him,” is sinnin Therefore, when St. John professed to keep God’s commandments, ani to do what is pleasing in his sight, he professed what our opponen call sinless perfection, and what we call Christian perfection. 4 Mr. Hill is so very unhappy in his choice of St. John, to close the number of his apostolic witnesses for Christian imperfection, that, were it not for a few clauses of his first epistle, the anti-Solifidian severity o «that apostle might drive all imperfect Christians to despair. And wha is most remarkable, those few encouraging clauses are all conditional « Tf- any man sin,” for there is no necessity that he should; or rathe (according to the most literal sense of the word awaprn, which being it the Aorist has generally the force of a past tense,) “If any man Hs SINNED: if he have not sinned unto death: if we confess our sins: if that which ye have heard shall remain in yeu: if ye walk in the light then do we evangelically enjoy the benefit of our Adyocate’s interces Add to this, that the first of those clauses is prefaced by these we “ My little children, these things I write unto you, THAT YE SEN NO! and all together are guarded by these dreadful declarations :—* He the says, I ‘know him, and keepeth not his commandments, i is a liar. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. If anyr say, I love God, and loveth not his brother, [note : he that loveth * This doctrine of St. John is perfectly agreeable to that of our Lord that ‘‘ Judas had a devil,” because he gave place to the love of mone _ called Peter himself ‘‘ Satan,” when he ‘‘ savoured the things of men,’ [ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 559 hath fulfilled the law,] he is a liar. There is a sin unto death, I do not say that he shall pray for it. , Let no man deceive you; he that does righteousness is righteous. He that committeth sin [or transgresseth the law] is of the devil.” To represent St. John, therefore, as an enemy to the doctrine of Christian perfection, does not appear to us less absurd than to represent Satan as a friend to complete holiness. SECTION XI. Why the privileges of believers under the Gospel of Christ cannot be justly measured by the experience of believers under the law of Moses —A review of the passages unon which the enemies of Christian perfection found their hopes that Solomon, Isaiah, and Job, were strong imperfectionists. Ir Mr. Hill had quoted Solomon, instead of St. John; and Jewish, instead of Christian saints, he might have attacked the glorious Chris- tian liberty of God’s children with more success: for “the heir, as long as he is a child, [in Jewish nonage,] differeth nothing from a servant, _ but is under tutors [and school masters] until the time appointed by the | father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage: but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons, and stand in the Ipeonte| liberty, wherewith Christ has made us [Chris- tians] free,” Gal. iii, 1; iv, 1. But this very passage, which shows that ~ Jews are, comparatively speaking, in bondage, shows also that the Christian dispensation and its high privileges cannot be measured by the inferior privileges of the Jewish dispensation, under which Solomon lived: for the “law made nothing perfect,” in the Christian sense of the word. And “what the law could not do, God, sending his only Son, ‘condemned sin in the flesh, that the mghteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us [Christian believers] who walk after the Spirit ;” being endued with that large measure of it, which began to be poured out on believers on the day of pentecost : for that measure of the Spirit was not given before, “because Jesus was not yet glorified,” John vii, 39. But after “he had ascended on high, and had obtained the gift of the in- dwelling Comforter” for believers; they received, says St. Peter, “ the end of their faith, even the Christian salvation of ‘their souls :” a salva- tion which St. Paul justly calls so great salvation, when he compares it with Jewish privileges, Heb. ii, 3. “Of which [Christian] salvation,” proceeds St. Peter, “the prophets have inquired, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you [Christians,] searching what, or what “manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them [according to their dispensation] did signify, when it testified beforehand the suffer- ings of Christ, and the glory [the glorious dispensation] that should fol- ow [his return to heaven, and accompany the outpouring of the Spirit. ] Unto whom [the Jewish prophets] it was revealed, that not unto them- selves, but unto us [Christians] they did minister the things which are _ now preached unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven,” Bere i, 9, &c. And, among those things, the Scriptures reckon theft his Works; vol. iv, p. 362.) Hence I conclude, that as the full mea. ae “Why was not the Holy Ghost given till Jesus Christ was glorified 560 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. zoming of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, with power into the hearts of pelievers, and the baptism of fire, or the perfect love, which “ bur the chaff” of sin, “ thorough!y purges God’s floor,” and makes the he: of perfect believers “ a habitation of God through the Spirit, and x nest for indwelling sin.” As this doctrine rhay appear new to Mr. Hill I beg leave to confirm it by the testimony of two as eminent divines 4 England has lately produced. The one is Mr. Baxter, who, in his com ment upon these words, “A testament is of force after men are dead,’ &c, Heb. ix, 17, very justly observes, that “ his (Christ’s) covenant has the nature of a testament, which supposeth the death of the testator, an is not of efficacy till then, to give fu fall right of what he bequeath Note : that the eminent, evangelical kingdom of the Mediator, in its full edition, called the kingdom of Christ and of heaven, distinct the obscure state of promise before Christ’s incarnation, began at Christ’ resurrection, ascension, and sending of the eminent gift of the Holy Ghost, and was but as an embryo before.” My other witness is the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, who proposes and answers the following question Because till then he was himself on the earth, and had not taken on him the kingly office, nor pleaded the merits of his death before his heave aly Father, by which he purchased that invaluable blessing for us.” (See sure of the Spirit, mene perfects Christian believers, was not given be fore our Lord’s ascension, it is as absurd to judge of Christian perfection by the experiences of those who died before that remarkable event, as to measure the powers of a sucking child by those of an embryo. _ This might suffice to unnerve all the arguments which our opponent produce from the Old Testament against Christian perfection. How ever, we are willing to consider a moment those passages by whie they plead for the necessary indwelling of sin, in all Christian beliey and defend the walls of the Jericho within, that aceursed city of refug for spiritual Canaanites and Diabolonians. y I. 1 Kings viii, 46, &c. Solomon prays and says, “If they Jews] sin against thee (for there is no man* that sinneth not) and be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they them away captive—yet, if they bethink themselves and repent, am make supplication unto thee, and return unto thee with all their hez and with all their soul, then hear thou their prayer.” No unpreju person, who, in reading this passage, takes the parenthesis (“ for ther is no man that sinneth not’) in connection with the context, can, I thinl help seeing that the Rev. Mr. Toplady, who, if I remember quotes this text against us, mistakes Solomon, as much as Mr. Hill d St. John. The meaning is evidently, there ts no man who is not to sin; and that a man actually sins, when he actually departs from Now, peccability, or a liableness to sin, is not indwelling sin ; for at * If Mr. Hill consult the original, he will find that the word translate’ is in the future tense, which is often used for an indefinite tense in mood, because the Hebrews have no such mood or tense. Therefo lators would only have done justice to the original, as well as to if they had rendered the whole clause, ‘‘ There is no man Same may instead ot’ ‘* There is no man that sinneth not.” 4 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 561 there are some men who do not actually sin is indubitable, (1.) From the hypothetical phrase in the context, “if any man sin,” which shows that their sinning is not unavoidable. (2.) From God’s anger agains those that sin, which is immediately mentioned. Hence it appears, that so certain as God is not angry with all his people, some of them do not sin in the sense of the wise man. And, (3.) From Solomon’s intimating ‘that these very men who have sinned, or have actually departed from God, may “ bethink themselves, repent and turn to God with all their heart, and with all their soul,” that is, may attain the perfection of their dispensation ; the two poles not being more opposed to each other than Sinning is to repenting ; and departing from God, to returning to him with all our heart and with all our soul. Take therefore the whole passage together, and you have a demonstration that “ where sin hath abounded, there grace may much more abound.” And what is this but a demonstration that our doctrine is not chimerical? For if Jews (Solomon himself being judge) instead of sinning and departing from God, can “repent, and turn to him with all their heart,” how much more Christians, whose privileges are so much greater ! __ Ii. “But Solomon says also, There is not a just man, upon earth, that does good and sinneth not,” Eccles. vii, 20. (1.) We are not sure that Solomon says it: for he may introduce here the very same man who, four verses before, says, “ Be not righteous overmuch,” &c, and Mr. Toplady may mistake the interlocutor’s mean- ing in one text, as Dr. Trap had done in the other. But, (2.) Sup- posing Solomon speaks, may not he in general assert what St. Paul does, Rom. iii, 23? the grace of God,” says he, “be so abundant as the Scriptures repre- _ sent it, (and the Scripture cannot be broken,) why are believers per- | mitted to struggle so long for that victory they cannot yet obtain ?” that victory which death is to bring them? “ Whence is it that they, _ who pant for purity, should not immediately obtain a request so desirable?” For our author lays it down as an undoubted truth, that “flesh and spirit mutually lust, desire, and strive to obtain a complete _ conquest, but at present, [i. e. in this life,] neither can prevail.” (p. 26.) This important question we answer thus :—Imperfect Christians do not attain perfect purity of heart, (1.) Because they do not see the need of it; because they still hug some accursed thing, or because the burden of indwelling sin is not yet become intolerable to them. They | make shift to bear it yet, as they do the toothache, when they are still | loath to have a rotten tooth pulled out. (2.) If they are truly willing to be made clean, they do not yet believe that the Lord both can and will make them clean ; or that “ now is the day of this salvation.” And, as | faith inherits the promises of God, it is no wonder if their unbelief miss | this portion of their inheritance. (3.) If they have some faith in the _ promises that the Lord can and will “ circumcise their hearts, that they | may love him with all their hearts ;” yet it is not that kind or degree or faith which makes them completely willing to sell all, to deny themselves, faithfully to use their inferior talent, and to continue instant in prayer | for this very blessing. In short, “they have not, because they ask not,” which is the case of the Laodicean imperfectionists; or “because they ask amiss,” which is the case of the imperfect perfectionists. (4.) | Frequently also they will receive God’s blessing in their own precon- ceived method, and not in God’s appointed way. Hence God suspends the operation of his sanctifying Spirit, till they humbly confess their obstinacy and false wisdom, as well as their unbelief, and want of perfect love. Thus we clear our sanctifier, and take the shame of our impurity to ourselves. Not so our opponents. They exculpate themselves, and insinuate that God has appointed the necessary continuance of indwelling sin in us for life, that the conflict which we maintain with that enemy may answer excellent ends. Their arguments, collected in the above- quoted “ Essay,” are produced and answered in the following pages :— Arc. IV. Page 37, &c. “By this warfare the Lord manifests and magnifies himself to his people ; and, if I am not mistaken, &c, the continuance of it 1s a mean by which believers‘have such views of the perfections and glory of God, as it does not seem to us probable they could here obtam without it.” Then our author instances in God’s “unchanging love toward the elect,” and in his “sovereign grace, that reigns through righteousness to the salvation of the guilty.” He next observes that “those believers who are most conscious of this internal ¢onflict ; most sensible of the power and prevalency of mdwelling sin, are most thankful that the endearing declarations of God’s distinguishing love are true.” And, pp. 39, 40, we are distinctly told that the doctrine of the necessary continuance of indwelling sin magnifies “the power and patience of God; the power of God to support us under this con- flict, and-his patience in bearing with our manifold weakness and ingra- titude.” For, great as the burden of our ingratitude is, “ vet he fainteth not, neither is he weary.” =< ON RS IER 586 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. This is an extract of our author’s argument, which, like a snake, wor' its way through verbose windings, where I have not leisure to follow i Crush this snake, and out will come this less viper: “ The longer s continues in us, the more God’s sovereign love, grace, power, and pi tience, by which he saves guilty, weak, and ungrateful sinners, is fested unto us.” Or, if you please, “'The longer we continue i sin, ¢ the longer sin continues in us, the more is grace manifested and magni fied.” Ox, if you will speak as the apostolic controvertist, “Let u continue in sin that grace may abound.” A notion this, which is the, very soul of Antinomianism unmasked. q To fill the pious reader with a just detestation of this doctrine, I nee only unfold it thus : if the continuance of indwelling sin magnifies God’ sovereign grace and patience, in saving ungrateful sinners; the cor tinuance of outward sin will do this much more: for the greater our oul ward sins are, the greater will God’s patience appear in bearing with and his grace in forgiving us; seeing “he fainteth not, neither is h weary.” Thus we are come almost to the top of Antinomianism: an to reach the highest step of the fatal ladder, we need only declare, 4 the author of the five letters has done, that “a grievous fall [into sit such as adultery, robbery, murder, and incest,] will make us sing loude to the praise of restoring grace throughout all the ages of eternity, (See the fourth of those letters. ) Now, if “a grievous fall” will infallibh have that happy effect, it follows that ten such falls will multiply te times the display of God’s power and patience. What a boundless fiel opens here, to run an Antinomian race, and to enlarge our wickednes as hell! What a ladder is here lent us to descend to the depth of th abomination of desolation, in order to reach the loudest notes of prais in heaven! If this Solifidian Gospel be not one of “ the depths of Satan, and the greatest too, | am not capable of discerning midnight gloom fro noon-day brightness. Arc. V. Page 4. “'To save the guilty in such a manner as, & effectually to humble them who are saved, displays thé manifold wisdon of God. Does it not seem necessary, to attain that great end, to mal believers experimentally ‘ know what an evil and bitter thing’ sin is, If sof when can the objects of salvation see this with becoming sh and sorrow? Not while they are ‘in the gall of bitterness,’ &c. Foi in that state, ‘so abominable is man, that he drinketh in iniquity lik water.’ On the other hand, this cannot be after they are broug glory : for then all the painful and shameful memorials of sin wi finally removed. It must be while flesh and spirit dwell in the s man.” = P ‘ Granted ; but what has this argument to do with the question ? we ever deny that, as long as we live, we must repent, or be de conscious “ what an evil and bitter thing” sin is? The question whether indwelling sin is the cause or source of true repentance, or a incentive to it; and whether God has appointed that this should remat in our hearts till death, lest we should forget “what an evil and bit thing sin is,” or lest we should not remember it “ with becoming shame and sorrow?” ‘The absurdity of this plea has already been exposed sec. ill, obj. vili, ix. And, to the arguments there advanced, I now those which follow: (1.) Does not experience convince impe — LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISN. 587 believers, that the more fretfulness, self will, and obstinacy they have in their hearts, the less they do repent? How absurd is it then to suppose that the remains of these evil dispositions will help them to feel “ be- coming shame and sorrow” for sin! (2.) Do not our opponents tell : hearers that we get more becoming shame and sorrow by looking aa moment “at Him whom we have pierced,” than by poring upon our corruptions for an hour? If so, why will they plead for indwelling , that “becoming shame and sorrow” may abound? And why do pretend that they exalt Christ more than we, who maintain that our ‘most becoming shame and deepest sorrow flow from his ignominy and uferings, and not from our indwelling sin, and conflicting corruptions ! q not Job “abhor himself and repent in dust and ashes,” when he sa his redeeming God by faith, much more than when he es kept his head above the bitter waters "of impatience and murmuring? (3.) The pleaders for the continuance of indwelling sin tell us, “that as the sight and attacks of a living and roaring lion will make us dread lions more than all the descriptions and pictures which represent their destructive fierceness ; so the feeling the onsets of indwelling sin will make us abhor sin more than all the descriptions of its odious nature, the accounts of its fearful consequences : because a burnt child ony dreads the fire.” To this we answer :—A burnt child, who for the keeping of a burning coal upon his breast to make him the fire, has hitherto been burned to little purpose. Who had : = less to do with indwelling sin, and its cursed attacks, than the holy esus, and faithful angels? And yet, who is more filled with a perfect — abhorrence of all iniquity? On the otheg hand, who has been more distracted, and longer torn by indwelling sin, than the devil? And who, nevertheless, is better reconciled to it? Or, who is more plagued by the continual rendings and bitings of the lions and vipers within, than those passionate, revengeful people, who say, with all the positiveness tof Jonah and Absalom, “I do well to be angry, and revenge is sweet ?” Experience, therefore, demonstrates the inconclusiveness of this argu- ment. (4.) If the penitent thief properly learned, in a few hours, }“ what an evil and bitter thing external and internal sin is,” is it not te suppose that he must have continued forty years full of I welling sin to learn that lesson, if God had added forty years to 3 life? Would this delay have been to the honour of his Divine eacher? Lastly: when Christ cast seven devils out of Mary Mag- me, did he leave one or two devils behind, to teach her “ becoming and sorrow” for sin? And was it these two ese “ Diabo- itential love which she felt for her gracious deliverer? Is it not tonishing that Gospel ministers should so far forget themselves and eir Saviour as to teach, as openly as for decency they dare, that we must fetch our tears of godly sorrow from the infernal lake, and indle the candle of repentance at the fire of hell! And that the breath of the Spirit, and the golden, hallowed snuffers of the ‘sanctuary cannot make that candle burn continually clear, unless we to the end of our life, the black finger of Satan, indwelling sin ; and vere *s accursed extinguisher, original corruption ! || Are. VI. Our author’s next argument, in favour of the necessary — 988 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. indwelling of sin during life, is more decent, and consequently mor dangerous. The cloven feet of error delicately wear the sandals ¢ truth: but, with a little attention, we shall soon see that they are onl borrowed or stolen. The argument, abridged from page 44, and x dered more perspicuous, may run thus :—* If we have frequently bee slothful, and have not at all times exerted our abilities to the uttermos why may not God in wisdom rebuke us for it, and make us sensible a that evil, by not permitting us to effect what at other times we seer determined, if possible, to accomplish? [that is, by not permitting utterly to abolish the whole body of sin.] If Samson abuse his strength it is*fit he should have cause severely to repent of his folly, by bein deprived of it for a season, and becoming as weak as other men.” Her we are left to infer, that as Samson through his unfaithfulness becam “as weak as other men” for a season; so all believers, on account their unfaithfulness, must be weakened by indwelling sin, during th term of life. To this we answer, (1.) That although believers frequently give plae to sloth and unfaithfulness, yet they are no more necessitated to doit than Samson was to dally with Delilah. (2.) If the constant indwellin of sin be a just punishment for not making a proper use of the talent @ grace which God gives us, it evidently follows that owr unfaithfulnes and not a necessity appointed by God, is the very worm which destro y our evangelically sinless perfection: and the moment our opponent _ grant this, they allow all that we contend for; unless they should be abl to prove that God necessitates us to be unfait hful, in order to punish u infallibly with indwelling sin or life. , As for Samson, he is most unfortunately brought in to support th doctrine of the necessary indwelling of that weakening sin, which Ww call “inbred corruption :” and he might be most happily produced encourage those unfaithful believers, who, like him, have not made ™ proper use of their strengthin time-past. For he outlived his pens weakness, and recovered the strength of a perfect Nazarite before death witness his last achievement, which exceeded all his former exploi For it would be highly absurd to suppose that he got in a death purg: tory the amazing strength by which he pulled down the pillars th supported the large building where the Philistines feasted. Nor need the strength of a logical Samson to break the argumentative reeds whic support the temple of error, in which the imperfectionists make spor to their hurt, with the doctrine of that Christian Samson, who said, can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me.’ Are. VII. Page 47, “é&e. We are indirectly told, (for pious men cat not utter gross Antinomianism without the mask of circumlocution,) th indwelling sin must continue in us, that “ grace [may] not only be exei cised, but distinguished from all that has only the appearance of it. B —how is the true grace of God to be here distinguished from that whie is but the semblance of it? By its effects—a clear and spiritual dise of the depravity, deceit, and desperate wickedness of our own hea And then we are given to understand that lest we should not be deep! convinced of that “ desperate wickedness,” the continuance of indwelling sin is absolutely necessary. This argument runs into the fifth, which T have already answered. It is another indirect plea for the continuance - ° a LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 589 of outward adultery and murder, as well as for the continuance of in- dwelling sin ; it being certain that outward adultery, &c, “ will convince us of the desperate wickedness of our hearts,” still more powerfully than heart adultery, &c. To what hard shifts are good men put, when they fight for the continuance of the bud, or root of any sin! Their every stroke for sin is a stab at the very vitals of godliness. * Are. VIII. Page 48. “The continuance of indwelling sin,” which is (with great modesty in the ingenious author, and therefore with great danger to the unwary reader) called “this warfare,” is supported by the following reason :—“It is often an occasion to discover the strength of grace received, as well as the truth of it.” This argument is all of a piece with the preceding, and puts me in mind of a speech, which a shameless young debauchee made once to me :—“I kept (said he) drinking and dosing in such a tavern, without ever going to bed, ever being sober one hour for twenty-three days. I never had so remarkable an occasion to discover the strength of my body, and the excellence of my constitution.” However, in a few months, while he continued in the conclusion to discover his strength, a mortal disorder seized upon him, and by removing him into eternity, taught me that if Fulsome, the pro- fessor, speaks the truth, when he says, Once in grace always in grace, Nabal, the sot, was mistaken, when he hinted, Once in health always in health. To make the imperfectionists ashamed of this argument, I hope I need only observe, (1.) That nothing ever showed more the strength of grace than the conflicts which the man Christ Jesus went through, » though he never conflicted a moment with indwelling sin. (2.) That the strength and excellence of a remedy is much better discovered by * the removal of the disorder which it is designed to cure, than by the | conflicts which the poor patient has with pain, till death comes to termi- jnate his misery. And, (3.) That the argument I refute, indirectly represents Christ as a physician, who keeps his patients upon the rack to render himself more necessary to them, and to show the strength of the anodyne mixture, by which he gives them, now and then, a little ease under their continued, racking pain! Our author adds, p. 49, “And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, that he might _ preserve us’alive: and it shall be our righteousness [our Gospel perfec- tion] if we observe to do all these commandments, before the Lord our [covenant] God, as he has commanded us,” Deut. vi, 1-25. | If our opponents say that this is a transcript of Adam’s anti-media- torial law of paradisiacal perfection ; and not a copy of Moses’ media- torial law of Jewish perfection: or if they assert, that Moses Calvinis- tically hints that the Jews were to keep this law by proxy, they may say that light is darkness. And if they grant that Moses was no Antinomian shuffler, but really meant what he spoke and wrote, it unavoidably follows, (1.) That God really required of every Jew an | evangelical and personal perfection of love, according to the degree of light and power imparted under the Jewish dispensation. (2.) That | this evangelical, Jewish perfection of love was attainable by every sin: cere Jew; because, whatever God requires of us in a covenant of grace, he graciously engages himself to help us to perform, if we _believingly and obediently embrace his promised assistance. And, (3.) That if an evangelical perfection of love was attainable under the Jewish Gospel, (for “the Gospel was preached to the Jews as well as fo us,” although not so clearly, Heb. iv, 2,) it is absurd to deny that the Gospel of Christ requires less perfection, or makes less provision, ' that Christians may attain what their dispensation calls them to. If Mr. Hill thinks that this inference is not just, I refer him to our Lord’s declaration: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil:” first, by eeeetty obeying myself the two great moral precepts of Moses and | the prophets: and, neat, by teaching and helping all my faithful disci- fox to do the same, Matt. v, 17. Should that gentleman object to the { | latter part of this little comment, because it leaves no room for the Cal- ' vinian imputation of Christ’s mediatorial perfection to fallen believers, who sleep in impenitency, under the guilt of adultery, covered by mur- | der: we reply, that this part of our exposition, far from being forced. |is highly agreeable to the text, when it is taken in connection with the scope of our Lord’s sermon and with the context. For, (1.) All Christ’s sermons, and especially that upon the mount, incul- cate the doctrine of personal perfection, and not the doctrine of imputed /perfection. (2.) The very chapter out of which this text is taken, ends ) \ : 596 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. with these words: “ Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in hes ven is perfect.” And Mr. Hill, prejudiced as he is against our doctrin is too candid to assert that our Lord meant, “ Be ye therefore perfe as your heavenly Father is perfect: now, he is perfect only by the Ca vinian imputation of my righteousness: it is merely by imputation th he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good. And he sende only a Calvinistically imputed rain upon the just and upon the unjus Be ye therefore perfect only by the imputation of my perfect ser ul ness.’ Mr. Hill’s mistake has not only no countenance from the distant pa of the context, but it is flatly contrary to the words which immediatel follow the controverted text. ‘For verily I say unto you, [that, fa from being come to destroy the law and the prophets, that is, the spin uality and strictness of the moral part of the Jewish Gospel,] till hea ven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law [which Pharisaic glosses have unnerved] till all be fulfilled.” lest you should think that I speak of your fulfilling this law by pros and imputation, I add, « Whosoever shall break one of these command ments, [which I am going to enforce upon you, as my own mediato law; though hitherto you have considered them only as Moses’ media torial law ; | whosoever, I say, shall break one of these least command ments, and [by precept and example] teach men so, he shall be calle the least in the kingdom of heaven; [if he have any place among m people in my spiritual kingdom, it shall be only among my carnal babes who are the least of my subjects.] But whosoever shall do and teae them, [the commandments whose spirituality I am going to assert,] th same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven,” [he shall be adult, perfect Christian in the kingdom of my grace here ; and he sha receive a proportionable crown of righteousness in the kingdom of my glory hereafter,] Matt. v, 18, 19. é If I am not mistaken, it evidently follows from these plain words ¢ Christ, (1.) That he taught a personal perfection, and an evangel cally sinless perfection too. (2.) That this perfection consists in m breaking, by wilful commission, the least of the commandments whic our Lord rescued both from the false glosses of Antinomian Pharisee who rested on the imputed righteousness of Abraham, saying, “ W have Abraham for our father: we are the children of Abraham: ¥ are perfect in Abraham: all our perfection is in Abraham:” and froi the no less false glosses of those absurdly legal Pharisees, who paid th tithe of anise, mint, and cummin, with the: greatest scrupulosity, whi they secretly neglected mercy, truth, and the love of God. And, (3. That the perfection which Christ enforced upon his disciples, was not merely of the negative kind, but of the positive also; since it consiste both in doing and teaching the least, as well as the greatest of Ge commandments. 4 If you ask what are the greatest of these commandments, whiel Christ says his disciples must “do and teach,” if they will be great perfect in his kingdom and dispensation, St. Matthew answers, “ of the Pharisees, who was a lawyer, asked him a question, sa Master, which is the great commandment in the law, [the name th given to the Jewish Gospel which Moses preached;] Jesus said unts LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 597 | him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all | thy soul, and with all thy mind : that is the first and great command. ment. And the second is like unto it [in nature and importance :] | Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments _ hang all the law and the prophets,” Matt. xxii, 35. That is, whatever Moses and the other prophets taught and promised, hangs on the nail of perfect love. All came from, all tended to perfect love under the _ Jewish dispensation: nor is my dispensation less holy and gracious. | On the contrary, “ What the law could not do,” in a manner sufhciently perfect for my dispensation, (for Jewish perfection is not the highest _ perfection at which man may arrive on earth,) “God sending me into the world for the atonement and destruction of sin, has hereby abundantly lev sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the mediatorial law,” which enjoins perfect love, “might be abundanily fulfilled in the hearts. of them that walk after the Spirit” of my Gospel: a brighter _ Gospel this, which transmits more direct and warmer beams from the Sun of righteousness, and can raise the exquisitely delicious fruit of perfect love to a greater perfection than the Gospel which Moses preached. (Compare Rom. viii, 3, with Heb. iv, 2. See also an sec. Vi. crite to this doctrine of perfection, our Lord said to the rich young man, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments; if thou wilt be perfect, follow me” in the way of my commandments. « Love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself; for bless- ed are they that do his commandments, that they may enter through the gates into the city, and have right to the tree of life which is in the street of that city, on either side of the pure river of the water of life. This do and thou shalt live” eternally in heaven. “Bring forth fruit unto perfection,” according to the talents of grace and power which thou art entrusted with, and thou shalt “inherit eternal life; thou shalt receive the reward of the inheritance ; thou shalt receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to them that love him,” with the love which keepeth the commandments, and fulfilleth the royal law. Com- pare Matt. xix, 17; Luke x, 28; Rev. xxii, 2, 14; James i, 12, and Luke viii, 14. . On these, and the above-mentioned scriptures, we rest the truth and importance of the doctrine of perfection. Jewish perfection principally stands or falls with Deut. vi, and Matt. xxii; and Christian perfection with Matt. vy, and xix, to which you may add the joint testimony of St. Pau] and St. James. The former, whom our opponents absurdly make “the captain of their imperfection, says to the Judaizing Galatians, | “Bear ye one another’s burdens, [a rare instance of perfect love !] and ' so fulfil the ({mediatorial] law of Christ,” Gal. vi, 2. Nor let Mr. Hill Say that the apostle means we should fulfil it by proxy; for St. Paul | adds, in the next verse but one, “ Let every man prove his own work, and then [with respect to that work] he shall have rejoicing in himself | alone, and not in another, for [with regard to personal, evangelical obedience | every man shall bear his own burden :” a proverbial expres- sion, which answers to this Gospel axiom, Every man shall be. judged according to his own works. Er ET account of the superiority of Christ’s Gospel in the Scripture Scales, Te is +s 598 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. St. Paul urges the same evangelical and lawful doctrine upon ¢h Romans :—* Love one another; for he that loveth another, hath fulfille the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit aduliery. Thou shalt 7 covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly compre hended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself Love is the fulfilling of the law,” Rom. xiii, 8, &c. And that St. Paul spake this of the mediatorial law of liberty and Christian perfection, ant not of the Christless law of innocence and paradisiacal perfection, i evident from his calling it “the law of Christ,” that is, our Redeemer’, jaw, in opposition to our Creator’s law, which was given without al atoning sacrifice and a mediating priest, and therefore made no alloy ance for infirmities, and admitted neither of repentance nor of renovatet obedience. Beside, St. Paul was not such a novice as not to know tha the Galatians and the Romans, who had all sinned, as he observes, Rom iti, 23, could never be exhorted by any man in his senses, to fulfil the paradisiacal law of innocence, by now loying one another. He there: fore indubitably spake of the gracious law of our gentle Melchisedee the law of Him who said, “ A new commandment I give unto you, thal ye love one another ; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another, John xii, 34. A precious commandment this, which our Lord calls new, not because the Jewish mediator had not given it to the Israelite but because the Christian Mediator enforced it by mew motives, gayi new, unparalleled instances of obedience to it, annexed new rewards t the keeping of. it, and required it to be fulfilled with a new perfection And that Christians shall be eternally saved or damned, according té their keeping or breaking this mediatorial law of Christian perfectio this “law of Christ, this royal law of Jesus, the King of the Jews,” we prove by Matt. xvii, 35; vil, 26; xxv, 45; and Luke vi, 46, &c. If Mr. Hill’s prejudices are not removed by hat St. Paul says Rom. xiii, concerning our fulfilling the Gospel law of perfection, w entreat him to ponder the glorious testimony which the apostle, in Rom ii, bears to this law, which he does not scruple to call “his Gospel. With regard to this gracious rule of judgment, says he,** There is m respect of persons with God. For as many as haye sinned without ¢ [Mediator’s written] law, shail also perish with a [Mediator’s written law. And as many as have sinned in [or under a Mediator’s written law, shall be judged by the [Mediator’s written] law. For not the hearers of the [Mediator’s] “law are just before God, but the doers of the [Medi ator’s | law shall be justified. [Nor are the heathens totally destitute ol this law :] for when the Gentiles, which have not the [Mediator’s written] law, do by nature, [by natural conscience, which is the echo of the Mediator’s voice, and the reflection of the light which enlightens e man that cometh into the world,| when the Gentiles, I say, do [by these means] the things contained in the law, they, having not the law, are a Jaw unto themselves ; their conscience also bearing witness; and thei thoughts [in consequence of the witness borne] accusing, or else excusing one another; in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel,” [that is, according to the Gospel law which I preach, ] Rom. ii, 11, &c. For, while some “lay up trea. sures in heaven, others treasure up to themselves wrath against oa of wrath and of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every } oa 5 ., } Bz sf 7 . LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 599 “man according to his deeds: to them who, by patient continuance m _ well doing, [or in keeping the Mediator’s law according to their dispen- | ‘sation,| seek for glory [he will render] eternal life, [like a righteous Judge, and gracious Rewarder of them that diligently seek him.] But _ unto them that do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, [he will ) render] indignation and wrath,” [in just proportion to the more or less | bmnght discoveries of the truth, which shall have been made to them, | | Rom. ii, 5, &c. “For that servant, who knew his Lord’s will, [by a . written law, delivered through the hands of a Mediator, | and prepared | not himself, [that he might have boldness in the day of judgment, | _ neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes [in | the hell of unbelieving Jews and disobedient Christians.] But he that knew not, [his Master’s will, by an outwardly written law,] and did | [break the law of nature, disobey the voice of his conscience, and] commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For | unto whomsoever much is, given, of him shall be much required,” _ Luke xii, 47, 48. An indubitable proof this, that as something is re- quired of all, something, even a talent of grace, a measure of the spiritual light which enlightens every man, is given to all to improve with, and bring ferth fruit to perfection; some thirty fold, some sixty fold, and others a hundred fold, according to their respective dispen- sations. From these quotations it appears to us indubitable, that the Gospel of St. Paul, and, of consequence, the Gospel of Christ, is not a wanton, lawless Gospel; but a holy, lawful Gospel, in which evangelical pro- mises are properly guarded by evangelical rules af jzdgment; and the doctrines of grace, wisely connected with the destrines of justice. If this be a glaring truth, what a dangerous game do many good men play, when they emasculate St. Paul’s Gospel, and with Antinomian rashness cut off, and cast away that morally legal part of it, which distinguishes it both from the ceremonial gospel which the Galatians foolishly em- braced, and from the lawless gospel which Solifidian gospellers contend for under the perverted name of “free grace!” And how seriously should we all consider these awful words of St. Paul !—*« There are some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ ; but though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto _ you [whether it be a more severe, Judaizing gospel, or a less strict, Solifidianizing gospel] than that which we have preached unto you, [which stands at an equal distance from burthensome, Jewish cere- monies, and from lawless, Solifidian tenets,] let him be accursed,” : mtxal: i, 7, 8. - This recapitulation of the principal Scripture proofs of our doctrine would be exceedingly deficient, if I did not once more remind the reader of the glorious testimony which St. James bears to the law of liberty :— “If ye [ believers, says he] fulfil the royal law, according to the serip- | / ture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well, [ye quit your- selves like perfect Christians.] But if ye have [uncharitably ] respect _ to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors, [that is, ye are condemned by the Mediator’s law, under which ye are.] For whosoever shall keep the whole law, [of the Mediator,] and yet _ {uncharitably] offend in one point, he is guilty of all, &c. So speak | _— 600 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. ye, therefore, and so do, as people that shal. be judged by the la liberty [the Mediator’s law.] For he [the imperfect, uncharitable, falle believer] shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed n [charity or] mercy,” James ii, 8. We rest our doctrine of Jewish and Christian perfection on thes consentaneous testimonies of St. James and St. Paul; of Moses, the great lawgiver of the Jews, and of Christ, the great Lawgiver of the Chris tians: the doctrine of perfection, or of perfectly cordial obedience, being inseparably connected with the mediatorial laws of Moses and of Christ. The moment you destroy these laws, by turning them into “rule of life,” through the personal observance of which no believer shal ever be justified or condemned, yeu destroy the ground of Jewish an Christian perfection, and you impose upon us the lawless, unscriptural tenet of an obedience performed by proxy, and of an imputed perfection, which will do us as little good in life, death, and judgment, as impute health, opposed to inherent health, will.do to a poor, sickly, dying crin . nal. Thus, after leading my reader round a large circle of proofs, I return to the very point whence I started: (see the beginning of the pre. face :) and I conclude that a gospel without a mediatorial law, without an evangelical law, without the conditional promise of a crown of he - venly glory to the obedient, and without the conditional ges of infernal stripes to the disobedient ; ;—I conclude, I say, that such a gosp will always lead us to the centre of Antinomianism ; to the Diana an¢ Hecate of the Calvinists: to lawless free grace and everlasting free wrath ; or, if you please, finished salvation and finished damnation. On the other hand, the moment you admit what the Jewish and Christiar Gospel covenants are so express about, I mean an evangelical law, or 4 practicable rule of judgment, as well as of conduct, eternal salvation an¢ eternal damnation become conditional: they are suspended upon the evangelical perfection or imperfection of our obedience; and the Rey. Mr. Berridge hits on the head of the golden nail, on which “ hang all the law and the prophets,” all the four Gospels and the epistles, when he says, “ Sincere obedience, as a condition, will lead you unavoidably uj to a perfect obedience.” And now, reader, choose which thou wilt follow, Mr. Hill’s lawless Antinomian Gospel, or St. Paul’s and St. James’ Gospel, ineluding th evangelical law of Christian liberty and perfection, by which law thou 1 shalt be conditionally justified or condemned, “when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel,” Rom. ii, 16, If thou choose imputed righteousness and imputed perfection beeen: any condition, it will “ unavoidably” lead thee down into a death purge tory, through the chamber of indwelling sin, if thou art an elect person, in the Calvinian sense of the word; or to eternal damnation through . the chambers of necessary sin, if thou art one of those whom our oppo- nents call reprobates. But if thou cordially choose the sincere, voluntary, evangelical obedience of faith; which we preach both as a condition and as a privilege, it will (Mr. Hill’s second being judge) “unavoidably lead thee up to perfect obedience.” There is absolutely no medi between these two Gospels. Thou must either be a Crispian, lawl imperfectionist, or an evangelical, lawful perfectionist; unless thou choose to be a Gallio—one who cares for none of these things. Thou — LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 601 must wrap thyself up in unscriptural notions of imputed righteousness, imputed holiness, and imputed obedience, which make up the ideal ent of Calvinistically imputed perfection; or thou must perfectly “ wash in the blood of the Lamb thy robes” of inherent, though derived righteousness, holiness, and obedience, which (when they are thus washed) are the rich wedding garment of evangelical perfection. SECTION XVI. The author shows that the distinction between sins, and (evangelically speaking) innocent infirmities, is truly Scriptural, and that judicious Calvinists and the Church of England hold it—He draws the line between sins and innocent infirmities—A view of the extremes into which rigid, Pelagian per fectionists, and rigid, Calvinian imperfection- ists, have run east and west, from the Gospel line of an evangelicai ~ perfection—An answer to Mr. Henry’s grand argument for the con. tinuance of indwelling sin—Conclusion of the argumentative part of this essay. We have proved, in the preceding section, that the doctrine of an eyangelically sinless perfection is truly Scriptural, being inseparably con- nected with the greatest and most excellent precepts of the Old and New Testament, and with the most evangelical and awful sanctions of Moses and Jesus Christ. This might suffice to show that our doctrine of per- fection cannot be called popish or Pelagian, with any more candour than the doctrine of the trinity can be branded with those epithets, because Pelagius and the pope embrace it. If, in order to be good Protestants, we were obliged to renounce all that the Jews, Turks, and infidels hold; we should renounce the Old Testament, because the Jews revere it ; we should renounce the unity of God, because the Mohammedans contend for it; nay, we should renounce common humanity, because all infidels approve of it. Ibeg leave, however, to dwell a moment longer upon Mr. Hill’s objection, that the pope holds our doctrine. When this gentleman was at Rome, he may remember that his Cicerone showed him, in the ancient Church of St. Poul without the gate, (if remember the name,) the picture of all the popes from St. Peter, Linus, Cletus, and Clement, down to the pope who then filled what is called “St. Peter’s chair.” According to this view of papacy, Mr. Hill is certainly in the right; for if he turn back to sec. v, he will see that Peter, the first pope, so called, was a complete perfectionist, and if Clemens, or St. Clement, Paul’s fellow labourer, was really the fourth pope, it is certain that he also held our doctrine as well as Peter and Christ; for he wrote to the Corinthians, “‘ By leve were all the elect of God made perfect. Those who were made perfect in love are in the region of the just, and shall appear in glory. Happy then are we if we fulfil the commandments of God in the unity of love. Following the commandments of God they sin not.” (St. Clem. Ep. to the Cor.) This glorious testimony, which St. Clement bears to the doctrine of perfection, might be supported by many correspondent quotations from the other fathers. But as this would too much swell this essay, I shall only pro- 602 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. duce one, whichi is so much the more remarkable, as it is taken from s Jerome’s third Dialogue against Pelagius, the rigid, overdoing perfec ist: Hoc et nos dicimus, posse hominem non peccare, si velit, pro tempor pro loco, pro imbecillitate corporea, quamdiu intentus est animus, quamdi chorda nullo vitio laxatur in cithara. That is, “ We [who oppose Pela gius’ notion about Adamic perfection] maintain also that, considering our time, place, and bodily weakness, we can avoid sin if we will, a long as our mind is bent upon it, and the string of our harp [i. e. of ou Christian resolution] is not slackened by any wilful fault. When I read these blessed testimonies in favour of the truth which we vindicate, my pleased mind flies to Rome, and I am ready to say, Hail! ye holy popes and fathers, ye perfect servants of my perfect Lord! I am ambitious to share with you the names of “ Arminian, Pela. gian, Papist, temporary monster, and Atheist in masquerade.” I pubs lish to the world my steady resolution to follow you, and any of yout successors, who have done and taught Christ’s commandments. And enter my protest against the mistakes of the ministers who teach thal Christ’s Jaw is impracticable, that sin must dwell in our hearts as lon as we live, and that we must continue to break the Lord’s precepts ii our inward parts unto death. I shall close my answer to this argument of Mr. Hill by a quotatior from Mr. Wesley’s Remarks upon the Review :—“Tt [our doctrine ¢ Christian perfection] has been condemned by the pope and his whol conclave, even in this present century. In the famous bull Unigenitus they utterly condemn the uninterrupted act [of faith and love which som men talked of, of continually rejoicing, praying, and giving thanks] 2 dreadful heresy.” If we have Peter and Clement on our side, we ai willing to let Mr. Hill screen his doctrine behind the pope who issue out the bull Unigenitus, and, if he pleases, behind the present pope too However, says Mr. Hill, “ The distinction between sins and innocen infirmities is derived from the Romish Church.” Answer. 1. We rejoice if the Church of Rome was never so unrea sonable and so deluded by Antinomian popes as to confound an involun tary, wandering thought, an undesigned mistake, and a lamented fit ol drowsiness at prayer, with adultery, murder, and incest; in order tf represent Christ’s mediatorial law as absolutely impracticable, and insinuate that fallen believers, who actually commit the above-mentione crimes, are God’s dear children, as well as the obedient believers wh labour under the above-described infirmities. , 2. We apprehend that Mr. Hill and the divines who have espoused Dr. Crisp’s errors, are some of the last persons in the world by whoi we may with decency be charged to hold “ licentious” doctrines. 4 we are truly sorry that any Protestants should make it their business to corrupt that part of the Gospel which, if we believe Mr. Hill, the Por De himself has modestly spared. 3. Mr. Hill might, with much more propriety, have objected that distinction is Benned: from the Jewish Church ; for “ the old rogue,” some Solifidians have rashly called Moses, evidently made a distineti between sin and infirmities ; he punished a daring Sabbath breaker an audacious rebel with death, with present death, with the most ternible kind of death. The language of his burning zeal seemed to be that of ‘ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 603 Dayid, “ Be not merciful to them that offend of malicious wickedness,” Psa. lix, 5. But upon such as accidentally contracted some involuntary pollution, he inflicted no other punishment than that of a separation from the congregation till evening. If Mr. Hill consider the difference of these two punishments, he must either give place to perverseness, or confess that wilful sins and involuntary infirmities were not Calvinistically confounded by the mediator of the old covenant ; and that Moses himself made a rational and evangelical distinction between “ the spot of God’s children,” and that “of the perverse and crooked generation,” Deut. XXX, 4. 4, That Christ, the equitable and gracious Mediator of the new cove- nant, was not less merciful than stern Moses, with respect to the distinction we contend for, appears to us evident from his making a _ wide difference between the almost involuntary drowsiness of the eleven disciples in Gethsemane, and the malicious watchfulness of the traitor Judas. Concerning the offence of the former, he said, “The spirit _ indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak ;” and with respect to the crime of the latter, he declared, “It would be good for that man if he had never been born.” 5. David and Paul exactly followed herein the doctrine of Moses and Christ. The psalmist says, “ Keep back thy servant also from pre- sumptuous sins: let them not have the dominion over me; then shall I be upright, [or rather, as the word literally means in the original, I shall _ be perfect,| and innocent from the great transgression,” Psalm xix, 13. Hence it is evident that some transgressions are incompatible with the _ perfection which David prayed for; and that some errors, or some secret [unnoticed, involuntary] faults, are not. 6. This, we apprehend, is evident from his own words: “ Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not sin, and in whose spirit there is no guile,” though there may be some improprieties in his words and actions, Psalm xxxul, 2. David’s meaning may be illustrated by the well-known case of Nathanael. Philip said unto him, “ We have found him of whom Moses wrote in the law: [a clear proof this, by the by, that the law frequently means the Jewish Gospel, which testifies of Christ to come :| it is Jesus of Nazareth. And Nathanael said unto him, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” Here was an involuntary fault, an improper quoting of a proverbial expression: and, nevertheless, as he quoted it with a good intention, and to make way for a commendable inquiry into the report which he heard, his error was consistent with that degree of perfection which implies “ innocence from the great [wilful] transgression.” This I prove, (1. ) By his conduct: « Philip saith unto him, Come and see ;” and he instantly went, without betraying the least degree of the self-conceited stiffness, surly pride, and morose resistance, which always accompany the unloving prejudice by which the law of Christ is broken. And, (2.) By our Lord’s testimony :— “Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!” Our Lord’s word for guile, in the original, is doAcg, the very word, which being also connected with a negative, forms the epithet odoAcs, whereby St. Peter denotes the unadulterated purity of God’s word, which he compares to sincere or perfectly pure milk, 1 Pet. ii, 2. Hence I conclude that, Christ himself 604 LAST CHECK TO ANTLNUMLANISM. being witness, (evangelically speaking,) there was no more indwell insincerity in Nathanael than there is in the pure word of God; and t this is the happy case of all those who fully deserve the glorious title of “Israelite indeed,” which our Lord publicly bestowed upon Nathanael, To return :— 7. If to make a distinction between sins and infirmities conte a man half a Papist, it is evident that St. Paul was not less tinctured with popery (so called) than David, Moses, and Jesus Christ: for he writes to Timothy, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others may also fear,’ 1 Tim. v, 20. And yet he writes to the Romans, «“ We that are strong should bear with the infirmities of the weak,” Rom. xv, 1. Here are two plain commands ; the first, not to bear with sins ; and the second to bear with infirmities: a demonstration this, that there i is an essential difference between sins and infirmities, and that this difference is dis- coverable to others, and much more to ourselves. Nay, in most cases, it is so discernible to those who have their spiritual senses properly disposed, that they can as easily distinguish between sins (properly so called) and infirmities, as a wise judge can distinguish between accidental death and wilful murder ; or between unknowingly passing a false guinea with a kind intention to relieve the poor, and treasonably coining it wil a roguish design to defraud the public. The difference between the sun and the moon is not more striking in the natural world, than the difference between sins and infirmities in the moral world. Nevertheless, blind prejudice will probably confound them still, to darken counsel, a to raise a cloud of logical dust, that Antinomianism (the Diana of the imperfectionists) may make her escape, and save indwelling sin, which is the claw of the hellish lion, the tooth of the old dragon, the nee hook of Satan, and the deadly sting of the king of terrors. 8. Judicious Calvinists have seen the propriety of the disiacten| for which we are represented as’ unsound Protestants. Of many whom I could mention, I shall only quote one, who for his piety, wisdom, and moderation, is an honour to Calvinism,—I mean the Rev. Mr. Newton, minister of Olney. In his Letters on Religious Subjects, p. 199, he makes this ingenuous confession :—“ The experience of past years has taught me [and I hope that, some day or other, it will also teach our other opponents] to distinguish between ignorance and disobedience, The Lord is gracious to the weakness of his people ; many involu mistakes will not interrupt their communion with him. He pities ‘ infirmity, and teaches them to do better. But if they dispute his & will, and act against the dictates of conscience, they will surely suffer for it. Wilful sin sadly perplexes and retards our progress.” Here is, if I mistake not, a clear distinction made, by a true Protestant, betwee! disobedience or wilful sin, and weakness, involuntary mistakes, infirmity. . If Mr. Hill will not regard Mr. Newton’s authority, I beg he woul show some respect for the authority of our Church, and the import of his own prayers. If there be absolutely no difference between wilful sins, involuntary negligences, and unavoidable ignorances ; why does our Church distinguish them, when she directs us to pray in the liturgy, — “that it may please God to forgive us all our sins, negligences, and ignorances ?” Tf these three words have but one meaning, should not _ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 605 Mr. Hill leave out the two last as ridiculous tautology? Or, at least, to remove from our Church the suspicion of popery, should he not pray every Sunday that God would forgive us all our sins, sins, and sins! : _ From the nime preceding remarks, and the quotations made therein, it appears, if I mistake not, that our important distinction between wilful sin and infirmities, or involuntary offences, recommends itself to reason and conscience ; that it is supported by the law of Moses, and the Gos- pel of Christ ; by the Psalms of David, and the epistles of St. Paul; by the writings of judicious Calvinists, and the liturgy of our Church; and _ therefore it is as absurd to call it a popish distinction, because the Papists : ] ; _ are not injudicious enough to reject it, as it is absurd to call the doctrine of Christ’s divinity “a doctrine of devils,” because devils acknowledged him to be the Son of God, and their omnipotent Controller. _ Should Mr. Hill reply, that if this distinction cannot properly be called popish, it deserves to be called “ Antinomian,” and “ licentious ;” because it countenances all the men who give to their grossest sins the soft names of “innocent infirmities ;” we can answer: (1.) It has been proved that Moses and Jesus Christ held this distinction; and therefore to call it Antinomian and licentious, is to call not only Christ, the holy one of God, but even “legal” Moses, an Antinomian, and an advocate for licentiousness. See what these Calvinian refinements come to! (2.) The men who abuse the doctrine of the distinction between sns and infirmities, abuse as much the doctrine of God’s mercy, and the important distinction between working days and the Lord’s day: but is this a proof that the doctrines of God’s mercy, and the distinction between the Lord’s day and other days, are “licentious tenets, against which all that wish well to the interest of Protestantism should protest in a body ?” If Mr. Hill try to embarrass us by saying, “ Where will you draw the line between wilful sins and [evangelically speaking] innocent infirmities?” We reply, without the least degree of embarrassment, Where Moses and the prophets have drawn it in the Old Testament ; where Christ and the apostles have drawn it in the New; and where we draw it after them in these pages. nd, retorting the question to show its frivolousness, we ask, Where will Mr. Hill draw the lme between the free, evangelical observing of the Lord’s day, and the superstitious, Pharisaic keeping of the Sabbath ; or between weak, saving faith, and wilful unbelief? Nay, upon his principles, where wil! he draw it even between a good and a bad work ; if all our good works are really dung, dross, and filthy rags? _ However, as the question is important, | shall give it a more particular answer. An infirmity is a breach of Adam’s law of paradisiacal perfec- tion, which our covenant God does not require of us now: and (evan- _ gelically speaking) a sin for Christians is a breach of Christ’s evangelical law of Christian perfection ; a perfection this, which God requires of ali Christian believers. An infirmity (considering it with the error which it occasions) is consistent with pure love’to God and man: but a sin is Meconsistent with that love. An infirmity is free from guile, and has its foot in our animal frame: but a sin is attended with guile, and has its foot in our moral frame, springing either from the habitual corruption of our hearts, or from the momentary perversion of our tempers. An mfirmity unavoidably results from our unhappy circumstances, and from the necessary infelicities of our present state: but a sin flows from the 606 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. avoidable and perverse choice of our own will. An infirmity has its foundation in an involuntary want of power: and a sin in a wilful abuse of the present light and power we have. ‘The one arises from invol tary ignorance and weakness, and is always attended with a good me ing ; a meaning unmixed with any bad design, or wicked prejudice : the other has its source in voluntary perverseness and presumption, an¢ is always attended with a meaning altogether bad; or, at best, with a good meaning, founded on wicked prejudices. If to this line the candid reader add the line which we have drawn (section vi) between the per- fection of a Gentile, that of a Jew, and that of a Christian, he will not easily mistake in passing a judgment between the wilful sins, which a inconsistent with an evangelically sinless perfection, and the innocent infirmities which are consistent with such a perfection. Confounding what God has divided, and dividing what the God of truth has joined, are the two capital stratagems of the god of error. The first he has chiefly used to eclipse or darken the doctrine of Christian perfection. By means of his instruments he has perpetually confounded the Christless law of perfect innocence, given to Adam before the fall; and the mediatorial, evangelical law of penitential faith, under which ov first parents were put, when God promised them the seed of the woman, the mild Lawgiver, the Prince of Peace, the gentle King of the Jews, who “breaks not the bruised reed, nor quenches the smoking flax,” compassionately tempers the doctrines of justice by the doctrines of grace ; and instead of the law of innocence, which he has kept and made honourable for us, has substituted his own evangelical law of repentanee, faith, and Gospel obedience, which law is actually kept, according ta one or another of its various editions, by all “just men, made perfect 7 that is, by all the wise virgins, who are ready for the midnight ery, ant the marriage of the Lamb. Hence it appears that Pelagius and Avreistiie were both right in some things, and wrong in a capital point. Pelagius, the father of the rigi perfectionists and rigid free willers, asserted that Christ’s law could br kept, and that the keeping of that law was all the perfection which that .law requires. So far was Pelagius right; having reason, conscience, and Scripture on his side. But he was grossly mistaken if he confounded Christ’s mediatorial law with the law of paradisiacal perfection. Thi was his capital error, which led him to deny original sin, and to extol human powers so excessively as to intimate that by a faithful and diligent use of them, man may be as innocent, and as perfect as Adam was before the fall. ' On the other hand, Augustine, the father of the rigid imperfectionists and rigid bound willers, maintained that our natural powers, being greatly weakened and depraved by the fall, we cannot, by all the helps whieh the Gospel affords, keep the law of innocence ; that is, always thi speak, and act, with that exactness and propriety which became immo man, when God pronounced him very good in paradise : he asserted that every umpropriety of thought, language, or behaviour, is a breach of the law of perfection, under which God placed innocent man in the garden — of Eden; and he proved that every breach of this law is sin: and th of consequence there can be no Adamic, paradisiacal perfection in this — life. So far Augustine was very right: so far reason and Scripture LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 607 his doctrine : and so far the Church is obliged to him for having | a stand against Pelagius. But he was very much mistaken when | Tabulished the essential difference which there is between our Creator’s law of strict justice, and our Redeemer’s mediatorial law of" justice, mpered with grace and mercy. MHence he concluded that there is y no keeping the law, and consequently no performing any | finue in the body. Thus, while Pelagins made adult Christians as werfecily siniess as Adam was in paradise, Augustine made them so _ completely sinful as to make it necessary for every one of them to go into a death purgatory, crying, “ There is a Jaw in my members, which 4 me into captivity to the law of sin. Sin dwelleth in me. With ‘flesh I serve the law of sin. I am carnal, sold under sin. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me?” __ The Scripture doctrine, which we vindicate, stands at an equal dis- _ tance from these extremes of Pelagius and Augustine. It rejects, with stine, the Adamic perfection which Pelagius absurdly pleaded for ; and it explodes, with Pelagius, the necessary continuance of indwelling Sim and carnal bondage, which Augustine no less absurdly maintained. ‘Thus adult believers are still smners, still imperfect according to the Mighteous law of paradisiacal mnocence and perfection: and yet they “are really saints, and perfect according to the gracious law of evan- | gelical justification ar.d perfection: a law this, which considers as up- | right and perfect, all the godly heathens, Jews, and Christians, who are “without guile” in their respective folds, or under their various dispen- | sations.. Thus by still vindicating the various editions of Christ’s me- diatorial law, which has been at times almost buried under heaps of Pharisaic and Antinomian mistakes, we still defend practical religion. | And, as in the Scripture Scales, by proving the evangelical marriage of free grace and free will, we have reconciled Zelotes and Honestus with \ respect to faith and works; so in this essay, by proving the evangelical union of the doctrines of grace and justice in the mild and righteous | law of our Redeemer, we reconcile Augustine and Pelagius, and force | them to give up reason and Scripture, « or to renounce the monstrous | errors which keep them asunder: I mean the deep, Antinomian errors | of Augustine with respect to indwelling sin and a death purgatory ; and | the high-flown, Pharisaic errors of Pelagius, with regard to Adamic per- | fection, and a complete freedom from original degeneracy. | The method we have used to bring about this reconciliation is quite |} plain and uniform. We have kept our Scripture Scales even, and used } every weight of the sanctuary without prejudice ; ; especially those _ weights which the moralists throw aside as Calvinistic and Antinomian; | and those which the Solifidians cast away as Mosaic and legal. Thus, | by evenly balancing the two Gospel axioms, we have reunited the doc. | trines of grace and of justice, which heated Augustine and heated Pelagius have separated; and we have distinguished our Redeemer’s evangelical law, from our Creator’s paradisiacal law; two distinct laws these, which our illustrious antagonists have confounded; and we flatter ourselves that, by this artless mean, another step is taken toward bringing the two partial gospels of the day to the old standard of the one complete Gospel of Jesus Christ. 608 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. I have done unfolding our reconciling plan: but the disciples of Augustine, rallied by Calvin, have not done attacking it. I hope I have answered the objections of Mr. Hill, Mr. Toplady, and Mi Martin, against the evangelical perfection which we defend ; but anothey noted divine of their persuasion comes up to their assistance. It is the Rey. Mr. Matthew Henry, who has deservedly got a great name among the Calvinists, by his valuable “ Exposition of the Bible,” in five foli volumes. This huge piece of ordnance carries a heavy ball, which threatens the very heart of our sinless Gospel. It is too late to attempt an abrupt and silent flight. Let then Mr. Henry fire away. If ow doctrine of an evangelically sinless perfection is founded upon a rock it will stand ; the ponderous ball, wnich seems likely to demolish it, wi rebound against the doctrine of indwelling sin; and the standard o} Christian liberty which we waive, will be more respected than ever. — “ Corruption,” saith that illustrious commentator, “is left remaining in the hearts of good Christians, that they may learn war, may kee on the whole armour of God, and stand continually upon their guard, “Thus corruption is driven out of the hearts of believers by litile ani litile. The work of sanctification is carried on gradually: but thai judgment will at length be brought forth into a complete victory? namely, when death shall come to the assistance of the atoning bloo¢ and of the Spirit’s power. That this is Mr. Henry’s doctrine, is evi dent from his comment on Gal. v, 17: “In a renewed man, whei there is something of a good principle, there is a struggle between, 4 the remainders of sin, and the beginnings of grace; and this, Chris must expect, will be their exercise as long as they continue in world ;” or, to speak more intelligibly, tll they go into the death pur gatory. Not to mention here again, Gal. v, 17, &c, Mr. Henry builds uncomfortable doctrine upon the following text: “The Lord thy will put out those nations before thee by little and little; thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee,” Deut. vii, 22. And he gives us to understand that “ pride an¢ security, and other sins,” are “the enemies more dangerous than the beasts of the field, that would be apt to increase” upon us, if God de livered us from indwelling sin, i. e. from the remains of pride and cap nal security, and other sins. This exposition is backed by an appeal t the following text :—“ Now these are the nations which the Lord left te prove Israel by them—to know whether they [the Israelites] woulé hearken to the commandments of the Lord,” Judges ii, 1, 4. (Se Mr. Henry’s exposition on these passages. ) d To this we answer:—1. That it is absurd to build the mighty doe. trine of a death purgatory upon a historical allusion. If such allusio were proofs, we could easily multiply our arguments. We could say that sin is to be utterly destroyed, because Moses says, “'The Lord de. livered into our hands Og and all his people, and we smote him un none was left unto him remaining,” Deut. iii, 3. Because “ Josh smote Horam, king of Gezer, and his people, until he had left him not remaining,” Deut. iii, 33. Because Saul was commanded “utterly to destroy the sinners, the Amalekites,” and lost his crown for spari their king: because, when God “overthrew Pharaoh and all his eC ._ ’ 4 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 609 there remained not so much as one of them,” Exod. xiv, 28. Because, _ when God rained fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah, “he overthrew all _ their [wicked] mhabitants ;” and because Moses says, “I took your sin, _ the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and _ ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust, and cast the , _ dust thereof into the brook,” Deut. ix, 21. But we should blush to _ build the doctrine of Christian perfection upon so absurd and slender _afoundation. And yet such a foundation would be far more solid, than that on which Mr. Henry builds the doctrine of Christian imperfection, and of the necessary indwelling of sin in the most holy believers ; for, _ 2. Before God permitted the Canaanites to remain in the land, he had said, “« When ye are passed over Jordan, then ye shall drive out ail the inhabitants of the land before you, and destroy all their pictures ; for I have given you the land to possess it. But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land before you, then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein you } dwell. And moreover I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them,” Num. xxxiii, 51, &c. Hence it appears, that the sparing of the Ca- Maanites was a punishment inflicted upon the Israelites, as well as a favour shown to the Canaanites, some of whom, like Rahab and the Gibeonites, probably turned to the Lord, and as “God’s creatures,” enjoyed his saving mercy in the land of promise. But is indwelling sin one of “God’s creatures,” that God should show it any favour, and should refuse his assistance to the faithful believers, who are determined to give it no quarter? Can indwelling sin be converted to God, as the indwelling Canaanites might, and as some of them undoubtedly were ? 3. But the capital flaws of Mr. Henry’s argument are, I apprehend, two suppositions, the absurdity of which is glaring :—* Corruption,” ‘says he, “is left remaining in the hearts of good Christians, that they ‘May learn war, may keep on the whole armour of God, and stand con- ye upon their guard.” Just as if Christ had not “learned war, kept on the breastplate of righteousness, and stood continually upon his guard,” without the help of indwelling sin! Just as if the world, the devil, the weakness of the flesh, and death, our last enemy, with which ‘our Lord so severely conflicted, were not adversaries powerful enough |to prove us, to engage us to learn war, and to make us “keep on and use the whole armour of God” to the end of our life! The other absurd supposition is, that “pride, and security, and other sins,” which are supposed to be typified by “the wild beasts” mentioned in Deut. vii, 22, \will increase upon us by the destruction of indwelling sin. But is it not as ridiculous to suppose this, as to say, Pride will increase upon us by destruction of pride ; and carnal security will gather strength by the ‘extirpation of carnal security, and by the implanting of constant watch- | fulness, which is a branch of the Christian perfection which we contend for? | 4. With respect to the inference which Mr. Henry draws from these ‘words, “ Thou mayest not consume them at once : the Lord will put them out before thee by little and little ;” is it not highly absurd also? Does he give us the shadow of an argument to prove that this verse was spoken of our indwelling corruptions ; and suppose it was, would this prove that Vor. I. _ 39 “ — a = 610 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. the doctrine of a death purgatory is true? You say to a greedy persor You must eat your dinner “by little and little,” you cannot swallow down at one gulp. A farmer teaches his son to plough, and says, W. cannot plough this field at once, but we may plough it “ by little ar little,” i.e. by making one furrow after another, till we end the las furrow. Hence I draw the following inferences :—We eat our meal: and plough our fields, “ by little and little ;” and therefore no dinner eg be eaten, and no field ploughed before death. A surgeon says, “ the the healing of a wound is carried on gradually :” hence his prejudicec mate runs away with the notion that no wound can be healed so long a a patient is alive. Who does not see the flaw of these conclusions ? 5. But the greatest absurdity, I apprehend, is yet behind. Not observe that we do not remember to have read any command in ou Bibles not to consume sin at once ; or any declaration that God will pu it out only “ by little and little ;’ we ask, What length of time do yo suppose God means? You make him say that he will make an end of ou indwelling sin “ by little and little ;” do you think he means four days, fou years, or fourscore years? If you say that God cannot or will x wholly cleanse the thoughts of our hearts under fourscore years, yi send all who die under that age into hell, or into some purgatory whe: they must wait till the eighty years of their conflict with indwelling s are ended. If you say that God can or will do it in four days, but m under, you absurdly suppose that the penitent thief remained at lea three days in paradise full of indwelling sin; seeing his sanctificati was to be “ carried on gradually” in the space of four days at leas If you are obliged to grant that when the words “ by little and little” a applied to the destruction of indwelling sin, they may mean four hot (the time which the penitent thief probably lived after his conversion,) well as four days; do you not begin to be ashamed of your systen And if you reply, that death alone fully extirpates indwelling sin, do not this favourite tenet of yours overturn Mr. Henry’s doctrine about | necessity of the slow, “gradual,” destruction of indwelling sin? M mot a sinner believe in a moment, when God helps him to belie: And may not a believer (whom you suppose necessarily full of indwe ing sin as long as he is in this world) die in a moment? If you ansy in the negative, you deny the sudden death of John the Baptist, E .James, and St. Paul, who had their heads cut off in a moment: im word, you deny that any believer can die suddenly. If you reply in # affirmative, you give up the point, and grant that indwelling sin may instantaneously destroyed. And now, what becomes of Mr. He argument, which supposes that sanctification can neyer be ¢ without a long, gradual process ; and that the extirpation of sin take place but “by little and little ?” p I have set before thee, reader, the lights and shades of our doctri ine I have produced our arguments, and those of our opponents ; anil say, which of them bear the stamp of imperfection? If thou pronoun that wrim and thummim, light and perfection, belong to the arguments of Mr. Hill, Mr. Toplady, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Henry, I must lay my pen, and deplore the infelicity of our having a reason, which in my breast what it says in thine. But if thou find, after ma deliberation, that our arguments are “light in the Lord,” as being me . 4 § ? LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 611 agreeable fo the dictates of unprejudiced reason, than those of our _ antagonists, more conformable to the plain declarations of the sacred _ writers, fitter to encourage believers in the way of holiness, more suit- able to the nature of undefiled religion, and better adapted to the display of the Redeemer’s glory; I shall enjoy the double pleasure of em- bracing the truth, and of embracing her together with thee. In the mean- _ time, closing here the argumentative part of this essay, I just beg the ' continuance of thy favourable attention, while I practically address perfect Pharisees, prejudiced imperfectionists, imperfect believers, “si Perfect Christians. a SECTION XVII. i An address to perfect Christian Pharisees. _ I appress you first, ye perfect Christian Pharisees, because ye are most ready to profess Christian perfection, though, alas! ye stand at the greatest distance from perfect humility, the grace which is most essential to the perfect Christian’s character ; and because the enemies of our doctrine make use of you first, when they endeavour to root it up from the earth. That ye may know whom I mean by perfect Christian Pharisees, give me leave to show you your own picture, in the glass of a plain description. Ye have, professedly, entered into the fold where Christ’s sheep, which are perfected 1 in love, rest all at each other’s feet, and at the feet of the Lamb of God. But how have ye entered? By “Christ the door,” or at the door of presumption? Not by Christ the door: for ) Christ is meekness and lowliness manifested in the flesh ; but ye are still }ungentle and fond of praise. When he pours outyhis soul as a Divine ophet, he says, “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart ; | take my yoke upon you, and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” But ye overlook this humble door. Your proud, gigantic minds are above | ‘stooping low enough to follow Him, who “made himself of no reputa- | tion” that he might raise us to heavenly honours ; and who, to pour just / contempt upon human pride, had his first night’s lodging in a stable, and }spent his last night partly on the cold ground, in a storm of Divine / wrath, and partly in an ignominious confinement, exposed to the greatest lindignities, which Jews and Gentiles could pour upon him. He rested | his infant head upon hay, his dying head upon thos. A manger was ‘his cradle, and a cross his death bed. Thirty years he travelled from the sordid stable to the accursed tree, unnoticed by his own peculiar : people. In the brightest of his days, poor fishermen, some Galilean }women, and a company of shouting children, formed all his retinue. : Shepherds were his first attendants, and malefactors his last com- |Ppanions. : His first beatitude was, “ Blessed are the poor in spirit ;” and the jlast, “ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, jand say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.” His frst doctrine was, “ Repent :” nor was the last unlike to it: “If I have 612 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. . washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet, for I h given you an example that ye should do as I have done to : that will be first among you, let him be the least of all.” Now, f from practising with godly sincerity this last lesson of our humble Lor you do not so much as truly relish the first. Ye do not delight in, nay ye abhor penitential poverty of spirit. Your humility is not cordial, ar wrought into your nature by grace; but complimental, and wove! into your carriage by art. Ye are humble in looks, in gestures, i voice, in dress, in behaviour ; so far as external humility helps you secure the reputation of perfect Christians, at which ye aspire from motive of Pharisaic ambition: but ye continue strangers to the childlike simplicity, and unaffected lowliness of Christ’s perfect disciples. Yt are the very reverse of those “Israelites in whom there is no guile. Ye resemble the artful Gibeonites, who, for a time, imposed upo Joshua’s artless simplicity. Your feigned profession of special grace deceives those of God’s children, who have more of the simplicity of the dove than of the serpent’s wisdom. Ye choose the lowest place but ye do not love it. If ye’ cheerfully take it, it is not among you equals, but among your inferiors: because you think that such a cot descending step may raise the credit of your humility, without endanger ing your superiority. If ye stoop, and go down, it is not because see yourselves unworthy of the seat of honour; but because ye hop that people will by and by say to you, Come up higher. Your Pha saic cunning aims at wearing at once the coronet of genuine humilit and the crown of self-exalting pride. Ye love to be esteemed of men f your goodness and devotion: ye want to be admired for your exactnes zeal, and gracious attainments. The pride of the Jewish Pharisees w: coarse in comparison of yours. They wore the rough garment, and ye wear the silks of spiritual vanity; and even when ye dye them in th blood of the Lamb, which you extol in word, it is to draw the con dence of humble Christians by your Christian appearance and languag more than to follow the propensity of a new nature, which loves to clothed with humility, and feels itself in its own centre when it rests i deep poverty of spirit, and sees that God is “ all in all.” One of the greatest ends of Christ’s coming into the world, was empty us of ourselves, and to fill us with humble love ; but ye are st full of yourselves and void of Christ, that is, void of humility incarnat Ye still aim at some wrong mark ; whether it be self glory, self interes self pleasure, self party, or self applause. In a word, one selfish schem or another, contrary to the pure love of God and of your neighbor secretly destroys the root of your profession, and may be compared 1 the unseen worm that ate the root of Jonah’s gourd. Ye have a narrow contracted spirit: ye do not gladly sacrifice your private satisfactiol your interest, your reputation, your prejudices, to the general interest of truth and love, and to the public good of the whole body of Christ. ~ are in seeret bondage to men, places, and things. Ye do not hearti entertain the wisdom from above, which is pure, gentle, easy to be en- treated, and full of mercy. Nay, ye are above conviction: gross siM- ners yield to truth before you. Like Jehu, ye are zealous, and ye pretend that it is for the Lord of hosts: but alas! it is for your opinions, aq your party, your honour. In a word, ye do not walk in constant, solemn ; # ° LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 613 expectation of death and judgment; your will is not broken; your car- nal confidence is vet alive; the heavenly dove does not sit in your _ breast: self; wrapt up in the cloak of humility, is still set up in your hearts, and in secret you serve that cursed idol more than God. Satan, transformed into an angel of light, has artfully led you to the profession of Christian perfection through a circle of external performances, through glorious forms of doctrine in the letter, and through a fair show of zeal for complete holiness: the Lord, to punish your formality, has in part ‘given you up to your delusion; and now ye as much believe yourselves _ perfect Christians, as the Pharisees, in our Lord’s day, believed them- selves perfect Jews. , / Mr. Wesley, in his Plain Account of Christian Perfection, has borne his faithful testimony against such witnesses of perfect love as ye are. If ye despise this address, regard his remarks : “Others,” says he, “ who think they have the direct witness of their being renewed in love, are | Revertheless manifestly wanting in the fruit. Some are undoubtedly ‘Wanting in long suffering, Christian resignation. They do not see the hand of God in whatever occurs, and cheerfully embrace it. They do Mot ‘in every thing give thanks, and rejoice evermore.’ They are not happy; at least, not always happy. For sometimes they complain. ‘They say, ‘This is hard!’ Some are wanting in gentleness. They ‘resist evil,’ instead of turning the other cheek. They do not receive reproach with gentleness: no, nor even reproof. Nay, they are not able to bear contradiction without the appearance, at least, of resent- ment. If they are reproved, or contradicted, though mildly, they do not take it well. They behave with more distance and reserve than they did before, &c. Some are wanting in goodness. They are not kind, mild, sweet, amiable, soft, and loving at all times, in their spirit, in their words, in their look, in their air, in the whole tenor of their behaviour ; not kind to all, high and low, rich and poor, without respect of person ; particularly to them that are out of the way, to opposers, and to those of their own household. They do not long, study, endeavour, by every ‘means, to make all about them happy. Some are wanting in fidelity, a nice regard to truth, simplicity, and godly sincerity. Their love is hardly ‘ without dissimulation :” something like guile is found in their mouth. To avoid roughness, they lean to the other extreme. They are smooth to an excess, so as scarce to avoid a degree of fawning. Some are wanting in meekness, quietness of spirit, composure, evenness of temper. They are up and down, sometimes high, sometimes low; their mind is not well balanced. Their affections are either not in due proportion ; they have too much of the one, too little of the other; or they are not duly mixt and tempered together so as to counterpoise each other. Hence there is often a jar. Their soul is out of tune, and cannot make the true harmony. Some are wanting in temperance. ' They do not steadily use that kind and degree of food which they know, or might know, would most conduce to the health, strength, and vigour of the body. Or they are not temperate in sleep: they do not rigor- ously adhere to what is best for body and mind. They use neither fasting nor abstinence,” &c. _ Ihave described your delusion: but who can describe its fatal conse- quences? Who can tell the mischief it has done, and continues to do? | Z Y : have renounced my hopes, and I equally abhor the doctrine of evan. 614 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. ' The few sincere. perfectionists, and the multitude of captious imperfee. tionists, have equally found you out. The former are grieved for 7 and the latter triumph through you. When the sincere perfectionists consider the inconsistency of you r profession, they are ready to give up their faith in Christ’s all-cleansing blood, and their hope of i a clean heart in this life. They are tempted to follow the multitude of professors, who sit down in self imputed righteousness, or in Solifidian notions of an ideal perfection in Christ. And it is well if some of them have not already yielded to the temptation, and begun to fight against the hopes which they once enter- tained of loving God with all their hearts. It is well if some, through you, have not been led to say, “I once sweetly enjoyed the thought of doing the will of God on earth, as it is done in heaven. Once I hope fully prayed God would ‘so cleanse my heart, that I might perfectly love and worthily magnify his holy name’ in this world. But now gelical perfection, and that of evangelical worthiness. When I was a young convert, I believed that Christ could really make an end of all moral pollution, cast out the man of sin, and cleanse us from the sins of the heart as well as from outward iniquity in this life; but I soon met with unhumbled, self-willed people, who, boldly standing up for this glorious liberty, made me question the truth of the doctrine. Nay, in process of time, I found that some of those who most confidently pro- fessed to have attained this salvation, were farther from the gentleness, simplicity, catholic spirit, and unfeigned humility of Christ, than many believers, who had never considered the doctrine of Christian perfection These offences striking in with the disappomtment which I myself met with, in feebly seeking the pearl of perfect love, made me conclude that it can no more be found than the philosopher’s stone, and that they are all either fools or knaves, who set believers upon seeking it. And now I every where decry the doctrine of perfection as a dangerous delusion, I set people against it wherever I go; and my zeal in this respect ha been attended with the greatest success. I have damped the hopes of many perfectionists! And I have proselyted several to the doctrine of Christian imperfection. With them I now quietly wait to be purified from indwelling sin in the article of death, and to be made perfect i another world.” This is, I fear, the language of many hearts, although it is not openly spoken by many lips. ‘Thus are you, O ye perfect Pharisees, the great instruments by which the tempter tears away the shield of those un settled Israelites, who look more at your inconsistencies than they doa the beauty of holiness, the promise of God, the blood of Christ, and thi power of the Spirit. rf But this is not all; as ye destroy the budding faith of sincere perfec- tionists, so ye strengthen the unbelief of the Solifidians. Through you their prejudices are grown up into a fixed detestation of Christian per-_ fection. Ye have hardened them in their error, and furnished them with plausible arguments to destroy the truth which ye contend for. Did ye never hear their triumphs? “Ha! ha! So would we have it! These are some of the people who stand up for sinless perfection! They are all alike. Did not I tell you that you would find them out . a LAST CHECK Tu ANTINOMIANISM. 615 be no better than temporary monsters? What monstrous pride! What touchiness, obstinacy, bigotry, and stoicism characterizes them! How do they strain at gnats and swallow camels! I had rather be an open drunkard than a perfectionist. Publicans and harlots shall enter into the kingdom of heaven before them.” These are the cutting speeches to which your glaring inconsistency, and the severe prejudices of our opponents, give birth. Is it not deplorable that your tempers should thus drive men to abhor the doctrine which your lips recommend ? _ And what do you get by thus dispiriting the real friends of Christian ' perfection, and by furnishing its sworn enemies with such sharp weapons against it? Think ye that the mischief ye do shall not recoil upon yourselves? Is noi Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever? If he detested the perfect Pharisaism of unhumbled Jews, will he admire the perfect self-righteousness of aspiring Christians? If he formerly “ resisted the proud, and gave grace to the humble,” what rea- son have ye to hope that he will submit to your spiritual pride, and reward your religious ostentation with a crown of glory? Ye perhaps cry out against Antinomianism, and J commend you for it: but are ye not deeply fainted with the worst sort of Antinomianism—that which starches, stiffens, and swells the soul? Ye justly bear your testimony against those who render the law of Christ of none effect to believers, by “degrading it into a rule which they stripped of the punitive and remunerative sanctions with which it stands armed in the sacred records. But are ye not doubly guilty, who maintain that this law is still in force as a law, and neverthe- less refuse to pay it sincere, internal obedience? For when ye break the first commandment of Christ’s evangelical law, by practically dis- | carding penitential “poverty of spirit ;” and when ye transgress the last, by abhorring the lowest place, by disdaining to “ wash each other’ s | feet,’ and by refusing to “prefer others in honour before yourselves ;? are ye not guilty of breaking all the law by breaking it in one point,— | im the capital point of humble love, which runs through all the paris of the law, as vital blood does through all the parts of the body? O how much more dangerous is the case of an unhumbled man, who stiffly | walks in robes of self-made perfection, than that of an humble man who through prejudice, and the force of example, meekly walks in robes of self-imputed righteousness ! Behold, thou callest thyself a perfect Christian, and restest in the evangelical law of Christ, which is commonly called the Gospel: thou makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, even the way of Christian perfection, being instructed out of the Gospel; and art confident that “ thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them who are in darkness, an instructer of the foolish, and a teacher of babes,” or imperfect believers ; having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Gospel. Thou therefore who feachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest, another should not break the law of Christ, through breaking it dis. honourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed through you among those who seek an occasion to blaspheme it, Romans ii, 17, &c. And think ye that ye shall escape the mghteous judgment of God? Haas Christ ’no woes but for the Jewish Pharisees? © be no longer ete. Before ye are punished by being here given up to a repro *. 616 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. bate mind, and by being hereafter cast into the hell of hypocrites, the outer darkness where there will be more weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth than in any other hell! Before ye are overtaken by the awfu hour of death, and the dreadful day of judgment, practically learn that Christian perfection is the mind which was in Christ, especially his humble, meek, quiet mind ; his gentle, free, loving spirit. Aim at it Dy sinking into deep self abhorrence ; and not by using, as ye have hitherta done, the empty talk and profession of Christian perfection as a step to reach the top of spiritual pride. Mistake me not: I do not blame you for holding the doctrine of Chris. tian perfection, but for wilfully missing the only way that leads to it; mean the humble, meek, and lovi ing Jesus, who says, “I am the way, and the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved into so great salvation. He that entereth not by this door into this sheep fold, but climbeth up some other way, [and especially he that climbeth by the way of Pharisaic formality,] the same is a thief and a robber :” he rob Christ of his glory, and pretends to what he has no more right to than a thief has to your property. Would ye then be right? Do not cast away the doctrine of an evangelically sinless holiness; but contend more for it with your heart than with your lips. With all your soul press after such a perfection as Christ, St. Paul, and St. John taught and exemplified; a perfection of meekness and humble love. Earnesth believe all the woes which the Gospel denounces against self-righteous Pharisees, and all the blessings which it promises to perfect penitents Drink less into the letter, and more into the Spirit of Christ, till, like @ fountain of living water, it spring up to everlasting life in your heart. Ye have climbed to the Pharisaic perfection of Saul of Tarsus, when, “touching the righteousness of the law, he was blameless.” Would ye now attain the evangelical perfection which he was possessed of, when he said, “Let us, as many as are perfect, be thus minded?” Only follow him through the regeneration: fall to the dust before God; rise conscious of the blindness of your heart, meekly deplore it with pent. tential shame; and if you follow the directions laid down in the thire address, I doubt not but, dangerous as your case is at present, you wil be, like St. Paul, as eminent for Christian perfection, as you ha’ hitherto been for Pharisaic formality. SECTION XVIII. An address to prejudiced imperfectionists. I rear that, next to the persons whom I have just addressed, ye m jure the cause of holiness, O ye believers, who have been deluded into doctrinal Antinomianism, by the bad arguments which are answered 1 the preceding pages. Permit me therefore to address you next: nor suffer prejudice to make you throw away this expostulation, before you have granted if a fair perusal. Ye directly or indirectly plead for the necessary continuance of in. dwelling sin in your own hearts, and in the hearts of all true Christians. But may I be so bold as to ask, Who gave you leave so to do? And LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 617 when were ye commissioned to propagate this unholy gospel? Was it at your baptism, when ye were ranked among Christ’s soldiers, and received a Christian name, in token that ye would “keep God’s holy will and commandments all the days of your life?” And that you would “not be ashamed to fight manfully against the world, the flesh, and the devil, unto your life’s end?” Are not these three enemies strong enough sufficiently to exercise your patience, and to try your warlike skill to _ the last? Did your sponsors promise for you that you would quarter a fourth enemy, called indwelling sin, in your very breast, lest ye should not have enemies enough to fight against? On the contrary, were ye not exhorted “utterly to abolish the whole body of sin?” If so, is it not strange that ye should spend part of your precious time in pleading, under various pretexts, for the preservation of heart sin, a sin this, which ives life, warmth, and vigour to the whole body of sin? And is it not _ deplorable that, instead of conscientiously fulfilling your baptismal engage- _ meats, ye should attack those who desire to fulfil them by seeking to have _ the whole body of sin” utterly abolished ? _ But ye are, perhaps, ministers of the Established Church : and; in this case, I ask, When did the bishop send you upon this strange warfare ? Was it at your confirmation, in which he bound upon you your solemn obligations to “keep God’s holy will and commandments” so as utterly “to abolish the whole body of sin?” Is it probable that he commissioned you to pull down what he confirmed, and to demolish the perfection which he made you vow to attain, and to “ walk in all the days of your life ?” If the bishop gave you no such commission at your confirmation, did he do it at your ordination, when he said, “ Receive authority to preach the word of God?” Is there no ae between “the word of God,” which cuts up all sin, root and branch, and the word of Satan, which asserts the propriety of the continuance of heart sin during the term of life? If not, did the bishop do it when he exhorted and charged you “never to cease your labour, care, and diligence, till you have done all that lieth in you, to bring all such as are committed to your charge to that agreement of faith, and that perfectness of age in Christ, | that there shall be no place left among you for error in religion or ' yiciousness in life ;” that is, I apprehend, till the truth of the Gospel and the love of the Spirit have perfectly purified the minds, and renewed the hearts of all your hearers? How can ye, in all your confessions and sacramental offices, renounce sin, the accursed thing which God abhors, and which obedient believers detest ; and yet plead for its life, its strength, its constant energy, so long as we are in this world? We could better bear with you, if ye appro- priated a hand or a foot, an eye or an ear to sin, during the term of life; but who can bear your pleas for the necessary continuance of sin in the heart? Is it not enough that this murderer of Christ, and of all mankind, rambles about the walls of the city? Will ye still insinuate that he must have the citadel to the last, and keep it garrisoned with filthy lusts, base affections, bad tempers, or “ diabolonians,” who, like prisoners, show themselves at the grate : and “ like snakes, toads, and wild beasts, are the fiercer for being confined?” Who has taught you thus to represent Christ as the keeper, and not the destroyer of our corruptions ? If believers be truly willing to get rid of sin, but cannot, because Christ 618 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. has bolted their hearts with an adamantine decree, which prevents sit from being turned out: if he have irrevocably given leave to indwelling sin, to quarter for life in every Christian’s heart, as the king of France, in the last century, gave leave to his dragoons to quarter for some months in the houses of the poor, oppressed Protestants, who does not see that Christ may be called the protector of indwelling sin, rather than its enemy ? , Ye absurdly complain that the doctrine of Christian perfection does not exalt our Saviour, because it represents him as radically saying his obe-_ dient people from their indwelling sin in this life. But are ye not guilty of the very error which ye charge upon us, when ye insinuate that he” cannot or will not say to our inbred sins, “ Those mine enemies which will not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before — me?” Ifacommon judge has power to pass sentence of death upon all _ the robbers and murderers who are properly prosecuted; and if they — are hanged and destroyed in a few days, weeks, or months, in consequence of his sentence, how strangely do ye reflect upon Christ, and revive the Agag within us, when ye insinuate that he, the Judge of all, who was “manifested for this very purpose, that he might destroy the works of the devil,” so far forgets his errand, that he never destroys indwelling sin in one of his willing people, so long as they are in this world, although that sin is the capital and most mischievous “ work of the devil ?” Your doctrine of the necessary continuance of indwelling sin in all faithful believers traduces not only the Son of man, but also the ador- able trinity. The Father gives his only begotten Son, his Isaac, to be crucified, that the ram, sin, may be offered up and slam. But you insinu- ate that the life of that cursed ram is secured by a decree, which allots it the heart of all believers for a safe retreat, and a warm stable, so lone as we are in this world. You represent the Son as an almighty Saviour, who offers to “make us free” from sin; and yet appoints that the gall. ing yoke of indwelling sin shall remain tied to, and bound upon our very hearts for life. Ye describe the Holy Ghost as a Sanctifier, who applies Christ’s all-cleansing blood to the believer’s heart ; filling it with the oil of holiness and gladness: and yet ye suppose that our hearts must necessarily remain “desperately wicked,” and full of indwelling sin! Is it right to pour contempt upon Christianity, by charging such inconsistencies upon Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ? : It can hardly be expected that those, who thus misrepresent then God, should do their neighbour justice. Hence the liberty which ye take to fix a blot upon the most holy characters. What have the pro- phets and apostles done to you that ye should represent them, not only as men who had hearts partly evil to the last, but also as advocates for the necessary indwelling of sin in all believers till death? And why do ye so eagerly take your advantage of holy Paul in particular, and eateh at sold under sin,” even when ‘he expected “a crown of righteousness at the hand of his righteous Judge,” for having “ finished his course with the just men made perfect?” Nay, what have we done to you, that ye should endeavour to take from us the greatest comfort we have in fight-— ing against the remains of sin? Why will ye deprive us of the pleasing and purifying hope of taking the Jericho which we encompass, and kill. LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 619 . ing the Goliath whom we attack? And what has indwelling sin done for that ye shouid still plead for the propriety of its continuance in our hearts? Is it not the root of all outward sin, and the spring of all the of iniquity, which carry desolation through every part of the ? If ye hate the fruit, why do ye so eagerly contend for the neces- Sary continuance of the root? And if ye favour godliness, (for many of you undoubtedly do,) why do you put such a conclusive argument as this into the mouths of the wicked: “’These good men contend for a propriety of indwelling sin, that grace may abound : and why should we not plead for the propriety of outward sin for the same important | reason? Does not God approve of an honest heart, whieh scorns to cloak the inward iniquity with outward demureness ?” _ _ Mr. Hill has lately published an ingenious dialogue, called, A Lash to \ usiasm, in which, (p. 26,) he uses an argument against pleading for ewarmness, which, with very little variation, may be retorted against his plea for indwelling sin :—* Suffer me,” says he, “to put the senti- | ments of such persons [as plead for the middle way of lukewarmness] into the form of a prayer, which we may suppose would run in some | such expressions as the following: ‘O Lord, thy word requires that I ‘should love thee with all my heart, with all my mind, with all my soul, | and with all my strength; that I should renounce the world, [and edwelling sin,} and should present myself as a holy, reasonable, and | lively sacrifice unto thee: but, Lord, these are such over-righteous | extremes [and such heights of sinless perfection] as I cannot away with ; | and therefore grant that thy love, and a moderate share of the love of the world, [or of indwelling sin,] may both reign [or at least continue] in my heart at once. I ask it for Jesus Christ’s sake, Amen.’” Mr. ) Hill justly adds, « Now, dear madam, if you are shocked at such a | petition, consider that it is the exact language of your own heart while | you can plead for what you call the middle way of religion.” And I beg leave to take up his own argument, and to add, with equal propriety, _ Now, dear sirs, if you are shocked at such a petition, consider that it is the exact language of your own heart while ye can plead for what ye eall indwelling sin, or the remains of sin.” _ Nor can I see what ye get by such a conduct. The excruciating thorn of indwelling sin sticks in your hearts; we assert that Christ can and will extract it, if ye plead his promise of “ sanctifying you wholly in soul, body, and spirit.” But ye say, “ This cannot be; the thorn must stay in till death extract it; and the leprosy shall cleave to the walls till the house is demolished.” Just as if Christ, by radically cleansing the lepers in the days of his flesh, had not given repeated proofs of the absurdity of your argument! Just as if part of the Gospel were not, “ The lepers are cleansed,” and, “if the Son make you free, ye shall be free indeed !” . _ If ye get nothing in pleading for Christian imperfection, permit me to you what you lose by it, and what ye might get by steadily going on ‘0 perfection. _ 1. If ye earnestly aimed at Christian perfection, ye would have a bright testimony in your own souls fhat you are sincere, and that ye walk agreeably to your baptismal engagements. I have already observed, that some of the most pious Calvinists doubt if those who do not pursue 620 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM, Christian perfection are Christians at all. Hence it follows, that th more earnestly you pursue it, the stronger will be your confidence th you are upright Christians ; and when ye shall be perfected im love, } shall have that evidence of your sincerity which will perfectly “ cast o servile fear, whftch hath torment,” and nourish the filial fear which he safety and delight. It is hard to conceive how we can constantly enjo the full assurance of faith, out of the state of Christian perfection. Fo so long as a Christian inwardly breaks Christ’s evangelical law, he % justly condemned in his own conscience. If his heart do not conde: him for it, it is merely because he is asleep in the lap of Antinomianism On the other hand, says St. John, “If our heart condemn us, God | greater than our heart, and knoweth all things” that make for ¢ condemnation. But if we “love in deed and in truth,” which none bt the perfect do at all times, “ hereby we know that we are of the tru and shall assure our hearts before him,” 1 John iti, 19, 20. 2. The perfect Christian, who has left all to follow Christ, is peculi near and dear to God. He is, if I may use the expression, one of God favourites ; and his prayers are remarkably answered. This will app to you indubitable, if ye can receive the testimony of those who 2 perfected in obedient love. “ Behold,” say they, “ whatsoever we as we receive of him; because we keep his commandments, and do tho: things which are pleasing in his sight ;” that is, because we are perfecte in obedient love, 1 John iii, 22. This peculiar blessing ye lose despising Christian perfection. Nay, so great is the union which subsis between God and the perfect members of his Son, that it is compared | dwelling in God, and having God dwelling in us, in such a manner thi the Father, the Son, and the Comforter, are said to make their al with us. “At that day [when ye shall be perfected in one] ye shi know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and J in you. If a ma love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him; ai we will come to him, and make our abode with him,” John xiv, 20, 2 Again: “ He that keepeth God’s commandments dwelleth in God, a God in him,” 1 John iii, 24.“ Ye are my [dearest] friends, if ye: whatsoever I command you,” [i. e. if ye attain the perfection of yo dispensation,] John xv, 14. Once raore :— Keep my commandment and I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comfort. that he may abide with you for ever,” John xiv, 15, 16. From thes scriptures it appears that, under every dispensation, the perfect, or th who keep the commandments, have unspeakable advantages, from wh the lovers of imperfection debar themselves. ly 3. Ye bring far less glory to God in the state of indwelling sin the ye would do if ye were perfected in love; for perfect Christians (othe things being equal) glorify God more than those who remain 0 inbred iniquity. Hence it is, that in the very chapter where our Lo so strongly presses Christian perfection upon his disciples, he say “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your goc works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven,” Matt. y, 16. “ Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit,” John xv, 8 It is true that the fruit of the perfeét is not always relished by men, who Judge only according to appearances; but God, who judges righte 1S judgment, finds it rich and precious ; and therefore the two mites which — LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 621 | the poor widow gave with a cheerful and perfect heart, were more | precious in his account, and brought him more glory, than all the money which the imperfect worshippers cast into the treasury, though some of them cast inmuch. Hence also our Lord commanded that the work of perfect love which Mary wrought when she anointed his feet for burial should be told for a memorial of her, wherever this [the Christian] Gospel should be preached in the whole world.” Such is the honour which the Lord puts upon the branches in him that bear fruit to perfection } 4, The perfect Christian (other things being equal) is a more useful member of society than the imperfect. Never will ye be such humble _men, such good parents, such dutiful children, such loving brothers, such loyal subjects, such kind neighbours, such indulgent husbands, and such faithful friends, as when ye shall have obtained the perfect sincerity of ‘obedience. Ye will then, in your degree, have the simplicity of the gentle dove, the patience of the laborious ox, the courage of the magnani- “Mmous lion, and the wisdom of the wary serpent, without any of its poison. In your little sphere of action ye will abound in “ the work of faith, the patience of hope, and the labour of love,” far more than ye did before : for a field properly weeded, and cleared from briers, is naturally more fruitful than one which is shaded by spreading brambles, or filled with indwelling roots of noxious weeds; it being a capital mistake of the spiritual husbandmen who till the Lord’s field in mystical Geneva, to Suppose that the plant of humility thrives best when the roots of in- dwelling sin are twisted round its root. __ 5. None but “just men made perfect are meet to be made partakers of the inheritance among the saints in light ;” an inheritance this, which ‘no man is fit for, till he has “ purified himself from the filthiness of the - flesh and spirit.” If modern divines, therefore, assure you that a believer, full of indwelling sin, has a full title to heaven, believe them not: for the Holy Ghost has said, that the believer who “ breaks the law of liberty ‘in one point, is guilty of all,” and that no defilement shall enter into hea- ven: and our Lord himself has assured us, that “the pure in heart shall see God,” and that they who are ready for that sight, “ went in with the bridegroom to the marriage feast of the Lamb.” And who is ready? Undoubtedly the believer whose lamp is trimmed and burning. But is a spiritual lamp trimmed, when its flame is darkéned by the black fungus of indwelling sm? Again: who shall be saved into glory, but the man whose “heart was washed from iniquity?” But is that heart washed, which continues full of indwelling corruption? Wo, therefore, be to the heathens, Jews, and Christians, who trifle away “the accepted time,” and die without being in a state of heathen, Jewish, or Christian perfection! They have no chance of going to heaven, but through the purgatory preached by the heathens, the Papists, and the Calvinists. _ And should the notions of these purgatories be groundless, it unavoidably follows, that unpurged or imperfect souls must, at death, rank with the unready souls whom our Lord calls “ foolish virgins,” and against whom the door of heaven will be shut. How awful is this consideration, my dear brethren! How should it make us stretch every nerve till we have attained the perfection of our dispensation! I would not encourage tor- menting fears in an unscriptural manner ; but I should rejoice if all who all Jesus Lorp, would mind his solemn ‘declarations, “J say unto you, - a é 622 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. '— my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, &c ; but I will fore warn you whom you shall fear: fear Him, who after he hath killed, ha power to cast into hell: yea, I say unto you, fear him,” who will bur in the fire of wrath those who harbour the indwelling man of sin, lest he should be utterly consumed by the fire of love. Should ye cry cut against this doctrine, and ask if all imperfe C Christians are in a damnable state? We reply, that so long as a Chris tian believer sincerely presses after Christian perfection, he is safe ; cause he is in the way of duty: and were he to die at midnight, before midnight God would certainly bring him to Cliistian perfection, or bring Christian perfection to him; for we “are confident of this very thi that Ife who hath begun a good work in them, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ, because they work out their salvation with fear an¢ trembling.” But if a believer fall, loiter, and rest upon former expe: riences ; depending upon a self-made, Pharisaical perfection, our chief message to him is that of St. Paul, “ Awake, thou that sleepest! Awake to righteousness, and sin not, for thou hast not the heart-purifying knowledge of God, which is eternal life. Arise from the dead;” cal for oil; “and Christ will give thee light.” Otherwise thou shalt she e the dreadful fate of the lukewarm Laodiceans, and of the foolish virgins, “ whose lamps went out,” instead of “shining more and more to the perfect day.” 6. This is not all: as ye will be fit for judgment, and a glorious heaven, when ye shall be perfected in love; so you will actually enjoy a gracious heaven in your own souls. You will possess “ within you the kingdom of God,” which consists in settled “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” But so long as ye neglect Christian per- fection, and continue sold under indwelling sin, ye not only risk the loss of the heaven of heavens, but ye lose a little heaven upon earth; for perfect Christians are so full of peace and love, that they “triumph Christ, with joy unspeakable, and full of glory, and rejoice in tribulation with a patience which has its perfect work.” Yea, they “count it all joy when they fall into divers trials ;” and such is their deadness to the world, that they “‘are exceeding glad when men say all manner of evil of them falsely for Christ’s sake.” How desirable is such a state! Ané who, but the blessed above, can enjoy a happiness superior to him who can say, “ I am ready to be offered up. The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law ; but, O death, where is thy sting?” Not in my heart, since “the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, whe walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. » Not in my mind, “ for te be spiritually minded is life and peace.” Now this peculiar happi nes: ye lose, so long as ye continue imperfect Christians. 3 7. But supposing a Christian, who dies in a state of Christian imper. fection, can escape damnation, and make shift to get to heaven ; it is certain that he cannot go into the glorious mansion of perfect Christians, nor shine among the stars of the first magnitude. The wish of my soul is, that, if God’s wisdom has so ordered it, imperfect Christians may one day rank among perfect Jews, or perfect heathens. But even upon this supposition, what will they do with their indwelling sn? Fora perfe act Gentile, and a perfect Jew, are “ without guile” according to their light, as well as a perfect Christian. Lean not then to the doctrine of the LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 623 continuance of indwelling sin till death. A doctrine this, on which _ a Socrates, or a Melchisedec, would be afraid to mention his heataen perfection, and eternal salvation. On the contrary, by Christian perfec- _ tion ye may rise to the brightest crowns of righteousness, and “ shine | like the sun in the kingdom of your Father.” O for a noble ambition to obtain one of the first seats in glory! O for a constant, evangelical | striving to have the most “abundant entrance ministered unto you into _ the kingdom of God!” O fora throne among these peculiarly redeemed | saints, who “ sing the new song, which none can learn” but themselves. _ It is not Christ’s to give those exalted thrones out of mere distinguishing || grace: no, they may be forfeited; for they shall be given to those for _ whom they are prepared ; and they are prepared for them who, evan- _ gelically speaking, are worthy: “'They shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy,” says Christ: and they shall “sit at my right hand, and at my left in my kingdom,” who shall be worthy of that honour: | “For them that honour me,” says the Lord, “I will honour. Be- | hold I come quickly: my reward is with me, and I will render to every man according to his works.” And what reward, think ye, will Christ give you, O my dear, mistaken brethren, if he find you still passing jests upon the doctrine of Christian perfection, which he so Strongly recommends? Still pleading for the continuance of indwelling | sin, which he so greatly abhors ? | 8. Your whole system of indwelling sim and imputed perfection stands upon two of the most dangerous and false maxims whith were ever advanced. ‘The first, which hegets Antinomian presumption, runs thus: “Sin cannot destroy us either in this world or in the world to come.” And the second, which is productive of Antinomian despair, is, «Sin cannot be destroyed in this world.” O how hard is it for those who worship where these syren songs pass for sweet songs of Zion, not to be drawn into one of these fatal conclusions! ‘“ What need is there of attacking sin with so much eagerness, since, even in the name of the Lord, I cannot destroy it? And why should I resist it with so much ‘watchfulness, since my eternal life and salvation are absolutely secured, | and the most poisonous cup of iniquity cannot destroy me, though I should ‘drink of it every day for months or years?” If ye fondly think that ye can neither go backward into a sinful, cursed Egypt, nor yet go forward into a sinless, holy Canaan ; how natural will it be for you to say, “ Soul, take thine ease,” and rest awhile in this wilderness on the pillow of self-imputed perfection? O! how many are surprised by the midnight ery in this Laodicean rest! What numbers meet death with a Solifidian “Lord! Lord!” in their mouths, and with indwelling sin in their hearts! And how inexpressible will be our horror, if we perceive our want of holiness and Christian perfection, only when it will be too late to attain ‘them! To conclude :— _ 9. Indwelling sin is not only “the sting of death,” but the very hell of hells, if I may use the expression: for a sinless saint in a local hell would dwell in a holy, loving God; and, of consequence, in a spiritual heaven: like Shadrach in Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace, he might have devouring flames curling about him; but, within him, he would still have the flame of Divine love, and the joy of a good conscience. But so much of indwelling sin as we carry about us, so much of indwell 624 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. ing hell ; so much of the sting which pierces the damned; so much | the spiritual fire which will burn up the wicked ; so much of the ne dying worm which will prey upon them; so much of the dreadful in ment which will rack them; so much of Satan’s image which ~ frighten them; so much of the characteristic by which the devil’s ck dren shall be distinguished from the children of God; so much of t black mark whereby the goats shall be separated from the sheep. plead therefore for the continuance of indwelling sin, is no better the to plead for keeping in your hearts one of the sharpest stings of de ath and one of the hottest coals in hell-fire. On the other hand, to a Christian perfection is to have the last feature of Belial’s image e from your loving souls, the last bit of the sting of death extracted fron your composed breasts, and the last spark of hell-fire extinguished i your peaceful bosoms. It is to enter into the spiritual rest whic remains on earth for the people of God; a delightful rest this, where your soul will enjoy a calm in the midst of outward storm; and wher your spirit will no longer be tossed by the billows of swelling pride, dis satisfied avarice, pining envy, disappointed hopes, fruitless cares, dubiou anxiety, turbulent anger, fretting impatience, and racking unbelief. is to enjoy that even state of mind in which all things will work togethe for your good. There your love will bear its excellent fruits during th sharpest winter of affliction, as well as in the finest summer of pros. perity. There you will be more and more settled in peaceful humility, There you will continually grow in a holy familiarity with the Friend of penitent sinners, and your prospect of eternal felicity will brighten every day.* ; Innumerable are the advantages which established, perfect Christian have over carnal, unsettled believers, who continue sold under indwelling sin. And will ye despise those blessings to your dying day, O ye pre- judiced imperfectionists? Will ye secure to yourselves the contrary curses? Nay, will ye entail them upon the generations which are yel unborn, by continuing to print, preach, or argue for the continuance of indwelling sin, the capital wo belonging to the devil and his angels God forbid! We hope better things from you; not doubting but the erre of several of you lies chiefly in your judgment, and springs from a understanding of the question, rather than from a malicious opposition té that “holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” With plea sure we remember and follow St. Jude’s loving direction: “Of som ie [the simple hearted, who are seduced into Antinomianism] haye com: passion, making a difference; and others [the bigots and obstinat seducers, who wilfully shut their eyes against the truth] save with fea hating even the garment spotted by the flesh :” although they will ne “a be ashamed to plead for the continuance of a defiling fountain of car * If the arguments and expostulations contained in these sheets be rational and Scriptural, is not Mr. Wesley in the right when he says, that ‘‘all preache should make a point of preaching perfection to believers, constantly, stron and explicitly :” and that ‘all believers should mind this one thing, and con ally agonize for it?” And do not all the ministers, who preach against Christiat perfection, preach against the perfection of Christianity, oppose holiness, ere st the sanctifying truth as it isin Jesus, recommend an unscriptural purgatory, p for sin, instead of striving against it, and delude imperfect Christians into dicean ease? LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 625 ae. in the very hearts of all God’s people. We are fully persuaded, v dear brethren, that we should wrong you, if we did not acknowledge t many of you have a sincere desire to be saved by Christ into all of heart and life ; and with regard to such imperfectionists, our complaint is, that their desire is “not according to knowledge.” If others of you, of a different stamp, should laugh at these pages, ‘od (still producing banter instead of argument) should continue to say, Where are your perfect Christians? Show us but one and we will jeve your doctrine of perfection ;” I shall just put them in mind of Peter's awful prophecy: “ Know this first, that there shall come in Jast days scoffers walking after their own [indwelling] lusts, and . , Where is the promise of his spiritual coming [to make an end of I thoroughly to purge his floor, and to burn the chaff with unquench- fire?] For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they from the beginning :” all believers are still carnal and sold under _as well as father Paul. And if such mockers continue to display prejudice by such taunts, I shall take the liberty to show them ir own picture, by pointing at those prejudiced professors of old, who concerning the most perfect of all the perfect, “ What sign showest 1ou, that we may receive thy doctrme? Come down from the cross, and \ we will believe.” O the folly and danger of such scoffs! “ Blessed he that sitteth not in the seat of the scornful,” and maketh much of them “that fear the Lord.” Yea, he is blessed next to them “that are “undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord, keep his testi- Monies, and seek him with their whole heart,” Psa. cxix, 1, 2. Should ye ask, “To what purpose do you make all this ado about Christian perfection ? Do those who maintain this doctrme live more holy and useful lives than other believers?” I answer :-— 1. Every thing being equal, they undoubtedly do, if they hold not the truth in unrighteousness; for the best principles, when they are cor- dially embraced, will always produce the best practices. But alas! too many merely contend for Christian perfection in a speculative, sys- }tematical manner. They recommend it to others with their lips, as a | point of doctrine which makes a part of their religious system ; instead } of following after it with their hearts, as a blessing which they must : attain, if they will not be found as unprepared for judgment as the fool- lish virgins. These perfectionists are, so far, hypocrites; nor should their fatal inconsistency make us to despise the truth which they con- tend for, any more than the conduct of thousands, who contend for the uth of the Scriptures, while they live in full opposition to the Scriptures, jought to make us despise the Bible. |} 2. On the other hand, some gracious persons, (like the pious and | inconsistent Antinomians, whom I have described in the preceding Check::,) speak against Christiaz perfection with their lips, but cannot help following hard after it with their hearts; and while they do so, they sometimes attain the thing, although they continue to quarrel with the name. These perfect imperfectionists undoubtedly adorn the Gos- \pel of Christ far more than the imperfect, hypocritical perfectionists whom I have just described ; and God, who looks at the simplicity of the heart more than at the consistency of the judgment, pities their mis- lakes and accepts their works. Vox. IL 40 ; _ | 626 . LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. But, (3.) Some there are, who both maintain doctrinally and prae tically the necessity of a perfect devotedness of ourselves to God. The hold the truth, and they hold it in wisdom and righteousness; their te pers and conduct enforce it, as well as their words and profession. A on this account, they have a great advantage over the two precedin classes of professors. Reason and revelation jointly crown the ortho doxy and faithfulness of these perfect perfectionists, who neither strength the hands of the wicked, nor excite the wonder of the judicious, by surdly pleading for indwelling sin with their lips, while they strive | work righteousness with their hands and hearts. If yeyeandidly wei this threefold distinction, I doubt not but ye will blame the irratio’ inconsistency of holy imperfectionists, condemn the immoral inconsi ency of unholy perfectionists, and agree with me, that the most exce Christian is a consistent, holy perfectionist. ; And now, my dear, mistakén brethren, take in good part these a solutions, expostulations, and reproofs; and give glory to God, by he lieving that he can and will yet save you to the uttermost from you evil tempers, if ye humbly come to him by Christ. Day and night as of him the new heart, which “keeps the commandments ;” and whe ye shall have received it, if you keep it with all diligence, sin shall m more pollute it, than it polluted our Lord’s soul, when he said, «If y _ keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love ; even as I have ke my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” Burn, in the mean time, the unhallowed pens, and bridle the rash tongues, with which y have pleaded for the continuance of sin till death. Honour us with # right hand of fellowship ; and like reconciled brethren let us at eve opportunity lovingly fall upon our knees together, to implore the hel of Him, who “can do far exceeding abundantly above all that we as or think.” Nor let us give him any rest, till he has perfected all ¢ souls in “the charity which rejoiceth in the truth” without prejudice, the obedience which keeps the commandments without reserve, and in th perseverance which finds that “sin keeping of them there is great reward Nothing but such a conduct as this can remoye the stumbling block which the contentions ye breed have laid in the way of a Deistical wor When the men, whom your mistakes have hardened, shall see that ye listen to Scripture and reason, who knows but their prejudices may su sside, and some of them may yet say, “See the good which arises friendly controversy! See how these Christians desire to be perfect in one! They now understand one another. Babylonish confusion is an end; evangelical truth prevails; and love, the most delicious fr of truth, visibly grows to Christian perfection.” God grant that, thro the concurrence of your candour, this may soon be the language of al those whom the bigotry of professors has confirmed in their prejudices against Christianity. ; a Should this plain address so far influence you, my dear brethren, as .to abate the force of your aversjon to the doctrine of pure love, or te stagger your unaccountable faith in a death purgatory ; and should ye seriously ask which is the way to Christian perfection, I entreat yo pass on to the next section, where, I hope, you will find a Scriptura .answer to some important questions, which, I trust, a few of you are by ‘this time ready to propose. i) LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 627 SECTION XIX. : An address to imperfect believers, who cordially embrace the doctrine of Christian perfection. Your regard for Scripture and reason, and your desire to answer the ends of God’s predestination, “‘ by being conformed to the image of his Son,” have happily kept or reclaimed you from the Antinomianism exposed in these sheets. Ye see the,absolute necessity of personally “fulfilling the law of Christ ;” your bosom glows with desire to “perfect holiness in the fear of God ;” and, far from blushing to be called perfectionists, ye openly assert that a perfect faith, productive of perfect love to God and man, is the pearl of great price, for which you are determined to sell all, and which (next to Christ) you will seek eatly and late, as the one thing needful for your spiritual and eternal welfare. Some directions, there- fore, about the manner of seeking this pearl, cannot but be acceptable to you, if they are Scriptural and rational; and such, I humbly trust, are those which follow :— 1. First, if ye would attain an evangelically sinless perfection, let your full assent to the truth of that deep doctrine firmly stand upon the evangelical foundation of a precept and a promise. A precept without ‘a promise would not sufficiently animate you; nor would a promise | without a precept properly bind you; but a Divine precept and a Divine ‘promise form an unshaken foundation. Let then your faith deliberately rest her right foot upon these precepts :— _ “Hear, O Israel—thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might, Deut. vi, 5. Thou shalt ‘not hate thy neighbour in thy heart. Thou shalt in any wise rebuke ‘thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. ‘Thou shalt not avenge, ‘nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people: but thou shalt ‘love thy neighbour as thyself. I am the Lord. Ye shall keep my statutes, Lev. xix, 17,18. And now, Israel, what does the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and With all thy soul, to keep the commandments of the Lord God, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy geod, &¢? Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff necked, Deut. x, 12, &c. Serve God with a perfect heart, and a willing mind: for the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth the imaginations of the thoughts,” 1 Chron. xxviii, 9. Should unbelief suggest that these are only Old Testament injunctions, trample upon the false suggestion, and rest the same foot of your faith upon the following New Testament precepts :—“ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. JI say unto you, Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; ao good to them that hate you, Gc, that ye may be the children of your Father who is in\heaven, &c. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect, Matt. v, 17, 44, &c. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, Matt. xix, 17. Bear ye one another’s | | ¢ — . 628 . LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ, Gal. vi, 2. This is my com mandment, that ye love one another as I have loved you, John xv, 12, He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law: for this, Thou shalt ne commit adultery, &c. Thou shalt not covet, and if theré be any othe commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt loz thy neighbour as thyself.’ Love worketh no ill, &e, therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law, Rom. xiii, 8,10. This commandment we have from him, that he who loves God, love his brother also, 1 John iv, 21 If ye fulfil the royal law, [how shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, do well. But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors, James ii, 8, 9. Circumcision is nothing, uncircumcision is nothing [comparatively speaking ; ;] but [unde; Christ] the keeping of the commandments of God [is the one thin needful,] 1 Cor. vii, 19. For the end of the’ commandment is charit out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned 1 Tim. i, 5. Though I have all faith, &c, and have not charity, I an nothing, 1 Cor. xill, 2. Whosoever shall keep the whole law [of liberty and yet offend in one point [in uncharitable respect of persons] he 1 guilty of all, &c. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judge by the law of liberty,” [which requires perfect love, and therefore make no allowance for the least degree of uncharitableness,] James ii, 10, 12 When the right foot of your faith stands on these-evangelical precept and proclamations, lest she should stagger for want of a promise evel way adequate to such weighty commandments, let her place her le foot upon the following promises, which are extracted from the Ol Testament: “’The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and th heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, Deut xxx, 6. I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord, at they shall be my people, and I will be their God, [in a new and peculia manner, | for they shall return unto me with their whole heart. shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. Aftei those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, an write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be m people, Jer. xxiv, 7; xxxi, 33. Then will I sprinkle clean water upa you, and ye shall be clean: from. all your filthiness and from all you idols will I cleanse you: a new heart also will I give you, and a ney spirit will I put within you: and | will take away the heart of ston out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will pu my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye sha keep my judgments and do them,” Ezek. xxxvi, 25-27. And let nobody suppose that the promises of the czreumeision of th heart, the cleansing, the clean water, and the Spirit, which are mentioned in these scriptures, and by which the hearts of believers are to be made new, and God’s law is to be so written therein, that they shall “ keep hi judgments and do them;” let none, I say, suppose that these gloriou: promises belong only to the Jews; for their full accomplishment peeu liarly refers to the Christian dispensation. Beside, if sprinklings of ti Spirit were sufficient, under the Jewishydispensation, to raise the plat of Jewish perfection in Jewish believers, how much more will the rey lation of “the horn of our salvation,” and the outpourings of the Spirit, raise the plant of Christian perfection in faithful, Christian believers! s = 4 ’ ; > LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 629 And that this revelation of Christ in the Spirit as well as in the flesh, effusions of the water of life, these baptisms of fire which burn up he chal of sin, thoroughly purge God’s spiritual floor, save us from all our uncleanness, and deliver us from all our enemies; that these bless- , 1 say, are peculiarly promised to Christians, is demonstrable by the ‘following cloud of New Testament declarations and promises :— _ “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,—for he hath raised up a horn, of salvation for us,—as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, —that we, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, might serve him without [unbelieving] fear, [that is, with perfect love,] in holiness d righteoushess before him all the days of our life, Luke i, 68, 75. ee: ed are the poor in spirit, who thirst after righteousness, for they Shall be filled, Matt. vy, 3, 6. If thou knewest the gift of God, &c, thou " wouldest have asked of him, and he would have giv en thee living water: and the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water “springing up to everlasting life, John iv, 10,14. Jesus stood and cried, Saying, Jf any man thirst, let him come to me and drink. He that _ believeth on me, [when I shall have ascended up on high to receive gifts - for men,] out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, [to cleanse “his soul, and keep it clean.] But this he spake of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive; for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, [in such a manner as to raise the plant of Christian perfec- tion,] because Jesus was not yet glorified,” [and his spiritual dispensa- tion was not yet fully opened,] John vii, 37, &c. Mr. Wesley, in his Plain Account of Christian Perfection, has published some excellent queries, and, proposed them to those who deny perfection to be attain- able in this life. They are close to the point, and therefore the two first attack the imperfectionists from the very ground on which I want you to stand. ‘Theyrun thus: “(1.) Has there not been a larger mea- sure of the Holy Spirit given under the Gospel than under the Jewish dispensation? If not, in what sense was the Spirit not given before Christ.was glorified? John vii, 39. (2.) Was that glory which followed | the sufferings of Christ, 1 Peter i, 11, an external glory, or an internal, _viz. the glory of holiness?” Always rest the doctrine of Christian per- fection on this Scriptural foundation, and it will stand as firm as revela- "tion itself. __ It is allowed on all sides that the dispensation of John the Baptist _ exceeded that of the other prophets, because it immediately introduced the Gospel of Christ, and because John was not only appointed to preach the baptism of repentance,” but also clearly to point out the _ very person of Christ, and to give knowledge of salvation to God’s people by the remission of sins, Luke i, 77; and nevertheless, John only pro- mised the blessing of the Spirit, which Christ bestowed when he had _ Teceived gifts for men. “TI indeed,” said John, “ baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I—he - shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” Matt. in, 44. _ Such is the importance of this promise, that it is particularly recorded not only by the three other evangelists, see Mark i, 8; Luke in, 16; and John i, 26, but also by our Lord himself, who said just before his _ ascension, “ John truly baptized with water, but = shall be baptized . with the Holy Ghost not many days hence,” Acts i, 5 630 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. So capital is this promise of the Spirit’s stronger influences to raise the rare plant of Christian perfection, that when our Lord speaks of t does aniong the stars. Thus, Acts i, 4, “ Wait,” says hes “ for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of me.” And again, Luke xxiv, 49, “ Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you.” Agreeably to this, St. Peter says, “Jesus being by the right hand ¢ God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this :” he has begun abundantly to fulfil « that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, that I will pour out [bestow a more abundant mea. sure] of my Spirit upon all flesh. Therefore repent and be baptized [i. e. make an open profession of your faith] in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ; for the promise is unto you and to your children, and to as many as the Lord our God shall call” to enjoy the full blessings of the Christian dispensation, Acts ii, 17, 33, 38. This promise, when it is received in its fulness, is undoubtedly the greatest of all the “ exceed. ing great and precious promises, which are given to us, that by them you might be partakers of the Divine nature,” [that is, of pure love and unmixed holiness,| 2 Peter i, 4. Have therefore a peculiar eye to it, and to these deep words of our Lord: “I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth [and power] whom the world knows not, &c, but ye know him, for he remaineth with you, and shall be in you, At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you: for if any man [i. e. any believer] love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come to hirn, and. make our abode with him,” John xiv, 15, 23: “ Which,” says Mr. Wesley, in his note on the place, “ implies such a large manifestation - of the Divine presence and love, that the former, in justification, is as nothing in comparison of it.” Agreeably to this the same judicious divine expresses himself thus in another of his publications: “These virtues [meekness, humility, and true resignation to God] are the only wedding garment; they are the lamps and vessels well furnished with oil. There is nothing that will do instead of them: they rust have their full and perfect work in you, or the soul can never be delivered from its fallen, wrathful state. There is no possibility of salvation but in this. And when the Lamb of God has brought forth his own meek- ness, &c, in our souls, then are our lamps trimmed, and our virgin hearts — made ready for the marriage feast. This marriage feast signifies the entrance into the highest state of union that can be between God and the soul in this life. ‘This birthday of the Spirit of love in our souls, whenever we attain it, will feast our souls with such peace and joy in God, as will blot out the remembrance of every thing that we called — peace or joy before.” 4 To make you believe this important promise with more ardour, con- sider that our Lord spent some of his last moments in sealing it with — his powerful intercession. After having prayed the Father to sanctify his disciples through the truth, firmly embraced by their faith, and LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 631 powerfully applied by his Spirit, he adds, “ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them who will believe on me through their word.” And what is it that our Lord asks for these believers ? Truly, what St. Paul asked for the imperfect believers at Corinth, “even their per- fection,” 2 Cor. xiii, 9. A state of soul this, which Christ describes thus :—“ That they all may be one, as thou Father art in’me, and I in thee, that they may be made one in us, &c, that they may be one as we are one: [| in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected in one, and that the world may know that thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me,” John xvii, 17, 23. Our Lord could not pray in yain: it is not to be supposed that the Scriptures are silent with respect to the effect of this solemn prayer, an answer to which was to give the world an idea of the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven, a specimen of the power which introduces believers into the state of Christian perfection; and therefore we read that on the day of pente- cost the kingdom of Satan was powerfully shaken, and, the kingdom of God, “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” began to come with a new power: then were thousands wonderfully converted, and clearly justified: then was the kingdom of heaven taken by force ; and the love of Christ and of the brethren began to burn the chaff of selfishness and sin with a force which the world had never seen before : see Acts 1, 42, &c. Some time after, another glorious baptism, or capital outpouring of the Spirit, carried the disciples of Christ farther into the kingdom of grace which perfects believers in one. And there- fore we find that the account which St. Luke gives us of them after this second, capital manifestation of the Holy Spirit, in a great degree answers to our Lord’s prayer for their perfection. He had asked “that they all might be one, and that they might be one as the Father and he are one, and that they might be perfected in one,” John xvii, 17, &c. And now a fuller answer is given to his deep request. Take it in the words of an ispired historian :—‘“ And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together, and they were [once more] filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word with [still greater] boldness ; and the multitude of them that believed were of one heart, and of one soul; neither said any of them, that aught of the things which he possessed were his own; but they had all things common, &c, and great grace was upon them ali!” Acts iv, 31-33. “Who does not see in this account a specimen of that grace which our Lord had asked for believers, when he had prayed that his disciples, and those who would believe on him through their word, might be “ per- fected in one ?” It may be asked here, whether “ the multitude of them that believed,” in those happy days, were all perfect in love? I answer, that if pure love had cast out all selfishness, and sinful fear from their hearts, they were undoubtedly “ made perfect in love :” but as God does not usually remove the plague of indwelling sin till it has been discovered and lamented ; and as we find, in the two next chapters, an account of the guile of Ananias and his wife, and of the partiality or selfish murmuring of some believers, it seems that those chiefly, who before were strong in the grace of their dispensation, arose then into sinless fathers; and that the first love of other believers, through the peculiar blessing of 632 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. Christ upon his infant Church, was so bright and powerful for a time, — that little children had, or seemed to have, the strength of young men and young men the grace of fathers. And, in this case, the account which St. Luke gives of the primitive believers ought to be taken with some restriction. Thus, while many of them were perfect, in love many might have the imperfection of their love only covered over by a land flood of peace and joy in believing. And, in this case, what is said of their being “all of one heart and mind, and of their having all things common,” &c, may only mean that the harmony of love had not ye been broken, and that none had yet betrayed any of the uncharitable ness for which Christians in after ages became so conspicuous. With respect to the “great grace which was upon them all,” this does not necessarily mean that they were all equally strong in grace; for grea unity and happiness may rest upon a whole family where the difference between a father, a young man, and a child, continues to subsist. However, it is not improbable that God, to open the dispensation of the Spirit, in a manner which might fix the attention of all ages upon its importance and glory, permitted the whole body of believers to take ai extraordinary turn together into the Canaan of perfect love, and show the world the admirable fruit which grows there, as the spies sent by Joshua took a turn into the good land of promise before they were settled in it, and brought from thence the bunch of grapes which astonished and spirited up the Israelites, who had not yet crossed Jordan. Upon the whole, it is, I think, undeniable, from the four first chapter of the Acts, that a peculiar power of the Spirit is bestowed upon believers under the Gospel of Christ ; that this power, through faith on our part, can operate the most sudden and surprising change in our souls; and that when our faith shall fully embrace the promise of full sanctification, or of a complete “circumcision of the heart in the Spirit,” the Holy Ghost, who kindled so much love on the day of pentecost, that all the primitive believers loved or seemed to love each other perfectly, will not fail to help us to love one another without sinful self seeking; and as soon as we do so, “ God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us,” 1 John iv, 12; John xiv, 23. rf Should you "ask, how many baptisms, or effusions of the sanctifying Spirit are necessary to cleanse a believer from all sin, and to kindle his soul into perfect love; -I reply, that the effect of a sanetifying truth depending upon the ardour of the faith with which that truth is em. braced, and upon the power of the Spirit with which it is applie should betray a want of modesty if I brought the operations of hes Holy Ghost, and the energy of faith, under a rule which is not expressly laid down in the Scriptures. If you ask your physician how many doses of physic you must take before all the erudities of your stomac can be carried off, and your appetite perfectly restored; he woul probably answer you, that this depends upon the nature of those crudities, the strength of the medicine, and the manner in which your constitution will allow it to operate ; and that in general you must repeat the dose, as you can bear, till the remedy has fully answered the desired end. I return a similar answer: if one powerful baptism of the Spi it “seal you unto the day of redemption, and cleanse you from all [moral] © filthiness,” so much the better. If two or more be necessary, the Lore LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 633 eam repeat them: “ His arm is not shortened, that it cannot save ;” nor is his promise of the Spirit stinted: he says, in general, “« Whosoever will, let him come and take of the water of life freely. If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more will your heavenly Father [who is goodness itself ] give his Holy [sancti- fying] Spirit to them that ask him!” I may, however, venture to say, im general, that before we can rank among perfect Christians, we must receive so much of the truth and Spirit of Christ by faith, as to have the pure love of God and man shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto us, and to be filled with the meek and lowly mind which was in Christ. And if one outpouring of the Spirit, one bright manifestation of the sanctifying truth, so empties us of self, as to fill us with the mind of Christ, and with pure love, we are undoubtedly Christians in the full sense of the word. From the ground of my soul I therefore subscribe to the answer which a great divine makes to the following objection :— _ “But some who are newly justified, do come up to this [Christian perfection :] what then will you say to these?” Mr. Wesley says with great propriety: “If they really do, I will say, they are sanctified, saved from sin in that moment ; and that they never need lose what God has given, or feel sin any more. But certainly this is an exempt’case. It is otherwise with the generality of those that are justified. They feel in themselves, more or less, pride, anger, self will, and a heart bent _to backslidmg. And till they have gradually mortified these, they are not fully renewed in love. God usually gives a considerable time for men to receive light, to grow in grace, to do and to suffer his will before they are either justified or sanctified. But he does not invari- ably adhere to this. Sometimes he ‘cuts short his work.’ He does the work of many years in a few weeks; perhaps in a week, a day, an hour. He justifies, or sanctifies both those who have done or suffered thing, and who have not had time for a gradual growth either in light é grace. And may he not ‘do what he will with his own? Is thine eye evil, because he is good? Jt need not therefore be proved by forty texts of Scripture, either that most men are perfected in love at last, or that there is a gradual work of God in the soul; and that, generally speaking, it is a long time, even many years, before sin is destroyed. All this we know. But we know, likewise, that God may, with man’s good leave, ‘cut short his work,’ in whatever degree he pleases, and do the usual work of many years in a moment. He does so in a great many instances. And yet there is a gradual work both before and afier that moment. So that one may affirm, the work is gradual ; another, it is instantaneous, without any manner of contradiction.” (Plain Account, page 115, &c.) Page 155, the same eminent Divine expiains himself more fully thus: “Jt [Christian perfection] is con- stantly preceded and followed by a gradual work. But is it in itself instantaneous or not? In examining this, let us go on step by step. An instantaneous change has been wrought in some believers. None can deny this. Since that change, they enjoy perfect love. They feel this, and this alone. They rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, in every thing give thanks. Now this is all that I mean by perfection. Therefore these are witnesses of the perfection which I preach. ‘But . 634 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. in some this change was not instantaneous.’ They did not percetve the instant when it was wrought; it is often difficult to perceive the instant when a man dies. Yet there is an instant in which life ceases, And if ever sin ceases, there must be a last moment of its existence, and a first moment of our deliverance from it. ‘ But if they have love now, they will lose it.” They may; but they need not. «4 whether they do or no, they have it now; they now experience what we teach. They now are all love. They now rejoice, pray, and praise without ceasing. ‘ However, sin is only suspended in them; it is not destroyed.’ Call it which you please. They are all love today; they take no thought for the morrow.” To return :— 2. When you firmly assent to the truth of the precepts and promises. on which the doctrine of Chuistian perfection is founded; when yot understand the meaning of these scriptures, “ Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth. I will send the Comforter, [the Spirit of truth and holiness,] unto you; God hath chosen you to [eternal] salvas tion through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth :” when you see that the way to Christian perfection is by the word of the Gos. pel of Christ, by faith, and by the Spirit of God; in the next place, ge tolerably clear ideas of this perfection. This is absolutely necessary If you will hit a mark, you must know where it is, Some people aim at Christian perfection; but mistaking it for angelical perfection, the shoot above the mark, miss it, and then peevishly give up their hopes Others place the mark as much too low; hence it is that you heat them profess to have attained Christian perfection, when they have no so much as attained the mental serenity of a philosopher, or the candou of a good-natured, conscientious heathen. In the preceding pages, if I am not mistaken, the mark is fixed according to the rules of Scrip. tural moderation. | It is not placed so high, as to make you despair of hitting it, if you do your best in an evangelical manner ; nor yet so low, as to allow you to presume that you can reach it, without exerting all your abilities to the uttermost, in due subordination to the efficacy o Jesus’ blood, and the Spirit’s sanctifying influences. 3. Should you ask, “‘ Which is the way to Christian perfection? Shall we go on to it by internal stillness, agreeably to this direction of Moses and David? ‘The Lord will fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace; stand still and see the salvation of God. Be still and know that I am God. Stand in awe and sin not; commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still.” Or shall we press after it by an internal wrest. ling, according to these commands of Christ? ‘Strive to enter in at the strait gate: the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the vie lent take it by force.’ ” “&e. According to the evangelical balance of the doctrines of free race and free will, I answer, that the way to perfection is by the due combi- nation of prevenient, assisting free grace; and of submissive, assisted free will. Antinomian stillness, therefore, which says that free g not all, is not the way. Join. these two partial systems, allowing fi ee grace the lead and high pre-eminence which it so justly claims, and you have the balance of the two Gospel axioms. You do justice to” the doctrines of mercy and justice, of free grace and free will, » °. LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. : 635 Divine faithfulness in keeping the covenant of grace, and of human faithfulness in laying hold on that covenant, and keeping within its gounds : in short, you have the Scripture method of waiting upon God, ich Mr. Wesley describes thus :— Restless, resign’d, for God I wait, ‘ For God my vehement soul stands still. To understand these lines, consider that faith, like the Virgin Mary, ernately a receiver and a bestower : first, it passively receives the ation of Divine grace, saying, “ Behold the handmaid of the : let it be done to me according to thy word ;” and then it actively forth its heavenly fruit with earnest labour. “God worketh mn to will and to do,” says St. Paul: here he describes the passive office of faith, which submits to, and acequiesces in every dispensation Noperation. “Therefore work out your salyation with fear and ” and, of consequence, with haste, diligence, ardour, and faith- fulness : here the apostle describes ihe active office of that mother which carefully lays out the talent she has already received. Would you then wait aright for Christian perfection ? Impartially ad- Mit the Gospel axioms, and faithfully reduce them to practice. In order to this, let them meet in your hearts, as the two legs of a pair of passes meet in the rivet, which makes them one compounded i in- _-strument. Let your faith in the doctrine of free grace and Christ’s righteousness fix your mind upon God as you fix one of the legs of your compasses immovably in the centre of the circle which you are about to draw: so shall you “stand still,” according to the first text produced in the question, and then let your faith m the doctrine of free will, and evangelical obedience, make you steadily run the circle of duty round that firm centre: so shall you imitate the other leg of the com- passes, which evenly moves around the centre, and traces the circum- ference of a perfect circle. By this activity, subordinate to grace, you | will “take the kingdom of heaven by force.” When your heart quietly | rests in God by faith, as it steadily acts the part of a passive receiver, | it resembles the leg of the compasses which rests in the centre of the | eircle ; and then the poet’s expressions, “ restless—resigned,” describe | its fixedness in God. But when your heart swifily moves toward God Dy faith, as it acts the part of a diligent worker, when your ardent soul follows after God as a thirsty deer does after the water brooks, it may be compared to the leg of the compasses which traces the cireumfer- | ence of the circle; and then these words of the poet, “restless and = properly belong to it. To go on steadily to perfection, you must therefore endeavour steadily to believe. according to the doctrine of the first Gospel axiom; and (as there is opportunity) diligently to according to the doctrine of the second; and the moment your Is steadily fixed in God as in your centre, and your obedience } moves in the circle of duty from the rest and power which you : find in that centre you have attained, you are made perfect in the faith } i which works by love. Your humble faith saves you from Pharisaism, your obedient love from Antinomianism, and both, in due subordination to Christ, constitute you a just man made perfect according to your ion. 4, Another question has also puzzled many sincere perfectionists ; and . 636 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM the solution of it may remove a considerable hinderance out af way :—Is Christian perfection,” say they, “to be anstantane brought down to us, or are we gradually to grow up to it? be made perfect in love by a habit of holiness suddenly infused into’us, or by acts of feeble faith and feeble love so frequently repeated as to be- come strong, habitual, and evangelically natural to us, according to well-known maxim, A strong habit is a second nature?” 7 Both ways are good; and instances of some believers gradually per. fected, and of others [comparatively speaking] znstantaneously fixed i in perfect love, might probably be produced, if we were acquainted with the experiences “of all those who have died in a state of evangelical per fection. It may be with the root of sin, as it is with its fruit: some souls parley many years before they can be persuaded tq give up all their outward sins, and others part with them, as it were, instantaneously, You may compare the former to those besieged towns which make a long resistance, or to those mothers who go through a tedious and lingering labour : and the latter resemble those fortresses which are sur- prised and carried by storm ; or those women who are delivered almost as soon as labour comes upon them. ‘Travellers inform us that vegeta. tion is so quick and powerful in some warm climates, that the seeds of some vegetables yield a salad in iess than twenty-four hours. Should a northern philosopher say, “Impossible!” and should an English gare dener exclaim against such mushroom sallad, they would only expose their prejudices, as do those who decry instantaneous justification, or mock at the possibility of the instantaneous destruction of indwelling sin, For where is the absurdity of this doctrine? If the light of a candle brought into a dark room can instantly expel the darkness ; and if, upon opening your shutters at noon, your gloomy apartment can instantane- ously be filled with meridian light; why may not the instantaneous rending of the veil.of unbelief, or the sudden and full opening of your faith, instantly fill your soul with the light of truth, and the fire of love; supposing the Sun of righteousness arise upon you with powerful heal- ing in his wings? May not the Sanctifier descend upon your waiting soul, as quickly as the Spirit descended,upon your Lord at his baptism Did it not descend “ as a dove,” that is, with the soft motion of a dove, which swiftly shoots down, and instantly lights? A good man said once, with truth, “A mote is little, when it is compared with the sun; but I am far less before God.” Alluding to this comparison, I ask, If the sun could instantly kindle a mote ; nay, if a burning glass can in a moment calcine a bone, and turn a stone to lime; and if the dim flame of a candle can in the twinkling of an eye destroy the flymg insect which comes within its sphere, how unscriptural and irrational is it to suppose that, when God fully baptizes a soul with his sanctifying Spirit and with the celestial fire of his love, he cannot in an instant destroy the man of sin, burn up the chaff of corruption, melt the heart of stone into a heart of flesh, and kindle the believing soul into pure, seraphic love ! ~ An appeal to parallel cases may throw some light upon the question which I answer. If you were sick, and asked of God the perfect reco-— very of your health, how would you look for it? Would you expect to” have your strength restored to you at once, without any external means,” 2s the lepers who were instantly cleansed; and as the paralytic, who at LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 637 Lord’s word took up the bed upon which he lay, and carried it away his shoulders? Or by using some external means of a slower opera- as the “ ten lepers” did, who were more “ gradually cleansed as they to show themselves to the priests?’ Or as King Hezekiah, whose but equally sure recovery, was owing to God’s blessing upon | i poultice of figs prescribed by isitah ? Again: if you were blind, | and besought the Lord to give you perfect human sight, how should | you wait for it? As Bartimeus, whose eyes were opened in an instant ? as the man who received his sight by degrees? At first he saw “nothing ; by and by he confusedly discovered the objects before him, | but at last he saw all things clearly. Would ye not earnestly wait for | am answer to your prayers now, leaving to Divine wisdom the particular | manner of your recovery? And why should ye not go and do likewise with respect to the dreadful disorder which we call indwelling sin? heed If our hearts be purified by faith, as the Scriptures expressly testify _ if the faith which peculiarly purifies the hearts of Christians be a faith “in “the promise of the Father,” which promise was made by the Son and directly points at a peculiar effusion of the Holy Ghost, the purifier | of spirits; if we may believe in a moment; and if God may, in a | moment, seal our sanctifying faith by sending us a fulness of his sancti- fying Spirit: if this, I say, be the case, does it not follow, that to deny _ the possibility of the instantaneous destruction of sin, is to deny, con- trary to Scripture and matter of fact, that we can make an instantaneous act of faith in the sanctifying promise of the Father, and in the all- cleansing blood of the Son, and that God can seal that act by the instan- taneous operation of his Spirit? which St. Paul calls the “ circumcision of the heart in [or by] the Spint,” according to the Lord’s ancient pro- mise, “I will circumcise thy heart, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” Where is the absurdity of believing that “the God of all grace” can give an answer to the poet’s rational ‘and evangelical _ request ? Open my faith’s interior eye; Display thy glory from above: And sinful self shall sink and die, Lost in astonishment and love. If a momentary display of Christ’s bodily glory could, in an instant, turn Saul, the blaspheming, bloody persecutor, into Paul, the praying, gentle apostle ; if a sudden sight of Christ’s hands could in a moment Toot up from Thomas” heart that detestable resolution, “I will not be- lieve,” and produce that deep confession of faith, “ My Lord and my God !” what cannot the display of Christ’s spiritual glory operate in a believing soul, to which he manifests himself “ according to that power whereby he is able to subdue al] things to himself?” Again : if,Christ’s body could in an instant become so glorious on the mount, that his very garments partook of the sudden irradiation, became not only free from eyery spot, but also “white as the light, shining exceeding white as ‘snow; so as no fuller on the earth could whiten them ;” ‘and if our bodies “shall be changed, if this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and if this mortal shall put on immortality, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump ;” why may not our believing souls, when hey fully submit to God’s terms, be fully changed—fully turned from 638 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. the power of Satan unto God? When the Holy Ghost says, “ Now i the day of salvation,” does he exclude salvation from heart iniquity? If Christ now deserves fully the name of Jesus, “ because he fully saves” his believing people from their sins;” and if now the Gospel trumpet sounds, and sinners arise from the dead, why should we not, upon the — performance of the condition, be ‘changed in a moment from indwelling | sin to indwelling holiness? Why should we not pass, in the twinkling © of an eye, or in a short time, from indwelling death, to indwelling life? This is not all. If you deny the possibility of a quick destruction of — indwelling sin, you send to hell, or to some unscriptural purgatory, not — only the dying thief, but also all those martyrs who suddenly embraced the Christian faith, and were instantly put to death by bloody persecutors, for confessing the faith which they had just embraced. And if you allow that God may “cut his work short in righteousness” in such case, _ why not in other cases? Why not, especially “when a believer confesses his indwelling sin, ardently prays Christ would, and sincerely believes that Christ can, “ now cleanse him from all unrighteousness ?” Nobody is so apt to laugh at the instantaneous destruction of sin as the Calvinists, and yet (such is the inconsistency which characterizes some men!) their doctrine of purgatory is built upon it. For, if you credit them, all dying believers have a nature which is still morally cor. rupted, and a heart which is yet desperately wicked. These believers, still full of indwelling sin, instantaneously breathe out their last, and, without any peculiar act of faith, without any peculiar outpouring of the sanctifying Spirit, corruption is instantaneously gone. The indwelling “man of sin” has passed through the Geneva purgatory, he is entirely consumed! And behold! the souls which would not hear of the instan- taneous act of a sanctifying faith, which receives the indwelling Spirit of holiness—the souls which pleaded hard for the continuance of in- dwelling sin, are now completely sinless; and, in the twinkling of an eye, they appear in the third heaven among the spirits of just Christians made perfect in love! Such is the doctrine of our opponents: and yet they think it incredible that God should do for us, while we pray in faith, what they suppose death will do for them, when they lie in his cold arms, perhaps delirious or senseless! On the other hand, to deny that imperfect believers may and do gradually grow in grace, and of course that the remains of their sins may, and do gradually decay, is as absurd as to’deny that God waters the earth by daily dews, as well as by thunder showers: it is as ridicu- lous as to assert that nobody is carried off by lingering disorders, but that all men die suddenly or a few hours after they are taken ill. I use these comparisons about death, to throw some light upon the — question which I solve, and not to insinuate that the decay and destruc. tion of sin run parallel with the decay and dissolution of the body, and that of course sin must end with our bodily life. Were I to admit this unscriptural tenet, I should build again what I have all along endeavoured ~ to destroy, and, as I love consistency, I should promise eternal salvation to all unbelievers; for unbelievers, I presume, will die, i. e. will go into” the Geneva purgatory, as well as believers. Nor do I see why death — ‘ should not be able to destroy the van and the main body of sin’s forces, if it can so readily cut the rear (the remains of sin) in pieces. LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 639 _ From ‘he preceding observations it appears, that believers generally "go on to Christian perfection, as the disciples went to the other side of | the sea of Galilee. They toiled some time very hard, and with little | success. But after they had “rowed about twenty-five, or thirty fur- longs, they saw Jesus walking on the sea. He said to them, it is I, be ) noi afraid : : then they willingly received him into the ship, and imme- | diately the ship was at the land whither they went.” Just so, we toil “till our faith discovers Christ in the promise, and welcomes him into our hearts; and such is the effect of his presence, that immediately we ive at the land of perfection. Or, to use another illustration, God to believers, “Go to the Canaan of perfect love: arise, why do ye 1? Wash away the remains of sin, calling, i. e. believing, on the e of the Lord.” And if they submit to the obedience of faith, he om with them as he did with the Evangelist Philip, to whom he had - said, “ Arise and go toward the south.” For when they “arise and run,’ aga did, “the Spirit of the Lord takes” them, as he did the evan- Pe eclist ; and they are found in the New Jerusalem, as “Philip was found ee Azotus.” They “dwell m God, [or in perfect love,] and God [or perfect love] dwells in them.” ) Hence it follows, that the most evangelical method of following after - the perfection to which we are immediately called, is that of seeking it now, by endeavouring fully to lay hold on the promise of that perfection | through faith, just as if our repeated acts of obedience could never help us forward. But, in the meantime, we should do the works of faith, and repeat our internal and external acts of obedience with as much earnest- ness and faithfulness, according to our present power, as if we were sure to enter into rest merely by a diligent use of our talents, and a faithful exertion of the powers which Divine grace has bestowed upon us. If | we do not attend to the first of these directions, we shall seek to be sanctified by works like the Pharisees; and if we disregard the second, we shall fall into Solifidian stoth with the Antinomians. This double direction is founded upon the connection of the two Gos- pel axioms. If the second axiom, which implies the doctrine of free will, were false, I would only say, “ Be still, or rather do nothing ; free ' grace alone will do all in you and for you.” But as this axiom is as - true as the first, J must add, “Strive in humble subordination to free grace: for Christ-saith, ‘To him that hath’ initiating grace to purpose, '*more grace shall be given, and he shall have abundance: his faith- ful and equitable Benefactor will give him the reward of perfecting fia of | 5. Beware therefore of unscriptural refinements. Set out for the *Canaan of perfect love with a firm resolution to labour for the rest which _ remains on earth for the people of God. Some good, mistaken men, “wise above what is written. and fond of striking out paths which were _ unknown to the apostles,—new paths marked out by voluntary humility, | and leading to Antinomianism: some people of that stamp, I say, have . made it their business, from the days of heated Augustine, to decry _ making resolutions. They represent this practice as: a branch of what _ they are pleased to call legality. They insinuate that it is utterly incon- _ sistent with the knowledge of our inconstancy and weakness: in a word, _ they frighten us from the first step to Christian perfection; from an SS ee 640 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. humble evangelical determination to run till we reach the prize, or, you please, to go down till we come to the lowest place. It may be amiss to point out the ground of their mistake. Once they b - the balance of the Gospel axioms by leaning too much toward free w and by not laying their first and principal stress upon free grace. a to bring them to the evangelical mean, refused his blessing to their un- evangelical willing and running; hence it is that their self-righteou resolutions started aside like a broken bow. When they found out their mistake, instead of coming back to the line of moderation, they fled to the other,extreme. Casting all their weights into the scale of free grace, they absurdly formed a resolution never to form a resolution ; and, determining not to throw one determination into the scale of ee will, they began to draw all the believers they met with into the a of a slothful quietism and Laodicean stillness. 2 You will never steadily go on to perfection, unless you get over this mistake. Let the imperfectionists laugh at you for making humble resolutions ; but go on “steadfastly purposing to lead a new life,” as says our Church; and in order to this, “steadfastly purpose” to get new heart in the full sense of the word: for so long as your heart « tinues partly wnrenewed, your life will be partly unfoly. And, therefore, St. James justly observes that “if any man offend not in word, he is a perfect man,” he loves God with all his heart, his heart is fully renewed; it being impossible that a heart, still tainted in part with vanity and guile, should always dictate the words of sincerity and love. Your good reso- lutions need not fail: nor will they fail, if, under a due sense of the fickleness and helplessness of your unassisted free will, you properly depend upon God’s faithfulness and assistance. However, should they fail, as they probably will do more than once, be not discouraged, but repent, search out the cause, and, in the strength of free grace, let your assisted free will renew your evangelical purpose, till the Lord seals it with his mighty fiat, and says, “ Let it be done to thee according to thy resolving faith.” It is much better to be laughed at as “poor creatures, who know nothing of themselves,” than to be deluded as foolish virgins, who. fondly imagine that their vessels are full of imputed oil. Take therefore the sword of the Spirit, and boldly cut this dangerous snare im pieces. Conscious of your impotence, and yet laying out your talent of free will, say with the prodigal son, “I will arise and go to my father:” say with David, “I will love thee, O Lord my God: I wili behold thy face in righteousness: I am purposed that my mouth shall not trans- gress: I will keep it, as it were, with a bridle: I have said that I would keep thy word: the proud,” and they who are humble in an unscriptural way, “have had me exceedingly in derision, but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart. I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments :” say with St. Paul, “I am determin rot to know any thing save Jesus, and him crucified.” And with Jac “TJ will not let thee go, unless thou bless me!” And, to sum up all resolutions in one, if you are a member of the Church of England, «I have engaged to renounce all the vanities of this wicked world, all the sinful lusts of the flesh, and all the works of the devil: to believe a the articles of the Christian faith ; and to keep God’s conmvaanitiaslll sll the days of my life ;” that is, I have most solemnly resolved to be : a ¢ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 641 t.Christian. And this resolution I have publicly sealed by receiv- the two sacraments upon it: baptism, after my parents and sponsors laid me under this blessed vow: and the Lord’s Supper, after I had ‘personally ratified, in the bishop’s presence, what they had done. Nor do I only think that I am bound to keep this vow; but “ by God’s grace ‘so I will; and J heartily thank our heavenly Father, that he has called me to this state of salvation [and Christian perfection ;] and I pray unto to give me his grace, that I may not only attain it, but also continue ‘int the same unto my. life’s end.” (Church Catechism. ) _ “Much diligence,” says Kempis, “is necessary to him that will profit ‘much. If he who firmly purposeth, often faileth, what shall he do who ‘seldom or feebly purposeth any thing?” But, I say it again and again, do not lean upon your free will and good purposes, so as to encroach upon the glorious pre-eminence of free grace. Let the first Gospel axiom stand invariably im its honourable place. Lay your principal stress upon Divine mercy, and say with the good man, whom I have just quoted, “Help me, O Lord God, in ‘thy holy service, and grant that I May now this day begin perfectly.” __In following this method, ye will ny the two Gospel axioms justice : ye will so depend upon God’s free grace as not to fall into Pharisaic Tunning: and ye will so exert your own free will as not to slide into Antinomian sloth. Your course lies exactly between these rocks. To pass these perilous straits, your resolving heart must acquire a heavenly polarity. Through the spiritually magnetic touch of Christ, the corner ‘stone, your soul must learn to point toward faith and works, or, if you please, toward a due submission to free grace, and a due exertion of free will, as the opposite ends of the needle of a compass point toward the north and the south. 6. From this direction flows the following advice. Resolve to be perfect in yourselves, but not of yourselves: the Antinomians boast that they are perfect only in their heavenly representative. Christ was filled with perfect humility and love: they are perfect in his person: they need not a perfection of humble love in themselves. To avoid their error, be perfect in ‘yourselves and not in another: let your perfection of humility and love be inherent; let it dwell in you. Let it fill your |own heart and influence your own life: so shall you avoid the delusions ‘of the virgins, who give you to understand that the oil of their perfection lis all contained in the sacred vessel which formerly hung on the cross, ‘and therefore their salvation is finished, they have oil enough in that rich vessel; manna enough and to spare in that golden pot. Christ’s heart was perfect, and therefore theirs may safely remain imperfect, yea, full of in- dwelling sin, till death, the messenger of the bridegroom, come to cleanse 7a, and fill them with perfect love at the midnight cry! Delusive hope! | Can. any thing be more absurd than for a sapless, dry branch to fancy at it has sap and moisture enough in the vine which ‘it cumbers? or for an impenitent adulterer to boast that “in the Lord he has” chastity and usness? Where did Christ ever say, “ Have salt in another ?” he not say, “ Take heed, that ye be not deceived! Have salt in lyes?” Mark ix, 50. Does he not impute the destruction of stony d hearers to their “not having root in themselves?” Matt. xiii, 21. if it was the patient man’s comfort, that “the root of the matter was . Vox HH. 41 - i‘ ’ s ‘ e * 642 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. Sa found in him,” is it not deplorable to hear modern believers say, with any explanatory clause, that they have nothing but sin in themselves But is it enough to have “the root in ourselves?” © Must we not als have the fruit,—yea, “be filled with the fruits of righteousness? Phil. i, 11. Is it not St. Peter’s doctrine, where he says, “ If these thing be in you, and abound, ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in knowledge of Christ?” 2 Peter i, 8. And is it not that of David, wher he prays, “Create in me a clean heart,” &c? Away, then, with a Antinomian refinements! And if, with St. Paul, you will have salvatio and rejoicing in yourselves, and not in another, make sure of holines and perfection “in yourselves, and not in another.” But while you endeavour to avoid the snare of the iadlidoanisial d not run into that of the Pharisees, who will have their perfection 6 themselves ; and therefore, by their own unevangelical efforts, self-cor certed willings, and self-prescribed runnings, endeavour to “raise spam of their own kindling, and to warm themselves” by their own painte fires and fruitless agitations. Feel your impotence. Own that “1 man has quickened [and perfected] his own soul.” Be contented invite, receive, and welcome the light of life : but never attempt to fort or to engross it. It is your duty to wait for the morning light, and | rejoice when it visits you: but if you grow so self conceited = te say “J will create a sun: let there be light:” or if, when the ° isi your eyes you say, “I will bear a stock of light: I will so fill x eye with light to-day, that to-morrow I shall be almost able to do my woi without the sun, or at least without a constant dependence upon | beams ;” would ye not betray a species of self-deifying idolatry an Satanical pride? If our Lord himself, as “Son of man,” would not ha one grain of human goodness himself; if he said, “ Why callest thou m good? ‘There is none good [self good, or good of himself | but God: who can wonder enough at those proud Christians who claim some sé originated goodness ; boasting of what they have received, as if th had not received it: or using what they have received without an hu tble sense of their constant dependence upon their heavenly Benefactor ‘To avoid this horrid delusion of the Pharisees, learn to see, to feel, a to acknowledge, that of the Father, through the Son, and by the He ‘Ghost, are all your urim and thummim, your lights and perfection and while the Lord says, “From me is thy fruit found,” Hosea xiv, | how at his footstool, and gratefully reply, “ Of thy fulness have all ¥ received, and grace for grace,” John i, 16. For thou art “the Fath of lights, from whom cometh every good and perfect gift,” James i, 1 -Of thee, and through thee, and to thee are all things: to thee, therefo be the glory for ever. Amen,” Romans xi, 36. 7. You will have this humble and thankful disposition if you let you repentance cast deeper roots. For if Christian perfection implies forsaking all inward, as well as outward sin; and if true repentance : a grace whereby we forsake sin, it follows that, to attain Christian perfection, we must so follow our Lord’s evangelical precept, “ Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” as to leave no sin, no bosom sin no indwelling sin unrepented of, and, of consequence, unforsaken. He whose heart is still full of indwelling sin, has no more truly repented of indwelling sin, than the man whose mouth is still defiled with filthy LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 643 and jesting has truly repented of his ribaldry. The deeper our w for, and detestation of indwelling sin is, the more penitently do Bais the plague of our hearts; and when we properly confess it, = inherit the blessing promised in these words: “If we confess our as, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” _ To promote this deep repentance, consider how many spiritual evils i haunt your breast. Look into the inward “ chamber of imagery,” ing self love, surrounded by a multitude of vain thoughts, ish desires, and wild imaginations, keeps her court. Grieve that your which should be all flesh, is yet partly stone ; and that your soul, = should be only a temple for the Holy Ghost, i is yet so frequently turned into a den of thieves, a hole for the cockatrice, a nest fora brood of spiritual vipers,—for the remains of envy, jealousy, fretfulness, anger, pride, impatience, peevishness, formality, sloth, prejudice, bigotry, carnal confidence, evil shame, self righteousness, tormenting fears, uncharitable icions, idolatrous love, and I know not how many of the evils which the retinue of hypocrisy and unbelief. ‘Through grace detect these evils by a close attention to what passes in your own heart at all times, ut Bevpscially in an hour of temptation. By frequent and deep con- ession, drag out all these abominations: these sins, which would not have Christ to reign alone over you, bring before him: place them in the light of his countenance ; and (if you do it in faith) that light and che warmth of his love will kill them, as the light and heat of the sun the worms which the plough turns up to the open air in a dry summer’s day. _Nor plead that you can do nothing: for, by the help of Christ, who always ready to assist the helpless, ye can solemnly say upon your snees what ye have probably said in an airy manner to your professing fiends. If ye ever acknowledged to them that your heart is deceitful, yrone to leave undone what ye ought to do, and ready to do what ye ught to leave undone; ye can undoubtedly make the same confession lo God. Complain to him who can help you, as ye have done to those ho cannot. Lament, as you are able, the darkness of yous mind, the od importunately entreat the God of all grace to “ renew a right spirit fithin you. If ye sorrow after this godly sort, what carefulness will be yrought in you! what indignation! what fear! what vehement desire! hat zeal! yea, what revenge!” Ye will then sing in faith, what the rfectionists sing in unbelief :— oa O how I hate those lusts of mine, That crucified my God: Those sins that pierced and nail’d his flesh Fast to the fatal wood! Yes, my Redeemer, they shall die, My heart hath so decreed ; Nor will I spare those guilty things That made my Saviour bleed. While with a melting, broken heart, My murder’d Lord I view, Pll raise revenge against my sins, And slay the murderers too. 644 LAST CHECK TO ANT Oma 8. Closely erties’ with this dap repéntaiiie is the practice ¢ judicious, universal self denial. “If thou wilt be perfect,” says « Lord, “ deny thyself, take up thy cross daily, and follow me. Hog loveth father or mother [much more he that loyeth praise, pleasure re, money] more than me, is not worthy of me:” nay, “ Whosoever | save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose it for my sake, shi find it.” Many desire to live and reign with Christ, but few choose suffer and die with him. However, as the way of the cross leads heaven, it undoubtedly leads to Christian perfection. To avoid the cross, therefore, or to decline drinking the cup of vinegar and gall, which G permits your friends or foes to mix for you, is to throw away the ale which Divine wisdom puts to the breasts of the mother of harlots, wean you from her and her witchcrafts : it is to refuse a medicine whi is kindly prepared to restore your health and appetite: in a word, it to renounce the Physician who “ heals all our infirmities,” when we ta his bitter draughts, submit to have our imposthumes opened by his she Jancet, and yield to have our proud flesh wasted away by-his pai caustics. Our Lord « was made a perfect Saviour through suffering: and we may be made perfect Christians in the same manner. We mi be called to suffer, till all that which we have brought out of spirit Egypt is consumed in a howling wilderness, in a dismal Gethsemai or on a shameful Calvary. Should this lot be reserved for us, let us 7 imitate our Lord’s imperfect disciples, who “ forsook him and fled ;” let us stand the fiery trial, till all our fetters are melted, and our dross purged away. Fire is of a purgative nature : it separates the dross fre the gold; and the fiercer it is the more quick and powerful is its oper tion. “ He that is left in Zion, and he that remaimeth in Jerusaler shall be called holy, &c, when the Lord shall have washed away filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jet salem by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning,” Isa. iv, “J will bring the third part through the fire, saith the Lord, and y refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried; th shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my peop and they shall say, The Lord is my God,” Zech. iii, 9. Therefore, the Lord should suffer the best men in his camp, or the strongest m in Satan’s army, to cast you-into a furnace of fiery temptations, col not out of it till you are called.“ Let patience have its perfect work meekly keep your trying station till your heart is disengaged from that is earthly, and till the sense of God’s preserving power kindles you such a faith in his omnipotent love as few experimentally know h they who have seen themselves, like the mysterious bush in Hore burning and yet unconsumed ; or they who can say with St. Paul, “ ¥ are killed all the day long—dying, and behold we live!” « Temptations,” says Kempis, “are often very profitable to me though they be troublesome and grievous: for in them a man is humble purified, and instructed. All the saints have passed through and profite by many tribulations : and they that could not bear temptations, be Pa ees and fell away.” “ My son,” adds the author of Ecclesiasti (chap. ii, 1,) “if thou come to serve the Lord” in the perfeet beaut holiness, “ prepare thy soul for temptation. Set thy heart aright ; stantly endure; and make not haste in the time of trouble. Whate er LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 645 1s brought upon thee take cheerfully; and be patient when thou art changed to a low estate: for gold is tried and purified in the fire, and ‘aeceptable men in the furnace of adversity.” And therefore, says St. James, “ Blessed is the man that endureth temptation ; for, when he is tried, [if he stands the fiery trial,] he shall receive the crown of life, ‘which the Lord has promised to them that love him” [with the love which endureth all things, that is, with perfect love,] James i, 12. Patiently endure, then, when God “ for a season (if need be) suffers you to be in heaviness through manifold temptations.” By this mean, “ the ‘trial of your faith, being much more precious than that of gold which sa though it be tried in the fire, will be found unto praise, and ‘honour, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ,” 1 Pet. i, 7. 9. Deep repentance is good, Gospel self denial is excellent, and a ‘degree of patient resignation in trials is of unspeakable use to attain the perfection of love; but as “faith immediately works by love,” it is of far more immediate use to purify the soul. Hence it is that Christ, the prophets, and the apostles, so strongly insist upon faith; assuring us ithat, “if we will not believe, we shall,not be established ;” that, “if we will believe, we shall see the glory of God; we shall be saved; and ‘rivers of living water shall flow from our inmost souls; and that our jhearts are purified by faith; and that we are saved by grace through himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; ‘but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Now, if believers are mot to be “cleansed and made without blemish” by the word, (which tes- Hifies of the all-atoning blood, and the love of the Spirit,) it is evident that ithey are to be sanctified by faith; for faith, or believing, has as neces- ‘Sary a reference to the word, as eating has to food. For the same reason ithe apostle observes that “they who believe enter into rest; that a pro- Mise being given us to enter in, we should take care not to fall short of fit” through unbelief; that we ought to take warning by the Israelites, who “could not enter” into the land of promise “through unbelief ;” that we are “filled with all joy and peace in believing;” and that “Christ is able to save to the uttermost them who come unto God through im.” Now “coming,” in the Scripture language, is another expres- sion for believing : «He that cometh to God,” says the apostle, “ must believe.” - Hence it appears that faith is peculiarly necessary to those who will “ be saved to the uttermost,” especially a firm faith in the capital promise of the Gospel of Christ, the promise of “the Spirit of holiness” rom the Father, through the Son. For “ how shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed?’ Or, how can they earnestly plead the truth, and steadily wait for the performance of a promise, in which they have no faith? This doctrine of faith is supported by Peter’s words :— “God who knoweth the hearts [of penitent believers] bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, and purifying their hearts by faith,” Acts xy, 8, 9. For the same Spirit of faith, which initially purifies our hearts when we cordially believe the pardoning love of God, completely cleanses them when we fully believe his sanctifying love. _ 10. This direction about faith being of the utmost importance, I shall Confirm and explain it by an extract from Mr. Wesley’s sermon, which 646 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. points out the Scripture way of salvation : “ Though it be allowed,” say this judicious divine, “that both this repentance and its fruits are neces sary to full salvation, yet they are not necessary either in the same sens with faith, or in the same degree. Not in the same degree ; for these fruit are only necessary conditionally, if there be time and opportuni them, otherwise aman may be sanctified without them. But.he canno be sanctified without faith. Likewise, let a man have ever so much o this repentance, or ever so many good works, yet all this does not at al avail; he is not sanctified till he believe. But the moment he believes with or without those fruits, yea, with more or less of this repentance, h is sanctified. ot in the same sense ; for this repentance and thes fruits are only remotely necessary in order to the continuance of hii faith, as well as the increase of it; whereas faith is immediately anc directly necessary to sanctification. It remains that faith is the o aly condition which is immediately and proximately necessary to sanctif cation. . «But what is that faith whereby we are sanctified, sayed from sip and: perfected in love? (1.) It is a Divine evidence and conviction, tha God hath promised it in the Holy Scriptufes. Till we are thoroughh satisfied of this, there is no moving one step farther. And ont would imagine there needed not one word more to satisfy a reason able man of this, than the ancient promise, ‘Then will I circumcise tly heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all th heart, and with all thy soul.’ How clearly doth this express the bein perfected.in love! How strongly imply the being saved from all sin For as long as love takes up the whole heart, what room is there fo sin therein? (2.) It is a Divine evidence and conviction, that what Go has promised he is able to perform. . Admitting, therefore, that ‘ wit men it is impossible to bring a clean thing out of an unclean,’ to purif the heart from all sin, and to fill it with all holiness; yet this creates r difficulty in the case, seeing ‘ with God all things are possible.’ (3.) is an evidence and conviction that he is able and willing to do it Now And why not? Is not a moment to him the same as a thousand years He cannot want more time to accomplish whatever is his will. We ma therefore boldly say at any point of time, ‘ Now is the day of salvation Behold! all things are now ready! Come to the marniage!’ (4.) T this confidence, that God is both able and willing to sanctify us noy there needs to be added one thing more, a Divine evidence and convi¢ tion that he doth it. In that hour it is done. God says to the inmos soul, ‘ According to thy faith, be it unto thee!’ Then the soul is pur from every spot of sin; 2 is clean from all unrighteousness.” a Those who have low ideas of faith will probably be surprised to se how much Mr. Wesley ascribes to that Christian grace, and to inquire why he so nearly connects our believing that'God cleanses us from a sin, with God’s actual cleansing us. But their wonder will cease, i they consider the definition which this divine gives of faith in the sam sermon. “Faith in general,” says he, “is defined by the apostle, a evidence, a Divine évidence ‘and conviction [the word used by the apost means both] of things not seen ;’ not visible, nor perceivablée eithe sight, or by any other of the external senses. It implies both a sup natural evidence of God and of the things of God. a kind of spiritual LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 647 i itieht exhibited to the soul, and a supernatural sight or perception thereof. - Accordingly the Scriptures speak of God’s giving sometimes light, some. | times a power of discerning it. So St. Paul, ‘God who commanded | light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.’ And elsewhere the same apostle speaks of ‘the eyes of our understanding being opened.’ By this twofold operation: of the Holy Spirit, having the eyes of our souls both opened and enlightened, we see the things which the natural ‘eye hath not seen, neither the ear heard.’ _ We have a prospect ofthe invisible things of God: we see the spiritual world, which is all round about us, and yet is no more discerned by our natural faculties, than if it had no being; and we see the eternal world, " piercing through the veil which hangs between time and eternity. Clouds and darkness then rest upon it no more, but we already see the glory which shall be revealed.” From this striking definition of faith, it is evident that the doctrine of this address exactly coincides with Mr. Wesley’s sermon; with this ver- bal difference only, that what he calls faith, implying a ‘twofold opera- tion of the Spirit productive of spiritual light and supernatural sight, i have called faith, apprehending a sanctifying “baptism (or outpouring) of the Spirit.” His mode of expression savours more of the rational divine, who logically divides the truth, in order to render its several parts conspicuous: and I keep closer to the words of the Scriptures, which, I hope, will frighten no candid Protestant. I make this remark for the sake of those who fancy that when a doctrine is clothed with expressions which are not quite familiar to them, it is a new doctrine, although these expressions should be as Scriptural as those of a “baptism, or outpour- ing of the Spirit,” which are used by some of the prophets, by John the Baptist, by the four evangelists, and by Christ himself. I have already pointed out the close connection there is between an act of faith which fully apprehends the Spirit of Christ, which makes an end of moral corruption by forcing the lingering “man of sin” instan- taneously to breathe out his last. Mr. Wesley, in the above-quoted sermon, touches upon this delicate subject in so clear and concise a manner, that while his discourse is before me, for the sake of those who have it not at hand, I shall transcribe the whole passage, and thus put the seal of that eminent divine to what I have advanced, in the pre- ceding pages, about sanctifying faith and the quick destruction of sin. “ Does God work this great work in the’ soul gradually or instanta- neously? Perhaps it may be gradually wrought in some: I mean in this sense ; they do not advert to the particular moment wherein sin ceases to be. But it is infinitely desirable, were it the will of God, that it should be done instantaneously ; ; that the Lord should destroy sin by the breath of his mouth, in’a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. And so he _ generally does ; a plain fact, fof which there is evidence enough to satisfy any unprejudiced person. Thou therefore look for it every moment. Look for it in the way above described ; in all those good works, where- ‘unto thou art created anew in Christ Jesus. There is then no danger : you can be no worse, if you are no better for that expectation. For were you to be disappointed of your hope, still you lose nothing. But you shall not be disappointed of your hope: it will come, and will not ‘ene LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. famry. Look for it then everyday, every houf, every moment. W y not this hour, this moment? Certainly you may look for it now, if y believe it is by faith. And by this token you may surely know whethe you seek it by faith or by works: if by works, you want somethi be done first, before you are sanctified. You think, “I must first be o1 do thus or thus.” ‘Then you are seeking it by works unto this day. I you seek it by faith, you expect it as you are, and if as you are expect it now. Itis of importance to observe that there is an in rable connection between these three points,—expeet it by faith, expec it as you are, and expect it now! To deny one of them, is to deny them all: to allow one, is to allow them all. Do you believe we are sanctifie¢ by faith? Be true then to your principle : and look for this blessing j jus as you are, neither better nor worse: as a poor sinner, that has sti 1 nothing to plead but Christ died. And if you look for it as you are, ther expect rit. now. Stay for nething: why should you? Christ is ready; and he is all you want. He is waiting for you: he is at the door! Let your inmost soul cry out,— Come in, come in, thou heavenly Guest! Nor hence again remove : ‘ But sup with me, and let the feast : Be everlasting love.” * 11. Social prayer is closely connected with faith in the capital pro- mise of the sanctifying Spirit: and therefore I earnestly recommend mean of grace, where it can be had, as being eminently conducive to the attaining of Christian perfection. When many believing hearts are lifted up, and “wrestle with God in prayer together, you may compare them te many diligent hands, which work a large machine. At such tim oy particularly, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, the window of heaven are opened, and “ rivers of living water Baapri into the heartll of obedient believers. In Christ when brethren join, And follow after peace, The fellowship Divine He promises to bless, His chiefest graces to bestow Where two or three are met below. Where unity takes place, The joys of heaven we prove; This is the Gospel grace, The unction from above, The Spirit on all believers shed, * Descending swift from Christ their Head. Accordingly we read, that when God powerfully opened the kin odom of the Holy Ghost on the day of pentecost, the disciples “ were all wit one accord in one place.” And when he confirmed that kingdom, t “were lifting up their voices to God with one accord :” see Acts ii and iv, 24. Thus also the believers at Samaria were filled with th Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier, while Peter and John prayed with bare J: laid their hands upon them. ‘ 12. But perhaps thou art alone. As a solitary bird ert sitteth on the housetop, thou lookest fora companion who may go with thee through the deepest travail of the regeneration. But, alas! thou lookest in vain: — * | | | ; LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 649 all the professors about thee seem satisfied with their former experiences, and with self-imputed or self-conceited perfection. When thou givest _ them a hint of thy want of power from on high, and of thy hunger and thirst after a fulness of righteousness, they do not sympathize with thee. And indeed how can they? They are full already, they reign without thee, they have need of nothing. They do not sensibly want that “ God would grant them, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in their hearts by faith, that they, being rooted and grounded in love, may comprehend with all saints [perfected in love] what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that they might be filled with all the fulness of God,” Eph. ii, 16, &c. They look upon thee as a whimsical person, full of singular notions, and they rather damp than enliven thy hopes. Thy circumstances are sad; but do not give place to despair, no, not for a moment. In the name of Christ, who could not get even Peter, James, and John, to watch with him one hour; and who was obliged to go through his agony alone ;— in his name, I say, “Cast not away thy confidence, which has great recompense of reward.” Under all thy discouragements, remember that, after all, Divine grace is not confined to numbers, any more than to afew. When all outward helps fail thee, make the more of Christ, on whom sufficient help is laid for thee—Christ, who says, “I will go with thee through fire and water ;” the former shall not burn thee, nor the latter drown thee. Jacob was alone when he wrestled with the angel, yet he prevailed; and if the servant is not above his master, wonder not that it should be said of thee, as of thy Lord, when he went through his greatest temptations, “Of the people there was none with him.” ‘ 7 Should thy conflicts be “with confused noise, with burning and fuel of fire ;” should thy “Jerusalem be rebuilt in troublesome ‘times ;” should the Lord “shake, not the earth only, but also heaven; should deep call unto deep at the noise of his water spouts ; should all his waves and billows go over thee ;” should thy patience be tried to the uttermost ; remember how in years past thou hast tried the patience of God, nor be discouraged: an extremity and a storm are often God’s opportunity. A blast of temptation, and a shaking of all thy foundations, may introduce the fulness of God to thy soul, and answer the end of the rushing wind, and of the shaking, which formerly accompanied the first great mani- festations of the Spirit. The Jews still expect the coming of the Messiah in the flesh, and they particularly expect it ina storm. When lightnings flash, when thunders roar, when a strong wind shakes their houses, and the tempestuous sky seems to rush down in thunder showers ; then some of them particularly open their doors and windows to entertain their wished-for Deliverer. Do spiritually what they do carnally. Constantly wait for full “‘ power from on high ;” but especially when a storm of affliction, temptation, or distress overtakes thee ; or when thy convictions and desires raise thee above thyself, as the waters of the flood raised Noah’s ark above the earth; then be particularly careful to throw the door of Farru, and the window of nore as wide open as thou canst; and, spreading the arms of thy imperfect Love, say with all the ardour and resignation which thou art master of,— 650 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. “My heart strings groan with deep complaint, © = RQ My flesh lies panting, Lord, for thee ; { Ane» septal And every limb, and every joint, ug en Stretches for perfect purity.” ag Sa i. ate Ny But if the Lord be pleased to come softly to thy help; if he make an end of thy corruption by helping thee gently to sink to unknown dep of meekness ; if he drown the indwelling man of sin, by baptizing, plunging him into an abyss of humility ; do not find fault with the sim. plicity of his method, the plainness of his appearing, and the common- ness of his prescription. Nature, like Naaman, is full of prejudices. She expects that Christ will come to make her clean with as much ado, pomp, and bustle, as the Syrian general looked for, “ when he was wroth and said, Behold, I thought he will surely come out to me and stand _ and call on his God. and strike his hand over-the place——and recover the leper.” Christ frequently goes a much plainer way te work ; and by this mean he disconcerts all our preconceived notions and schemes of deliverance. “Learn of me to be meek and lowly i heart, and thou shalt find rest to thy soul,” the sweet rest of Christian perfection, of perfect humility, resignation, and Meekness. Lie at my feet, as she did who loved much, and was meekly taken up with “ the good part, and the one thing needful.” But thou frettest ; thou despises! this robe of perfection; it is too plain for thee; thou slightest “the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which, in the sight of God, is of great price :” nothing will serve thy turn but a tawdry coat of many colours, which may please thy proud self will, and draw the attention of others, by its glorious and flaming appearance ; and it must be brought to thee with lightnings, thunderings, and voices. If this be thy disposi- tion, wonder not at the Divine wisdom which thinks fit to disappoint thy lofty prejudices ; and let me address thee, as Naaman’s servants ad. dressed him: “ My brother, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldst thou not have done it? How much rather then, when he says to thee, Iam the meek and lowly Lamb of God ; wash in the stream of my blood—plunge in the Jordan of my humility, and be clean!” Instead therefore of going away from a plain Jesus in a rage, welcome him in his lowest appearance, and be persuaded that he can as easily make an end of thy sin, by gently coming in “a still, small voice,” as by-rushing in upon thee in “a storm, a fire, or an earthquake.” ‘The Jews rejected their Saviour, not so much because they did not earnestly desire his coming, as because he did not come in the manner in which they ex- pected him. It is probable that some of this Judaism cleaves to thee. If thou wilt absolutely come to Mount Sion in a triumphal chariot,-or make thine entrance into the New Jerusalem upon a prancing horse, thou art likely never to come there. Leave then all thy lordly miscon- ceptions behind ; and humbly follow thy King, who makes his entry inte the typical Jerusalem, “meek and lowly, riding upon an ass, yea, upon a colt, the foal of an ass.” I say it again, therefore, while thy faith and © hope strongly insist on the blessing, let thy resignation and patience — leave to God’s infinite goodness and wisdom the peculiar manner of be- — stowing it. When he says, “Surely I come quickly to make my abode with thee,” let thy faith close in with his word ; ardently and yet meekly _ embrace his promise. ‘This will instantly beget power; and with that — a 4 } ~~ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 651 _ power thou mayest instantly bring forth prayer, and possibly the prayer which opéns heaven, which humbly wrestles with God, inherits the blessing, and turns the well-known petition, “Amen! Even so, come Lord Jesus!” into the well-known praises, He is come, he is come, O _ praise the Lord, O my soul, &c. 'Thus repent, believe, and obey ; and : he that cometh will come” with a fulness of pure, meek, humble love ; “he will not tarry,” or if he tarry, it will be to give thy faith and desires more time to open, that thou mayest, at his appearing, be able to take in more of his perfecting grace and sanctifying power: beside, thy ex- _ pectation of his coming is of a purifying nature, and gradually sanctifies _ thee. “ He that has this hope in him,” by this very hope “ purifies him- » self even as God is pure :” for “we are saved [into perfect love] by hope as well as by faith.” The stalk, as well as the root, bears “the full corn in the ear.” Up then, thou sincere expectant of God’s kingdom! Let thy humble, ardent free will meet prevenient, sanctifying free grace in its weakest and darkest appearance, as the father of the faithful met the Lord, «“ when he appeared to him on the plain of Mamre” as a mere mortal. « Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo! three men stood by him.” So does free grace (if I may venture upon the allusion) invite itself to thy tent: nay, it is now with thee in its creating, redeeming, and sanctifying influences. “And when he saw them, he ran to meet fhem from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground.” Go and do likewise: if thou’seest any beauty in the humbling grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sanctifying love of God, and in the comfort- able fellowship of the Holy Ghost, let thy free will run to meet them, and bow itself toward the ground. O for a speedy going out of thy tent, thy sinful self! O for a race of desire in the way of faith! O for in- cessant prostrations! O for a meek and deep bowing of thyself before thy Divine Deliverer! “And Abraham said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant!” O for the humble pressing of a loving faith! O for the faith which stopped the sun, when God avenged his people in the days of Joshua! O for the importunate faith of the two disciples who detained Christ, when “he made as though he would have gone farther! They con- strained him, saying, Adide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.” He soon indeed vanished out of their bodily sight, because they were not called always to enjoy his bodily presence. Far from promising them that blessing, he had said, “It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send _him unto you, that he may abide with you for ever. He dwelleth with _ you, and shall be in you.” This promise is “yea and amEN in Christ ;” only plead it according to the preceding directions, and as sure as the ‘Lord is the true and faithful Witness, so sure will the God of hope and | love soon fill you with all joy and peace, that ye may abound in pure love, as well as in confirmed hope, “through the power of the Holy Ghost.” Then shall you have an indisputable mght to join the believers who sing at the Tabernacle, and at the Lock Chapel, in the words of Messrs. J. and C. Wesley :— ; 652 _LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. a ‘‘ Many are we now and ong, _ vet We who Jesus have put on. o ae There is neither bond nor free, ‘i? q Male nor female, Lord, in thee. ; Os. Love, like death, hath all destroy’d, . Render’d all distinction void ; a Names, and sects, and parties a b os Thou, O Christ, art all in all.” In the meantime you may sing with the pious countess of Hunting. © don, the Rev. Mr. Madan, the Rev. Dr. Conyers, the Rev. Mr. Ber- ridge, Richard Hill, Esq., and the imperfectionists who use their collections of hymns: ye may sing, I say, with them all, the two fol- — lowing hymns, which they have agreed to borrow from the hymns of — Messrs. J. and C. Wesley, after making some insignificant alterations. I transcribe them from the collection used in Lady naam oer s chapels, (Bristol edition, 1765, p. 239, &c.) O for a heart to praise my God! A heart from sin set free : A heart that’s sprinkled with the blood So freely spilt for me: A heart resign’d, submissive, meek, My dear Redeemer’s throne ; ‘ Where only Christ is heard to speak, Where Jesus reigns alone: : * An humble, lowly, contrite heart, Believing, true, and clean ; Which neither life nor death can part From him that dwells within : A heart in every thought renew’d, _ And fill’d with love Divine; Perfect, and right, and pure, and good; Lege A copy, Lord, of thine! My heart, thou know’st, can never rest. we Till thou create my peace * Oy HAD Till of my Eden repossess’d, From self and sin I cease. Thy nature, gracious Lord, impart, : Come quickly from above ; a Write thy new name upon my heart, Thy new, best name of LoyE. Here is undoubtedly an evangelical prayer for the Loye which re- stores the soul to a state of sinless rest and evangelical perfection. | Mean ye, my brethren, what the good people who dissent from us print — and sing, and I ask no more. Nor can ye wait for an answer to the prayer contained in the preceding hymn, in a more Scriptural manner, than ce pleading “the promise of the Father” in such wotds as these :— Love Divine, all loves excelling, oe Joy of heaven to earth come down! he Fix in us thine humble dweliing, a All thy faithful mercies crown: ts Jesus, thou art all compassion, ys : Pure, unbounded love thou art ; “te ‘a Visit us with thy salvation, 4 Enter every trembling heart. SS Ea — LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. — 653 ’ Breathe! O breathe thy loving Spirit Into every troubled breast ! Let us all in thee inherit, Let us find thy promised* rest. Take away the power} of sinning, Alpha and Omega be; End of faith, as its beginning, Set our hearts at liberty. Come, Almighty to deliver, Let us all thy life receive ! Suddenly return, and never, Never more thy temples leave! Thee we would be always blessing, Serve thee as thine hosts above; Pray and praise thee without ceasing, Glory in thy precious love.t Finish then thy new creation, Pure,§ unspotted may we be; Let us see thy great ‘salvation, Perfectly restored by thee ; Changed from glory into glory, Till in heaven we take our place; Till we cast our crowns before thee, Lost in wonder, love, and praise. Lift up your hands which hang down; our Aaron, our heavenly High Priest, is near to hold them up. The spiritual Amalekites will not always prevail; our Samuel, our heavenly prophet, is ready “to cut them and their king in pieces before the Lord. ‘The promise is unto you.” You are surely called to attain the perfection of your dispensa- tion, although you still seem afar off. Christ, in whom that perfection centres—Christ, from whom it flows, is very near, even at the door: “ Behold, says he, [and this he spake to Laodicean loiterers,] I stand at the door and knock. If any man pear my voice and open, I will come * Mr. Wesley says, second rest, because an imperfect believer enjoys a first, inferior rest: if he did not, he would be no believer. + Is not this expression too strong? Would it not be better to soften it as Mr. Hill has done, by saying, ‘‘Take away the love of [or the bent to] sinning?” Can God take away from us our power of sinning, without taking. away our power of free obedience ? t Mr. Wesley says, perfect love, with St. John. § Mr. Wesley says, indeed, pure and sinless; but when Mr. Hill sings pure, unspotted, he does not spoil the sense. For every body knows that the pure, unspotted Jesus does not differ from the sinless, immaculate Lamb of God. This fine hymn (I think) is not in Mr. Madan’s collection, but he has probably sung it more than once. However, if is adopted in the Shrewsbury collection, of which Mr. Hill is the publisher, in conjunction with Mr. DeCourcy. Is it not surprising, that in his devotional warmth that gentleman should print, give out, and sing, Mr. Wesley’s strongest hymns for Christian perfection ; when, in his controversial heat, he writes so severely against this blessed state of heart ? And may not I take my leave of him by an allusion to our Lord’s words, Out of thy own mouth, thy own pen, thy own publications, thy own hymns, thy own prayers, thy own Bible, thy own reason, thy own conscience, and, (what is most aston- ishing!) thy own professional and baptismal vow, I will judge thy mistakes! Nevertheless, I desire the reader to impute them, as I do, not to any love for indwelling sin, but to the fatal error which makes my pious opponent turn his back upon tke genuine doctrines of grace and justice, and espouse the spurious doctrines of Calvinian grace and free wrath. «we , 4 ra . J q J 654 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. in and sup with him,” upon the fruits of my grace, im them Christian perfection ; and he shall sup with me upon the fruits of my glory, their angelical and heavenly maturity. » te Hear this encouraging Gospel: “Ask, and you shall have ; eek and you shall find ; knock, and it shall be “opened unto you. For every one that asketh, receiveth ; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened. If any of you, [believers] lack wi dom—indwelling wisdom, [Christ the wisdom and the power of God dwelling in his’ heart by faith,] let him ask of God, who giveth to all ise and upbraideth not, and it shall be hee him. But let him ask | jas a believer] in faith, nothing wavering ; for he that wayereth is like a wave of the sea, driven with the eS and tossed: for let not that man think that he shall receive” the thing which he thus asketh. “But whatsoever things ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive — them, and ye shall have them. For all things [commanded and pro- mised] are possible to him that believeth.” He who has commanded us to be perfect “in love, as our heavenly Father is perfect,” and he who has promised “speedily to avenge his elect, who cry to him night and day;” he will speedily avenge you of your grand adversary, in- dwelling sin. He will say to you, “ According to thy faith, be it done unto thee; for he is able to do far exceedingly abundantly, far above all that we can ask or think, and of his fulness we may all receive grace” for grace”—we may all witness the gracious fulfilment of all the pro-— mises, which he has graciously made, that by “them we might be par- takers of the Divine nature,” so far as it can be communicated to — mortals in this world. You see that, with men, what you look for is — impossible : but you show yourselves believers: take God into the ac- — count, and you will soon experience, that “ with God all things are pos- sible.” Nor forget the omnipotent Advocate whom you have with him. — Behold! he lifts his once pierced hands, and says, “ Father, sanctify them through [thy loving] truth, that they may be perfected in love :” and showing to you the fountain of atoning blood, and purifying water, whence flow the streams which cleanse and gladden the hearts of be- lievers, he says, “ Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name—what- soever you shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Ask, then, that your joy may be full.” If I try your faith by a little delay: if I hide my face for a moment, it is only to gather you with everlasting — kindness. A woman, when she is in travail, hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remem- bereth no more the anguish for joy. Now ye have sorraw, but I will see you again, and your hearts shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.” In that day ye shall ask me no question, for you shall not have my bodily presence. But my urim and thunimim will be with you; and the “Spirit of truth will himself lead you into all” [Christian] truth.” ot O for a firm and lasting faith, eae To credit all the Almighty saith, ye To embrace the promise of his Son, 4 And feel the Comforter our own! * in the meantime be not afraid to give glory to God by “ believing in hope against hope.” Stagger not “at the promise [of the Father and SS ‘LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 655_ the Son] through unbelief :” but trust the power and faithfulness of your _ Greator and Redeemer, till your Sanctifier has fixed his abode in your heart. Wait at mercy’s door, as the lame beggar did at the beautiful - gate of the temple. “Peter fastening his eyes upon him, with John, ‘said, Look to us: and he gave heed to them, expecting to receive some- thing of them.” Do so too: give heed to the Father in the Son, who , “Look unto me and be ye saved.” Expect to receive “the one thing now needful” for you,—a fulness of the sanctifying Spirit: and though your patience may be tried, it shali not be disappointed. The faith and power, which, at Peter’s word, gave the poor cripple a perfect soundness in the presence of all the wondering Jews, will give you, at Christ’s word, a perfect soundness of heart in the presence of all your adversaries. Faith—mighty faith, the promise sees, And looks to that alone, Laughs at impossibilities, ; And cries, “ It shall be done !” Faith asks impossibilities ; Impossibilities are given : And J—e’en I, from sin shall cease, Shall life on earth the life of heaven. Faith always “works by love,”—by love of desire at least; making us ardently pray for what we believe to be eminently desirable. And if Christian perfection appears so to you, you might perhaps express your earnest desire of it in*some such words as these :—How long, Lord, shall my soul, thy spiritual temple, be a den of thieves, or a house ’ of merchandise? How long shall vain thoughts profane it, as the buyers and sellers profaned thy temple made with human hands? How long shall evil tempers lodge within me? How long shall unbelief, formality, hypocrisy, envy, hankering after sensual plea- sure, indifference to spiritual delights, and backwardness to painful or ignominious duty, harbour there? How long shall these sheep and doves, yea, these goats and serpents, defile my breast, which should be _ pure as the holy of holies? How long shall they hinder me from being one of the worshippers whom thou seekest,—one of those who worship thee in spirit and in truth? O help me to take away these cages of unclean birds. “Suddenly come to thy temple.” Turn out all that offends the eyes of thy purity; and destroy all that keeps me out of “the rest which remains for thy Christian people :” so shall I keep a Spiritual Sabbath,—a Christian jubilee to the God of my life. So shall ~ I witness myshare in the oil of joy with which thou anointest perfect Christians above their fellow believers; I stand in need of that oil, Lord: my lamp burns dim: sometimes it seems to be eyen gone out, as that of the foolish virgins; it is more like “a smoking flax” than “a burning and shining light.”- O! quench it not: raise it to a flame. _ Thou knowest that I do believe in thee. The trembling hand of my faith holds thee ; and though I have ten thousand times grieved thy pardoning love, thine everlasting arm is still under me, to redeem my life from destruction ; while thy right hand is over me, to crown me with mercies and loving kindness. _ But, alas! I am neither sufficiently thankful for thy present mercies, nor sufficiently athirst for “thy future favours. Hence I feel an aching void in my soul, being conscious that al eee war i ; 656 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. I have not attained the heights of grace described in thy wore enjoyed by thy holiest servants. Their deep experiences, the dil and ardour with which they did thy will; the patience and for with which they endured the cross, reproach me, and convince m my manifold wants. I want “ power from on high ;” I want the trating, lasting “unction of the Holy One.” I want to have my ¥ (my capacious heart) full of oil, which makes the countenance of ¥ virgins cheerful. I want a lamp of heavenly illumination, and a fire of Divine love, burning day and night in my breast, as the typical lamps did in the temple, and the sacred fire on the altar ; ; I want a full appli. cation of the blood which cleanses from all sin, and a strong faith in thy sanctifying word,—a faith by which thou mayest dwell in my heart, as _ the unwavering hope of glory, and the fixed object of my love. I want ~ the internal oracle,—thy still, small voice, together with urim and thums mim,*—“ the new name which none knoweth but he that receiveth it.’ In a word, Lord, I want a plenitude of thy Spirit, the full promise of # Father, and the rivers which flow from the inmost souls of the believers, who have gone on to the perfection of their dispensation. *I do believe that thou canst and wilt thus “‘ baptize me with the Holy Ghost and witl fire :” help my unbelief: confirm and increase my faith, with regard t this important baptism. Lord, I have need to be thus baptized of thee, anc Iam straitened till this baptism is accomplished. By thy baptisms of tears in the manger—of water in Jordan—of sweat in Gethsemane—of blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke, and flaming wrath on Calvary, bapti O, baptize my soul, and make as full an end of the original sin which have from Adam, as thy last baptism made of the likeness of sinfu flesh, which thou hadst from a daughter of Eve. Some of thy people look at death for full salvation from sin; but, at thy command, Lord, I look unto thee. ‘Say to my soul, I am thy salvation:” and let m feel with my heart, as well as see with my understanding, that thou canst save from sin to the uttermost, all that come to God through ree I am tired of forms, professions, and orthodox notions; so far as they aa not pipes or channels to convey life, light, and love to my dead, daa and stony heart. Neither the plain letter of thy Gospel, nor the swe foretastes and transient illuminations of thy Spirit, can satisfy the larg desires of my faith. Give me thine abiding Spirit, that he may continua shed abroad thy love in my soul. Come, O Lord, with that bless Spirit: come thou, and thy Father, in that holy Contatieasienensll i make your abode with me ; or I shall go meekly mourning to my grave Blessed mourning ! Lord, increase it. J had rather wait in tears fo; thy fulness than wantonly waste the fragments of thy spiritual bounties, or feed with Laodicean contentment upon the tainted manna of my former experiences. “Righteous Father, “I hunger and thirst after thy righteousness :” send thy Holy Spirit of promise to fill me therewith sanctify me throughout, and to “seal me centrally to the day of eternal redemption” and finished salvation. «Not for works of righteousness which I have done, but of thy mercy,” for Christ’s sake, “save thou mi by the complete washing of regeneration, and the full renewing of the Holy Ghost.” And in order to this, pour out of thy Spirit; shed it” ’ etary 6 Ec * Two Hebrew words, which mean lights and perfections. > LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 657 _ abundantly on me till the fountain of living water abundantly spring up in my soul, and I can say, in the full sense of the words, that thou - Slivest in me, that my life is hid with thee in God, and that my spirit is the first and the last,—my author “and my end —my God and my all!” bd ier SECTION XX. An address to perfect Christians. : 7 -, - ey = Ye have not A teed cael: lsyuaed asain, © ye men of God, = have mixed faith with your evangelical requests. The God, who says, “ Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it;” the gracious God who “Blessed are they that hunger after righteousness, for they npg be filled ;” that faithful, covenant-keeping God has now filled you with all «“ righteousness, peace, and joy in believing.” The brightness Christ’s appearing has destroyed the indwelling “man of sin.” He had slain the lion and the bear (he who had already done so great things for you) has now crowned all his blessings by slaying the Goliath Aspiring, unbelieving self is fallen before the victorious Son of David. “The quick and powerful word of God, which is sharper than any two-edged sword, has pierced even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit.” The carnal mind is cut off: the circumcision of the heart, | through the Spirit, has fully taken place in your breasts; and now | “that mind is in you which was also in Christ Jesus ; ye are spiritually | minded :” loving God with all your heart, and your neighbour as your- | selves, “ye are full of goodness, ye keep the commandments,” ye observe | the law of liberty, ye fulfil the law of Christ. Of him ye have | “learned to be meek and lowly in heart.” Ye have fully “taken his | yoke upon you ;” im so doing ye have found a sweet, abiding rest unto souls ; and from blessed experience ye can say, “ Christ’s yoke is easy, and his burden is light. His ways are ways of pleasantness, and all his paths are peace. All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth, unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.” The beatitudes are sensibly yours: and the charity, described by St. Paul, hhas the same place in your breasts which the tables of the law had im the ark of the covenant. Ye are the living temples of the trinity: the ny is your life; the Son your light; the Spirit your love; ye are . | : | truly baptized into the mystery of God, ye continue to “ drink into one and thus ye enjoy the grace of both sacraments. There is an end of your Lo here! and Lo there! The kingdom of God is snow established within you. Christ’s “righteousness, peace, and j joy” | Rooted in your breasts “by the Holy Ghost given unto you,” as an abiding guide, and indwelling comforter. Your introverted eye of faith looks at God, who gently “guides you with his eye” into all the truth to make you “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.” Simplicity of intention keeps darkness out of your mind, | and purity of affection keeps wrong fires out of your breast: by the i ye are without guile ; by the as ye are without envy. Your ; ox. I. ae 658 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. a. passive will instantly melts into the will of God; and on all i ee you meekly say, “ Not my will, O Father, but thine be done” Ti ye are always ready to suffer what you are called to suffer. Y active will evermore says, “Speak, Lord; thy servant heareth: wouldst thou have me to do? It is my meat and drink to do the my heavenly Father!’ Thus are ye always ready to do whatsoeve are convinced that God calls you to do; and “whatsoever ye do, wh ther ye eat, or drink, or do any thing else, ye do all to the glory of | 0 and in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ ; rejoicing evermore ; prayini without ceasing ; in every thing giving thanks ;” solemnly looking ft and hasting unto the hour of your dissolution, and the “day of Go¢ wherein the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved,” and your soul, being clothed with a celestial body, shall be able to do celestial servi ce to the God of your life. In this blessed state of Christian perfection the holy “ anointing, which. ye have received of him, abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you, unless it be as the. same anointi teacheth, Agreeably, therefore, to that anointing, which teaches by a variety of _ means, which formerly taught a prophet by an ass, and daily instruct Gog’s children by the ant, I shall venture to set before you some impor tant directions which the Holy Ghost has already suggested to you pure minds: “ for I would not be negligent to put you in conchae of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the pre truth. Yea, I think it meet to stir you up, by putting you in remem brance,” and giving you some hints, which it is safe for you frequenth to meditate upon. I. Adam, ye know, lost his human perfection in paradise ; Satan lo s his angelic perfectionin heaven ; the devil thrust sore at Christ in th wilderness, to throw him down from his mediatorial perfection: and§ Paul, in the same epistles where he professes not only Christian, but apostolic perfection also, (Phil. iii, 15; 1 Cor. ii, 6; 2 Cor. xii, 11,) informs us that he continued to “ run for the crown of heavenly pore tion” like a man who might not only lose his crown of Christian pe fection, but become a reprobate, and be cast away, 1 Cor. ix, de, And, therefore, “so run ye also, that no man take your crown” Christian perfection in this world, and that ye may obtain your cre OW of angelic perfection in the world to come. Still keep your boc under. Still guard your senses. Still watch your own heart, ant “ steadfast in the faith, still resist the devil that he may flee fro} you ;” remembering that if Christ himself, as Son of man, had com. ferred with flesh and blood, refused to deny himself, and avoided takir up his cross, he had lost his perfection, and sealed up our orig apostasy. 4 “We do not find,” says Mr. Wesley, in his Plain Account of Chris- tian Perfection, “ any general state described in Scripture, from whic aman cannot draw back to sin. If there were any state wherein this” is impossible, it would be that of those who are sanctified, who are fathers in Christ, who ‘rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, an every thing give thanks.’ But it is not impossible for these to ¢ back. “They who are sanctified may yet fall and perish, Heb. x 2, i ‘Even ‘fathers in Christ’ need that warning, ‘ Laven not the world LAST CHECK YO ANTINOMIANISM.. 659 1 John ii, 15. They who ‘rejoice, pray, and give thanks without easing,’ may nevertheless ‘quench the Spirit,’ 1 Thess. v, 16, &c. Nay, even they who are ‘sealed unto the day of redemption,’ may yet mee the Holy Spirit of God,’ Eph. v, 30.”* _ The doctrine of the absolute perseverance of the saints is the first eard which the devil played against man :—“ Ye'shall not surely die, if ye break the law of your perfection.” This fatal card won the game. Mankind and paradise were lost. The artful serpent had too well suc- ceeded at his first game to forget that lucky card at his second. See him “ transforming himself into an angel of light on the pinnacle of the temple.” There he plays over again his old game against the Son of God. Out of the Bible he pulls the very card which won our first parents, and swept the stake—paradise—yea, swept it with the besom of destruction :—“Cast thyself down,” says he, “for it is written, [that all things shall work together for thy good, thy very falls not excepted,] he shall give his angels charge concerning thee, and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” The tempter (thanks be to Christ!) lost the game at that time, but he did not lose his card: and it is probable that he will play it round against you all only with some variation. Let me mention one among a thou- sand :—He promised our Lord that God's “angels should bear him up in their hands, if he threw himself down ;” and it is not unlikely that he will promise you greater things still. Nor should I wonder if he was bold enough to hint, that when you cast yourselves down, “God himself ‘shall bear you up in his HaANpDs, yea, in his arms of everlasting love.” O ye men of God, learn wisdom by the fall of Adam. O ye anointed ‘sons of the Most High, learn watchfulness by the conduct of Christ. If he was afraid to “tempt the Lord his God,” will ye dare to do it? ie he rejected, as poison, the hook of the absolute perseverance cf the /saints, though it was baited with Scripture, will ye swallow it down as if ‘it were “honey out of the rock of ages?” No: « through faith in Christ, the Scriptures have made you wise unto salvation :” you will not only flee with all speed from evil, but from the very appearance of evil: and when you stand on the brink of a temptation, far from “ entering into it,” under any pretence whatever, ye will leap back into the bosom of him who says, “ Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation ; for though ‘the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak.” I grant that, evangelically speaking, “the weakness of the flesh” is not sin; but yet the “deceit- fulness of siti” creeps int at this door: and in this way not a few of God’s children, “after they had escaped the pollutions of the world, through the” sanctifying knowledge of Christ, under plausible pretences, ‘Shave been entangled again therein and overcome.” Let their falls _ *We do not hereby deny that some believers have a testimony in their own reasts that they shall not finally fall from God. “They may have it,” says . Wesley, in the same tract, ‘‘and this persuasion that ‘ neither life nor death hall separate them from God, far from being hurtful, may in some circum- ances be extremely useful.’ But wherever this testimony is Divine, it is ttended with that grace which inseparably connects holiness and good works, he means, with perseverance and eternal salvation, the end; and, in this respect, ur doctrine widely differs from that of the Calvinists, who break the necessary onnection between holiness and infallible salvation, by making room for the onlest fal.s—for adultery, murder and incest. . 7 t 5 ene” 660 _ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM make you cautious. Ye have “put on the whole armour of God O keep it on, and use it “with all prayer,” that ye may tot 2 that has ‘loved you.” II. Remember that “every one who is perfect shall ‘a as.his Master.” Now if your Master Was tempted and assaulted to the last ; if to the k he watched and prayed, using all the means of grace himself, and er forcing the use of them upon others ; if ¢o the last he fought against the world, the flesh, and the devil, and did not “ put off the harness” till he had put off the body ; think not yourselves above him; but “go and d likewise.” If he did not regain paradise, without going through th most complete renunciation of all the good things of this world, and without meekly submitting to the severe stroke of his last enemy, deat be content to be “perfect as he was:” nor fancy that your flesh a blood can inherit the celestial kingdom of God, when the flesh and blo which Emmanuel himself assumed from a pure virgin, could not inhei it without passing under the cherub’s flaming sword: I mean, withe going through the gates of death. Ill. Ye are not complete in wisdom. Perfect love does not impl perfect knowledge; but perfect humility, and perfect readiness to recei instruction. Remember, therefore, that if ever ye show that ye ai above being instructed, even by a fisherman who teaches according t the Divine anointing, ye will show that ye are fallen from a perfecti of humility fhto a perfection of pride. . IV. Do not confound angelical with Christian perfection. Uni terrupted transports of praise, and ceaseless raptures of joy, do n belong to Christian, but to angelical perfection. Our feeble frame ea bear but a few drops of that glorious cup. In general, that new wine is | too strong for our old bottles ; that power is too excellent for our earthe cracked vessels ; but weak as they are, they can bear a fulness of meek ness, of resignation, of humility, and of that love which is willing t | “obey unto death.” If God indulge you with ecstacies, and extn ordinary revelations, be thankful for them: but be “not exalted abo measure by them ;” take care lest enthusiastic delusions mix themsel\ with them; and remember that yotr Christian perfection does not much consist in “ building a tabernacle” upon Mount Tabor, to rest ai enjoy rare sights there, as in resolutely taking up the eross, and f lowing Christ to the palace of a proud Caiaphas, to the judgment h of an unjust Pilate, and to the top of an ignominious Calvary. Yeney read in your Bibles, “ Let that glory be upon you which was also up St. Stephen, when he looked up steadfastly into heaven, and said hold! I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” But ye have frequently read there, “ Tet this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who made himself of no reputa- tion, took upon him the form of a servant, and being found in fashi a man, humbled himself, and became abet unto death, even the « of the cross.’ See him on that ignominious gibbet! He hangs—abandoned by his friends—surrounded by his foes—condemned by the rich—insulted by the poor! He hangs—“ a worm and no man—a very scorn of men, t the outcast of the people! All that see him laugh him to scorn! LAST CHECK TU ANTINOMIANISM. 661 | ghoot out their lips and shake their heads, saying, He trusted in God, _ that he would deliver him ; let him deliver him, if he will have him!” ‘There is none to help him: one of his apostles denies, another sells him; and the rest run away. ‘Many oxen are come about him: fat bulls of Bashan close him on every side ; they gape upon him with their ‘mouths as it were a ramping lion; he is poured out like water; his _ heart in the midst of his body is like melting wax ; his strength is dried up ‘like a potsherd; his tongue cleaveth to his gums; he is going into the dust of death ; many dogs are come about him ; and the counsel of ' the wicked layeth siege against him; his hands and feet are pierced ; | you may tell all his bones; they stand staring and looking upon him; they part his garments among them, and cast lots for the only remains of his property, his plain, seamless vesture. Both suns, the visible and ‘the invisible, seem eclisped. No cheering beam of created light gilds his gloomy prospect. No smile of his heavenly Father supports his ) agonizing soul! No cordial, unless it be vinegar and gall, revives’ his | sinking spirits! He has nothing left except his God. But his God is | enough forhim. In his God he has all things. And though his soul is | seized with sorrow, even unto death, yet it hangs more firmly upon his | God by a naked faith, than his lacerated body does on the cross by the clenched nails. The perfection of his love shines in all its Christian glory. He not only forgives his insulting foes and bloody persecutors, but, in the highest point of his passion, he forgets his own wants, and thirsts after their eternal happiness. Together with his blood, he pours out his soul for them; and, excusing them all, he says, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” O ye adult sons of God, in this glass behold al] with open face the glory of your _ Redeemer’s forgiving, praying love; and, as ye “behold it, be changed \ the same image from glory to glory, by the loving Spirit of the rd. 2? | V. This lesson is deep ; but he may teach you one deeper still. Bya Strong sympathy with him in all his sufferings, he may call you to “ know “him every way crucified.” Stern justice thunders from heaven, “ Awake, “O sword, against the man who is my fellow!” The sword awakes ; the “sword goes through his soul ; the flaming sword is quenched in his ‘Dlood. But is one sinew of his perfect faith cut, one fibre of his perfect ‘Tesignation injured by the astonishing blow? No ; his God slays him, and yet he trusts in his God. By the noblest of all ventures, in the most dreadful of all storms, he meekly bows his head, and shelters his depart- ing soul in the bosom of his God. “ My God, my God!” says he, “though all my comforts have forsaken me, and all thy storms and waves go over me, yet ‘into thy hands I commend my spirit. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to ‘see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life, in thy presence is fulness of joy, and at thy right hand [where I shall soon sit] there are pleasures for evermore.’” What a pattern of perfect confidence! O ye perfect Christians, be ambitious to ascend to those amazing heights of Christ’s perfection: for hereunto are ye called; because Christ also suffered for us ; leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps , who knew no sin, who, when he was reviled, reviled not again ; when he suffered he threatened not, but committed himself to him that judgeth a a i ne rn rer 662 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM, righteously.” — If this is your high calling on earth, rest not, O ye fa in Christ, till your patient hope, and perfect coutiieesiia in God have ge their last victory over your last enemys=thie king of terrors. « The ground of a thousand mistakes,” says Mr. Wesley, “ is, the no considering deeply that love is the highest gift of God, humble, ¢ patient love: that all visions, revelations, manifestations whatever, are little things compared to love. It were well you should be thoroug sensible of this ; the heaven of heavens is love. There is nothing higher in religion: there is, in effect, nothing else. If you look for any thing but more love, you are looking wide of the mark, you are getting out of — the royal way. And when you are asking others, * Have you room 4 this or that blessing? if you mean-any thing but more love, you mean wrong; you are leading them out of the way, and putting them upon _| false scent. Settle it then in your heart, that from the moment od has saved you from all sin, you are to aim at nothing but more of the love described in the thirteenth of the Corinthians. You can go no higher than this, till you are carried into Abraham’s bosom.” VI. Love is humble. “Be therefore clothed with humility; “ Mr. Wesley: “let it not only fill, but cover you all over. Let aod and self diffidence appear in all your words and actions. Let all you speak and do show that you are little, and base, and mean, and vile i your own eyes. As one instance of this, be always ready to own ar fault you haye been in. If you have at any time thought, spoke, o1 acted wrong, be not backward to acknowledge it. Never dream the this will hurt the cause of God: no, it will farther it. Be therefor open and frank when you are taxed with any thing: let it appear just as it is; and you will thereby not hinder, but adorn the Gospel.” Why should ye be more backward in acknowledging your failings, than in confessing that ye do not pretend to infallibility? St. Paul was perfect in the love which casts out fear, and therefore he boldly reproved the high priest: but when he had reproved him more sharply than the fifth _ commandment allows, he directly confessed his mistake, and set his se to the importance of the duty, in which he had been inadvertently want Then Paul said, “ I knew not, brethren, that he was the high priest : it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” St John was perfect in the courteous, humble love which brings us down at the feet of all. His courtesy, his humility, and the dazzling glory — which beamed forth from a divine messenger (whom he apprehended te be more than a creature) betrayed him into a fault contrary to that of St. Paul: but, far from concealing it, he openly confessed it, and pub lished his confession for the edification of all the Churches: “ When I had heard and seen,” says he, “I fell down to worship before the feet — of the angel who showed me these things. Then saith he unto mi See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow servant.” Christian perfeetio shines as much in the childlike simplicity with which the perfect rea acknowledge their faults, as it does in the manly steadiness with w. they “ resist unto blood, striving against sin.” i VII. If humble love makes us frankly confess our faults, much more does it incline us to own ourselves sinners, miserable sinners before that God whom we have so frequently offended. I need not remind you that your “bodies are dead because of sin.” You see, you feel it, and or _LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM 663 _ therefore, so long as you dwell in a pnson of flesh and blood, which _ death, the avenger of sin, is to pull down; so long as your final justifica- tion, as pardoned and sanctified sinners, has not taken place: yea, so long as you break the law of paradisiacal perfection, under which you were originally placed, it is meet, right, and your bounden duty to consider yourselves as sinners, who, as transgressors of the law of innocence and the law of liberty, are guilty of death,—of eternal death. | St. Paul did so after he was “‘ come to Mount Sion, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.” He still looked upon himself as the chief of sinners, because he had been a daring blasphemer of Christ, and a fierce persecutor of his people. “Christ,” says he, “came to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” The reason is plam. Matter of fact is, and will be matter of fact to all eternity. According to the doctrmes of grace and | justice, and before the throne of God’s mercy and holiness, a sinner | pardoned and sanctified must, in the very nature of things, be considered as asimner; for if you consider him as a saint absolutely abstracted from the character of a sinner, how can he be a pardoned and sanctified sinner? To all eternity, therefore, but much more while death (the wages of sin) is at your heels, and while ye are going to “ appear before the judgment seat of Christ, to receive” your final sentence of absolution or condemnation, it will become you to say with St. Paul, “« We have all sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely [as sinners] by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ ;” although we are justified supictatiy as believers, through faith; as obedient believers, through the obedience of faith ; and as perfect Chris- tians, through Christian perfection. VII. Humble love “becomes all things [but sin] to all men,” although it delights most in those who are most holy. Ye may, and ought to set your love of peculiar complacence upon God’s dearest children; upon “those who excel in virtue ;” because they more strongly reflect the image of “ the God of love, the Holy One of Israel.” But, if ye despise ‘the weak, and are above lending them a helping hand, ye are fallen from Christian perfection, which teaches us to “bear one another’s burdens,” especially the burdens of the weak. Imitate then the tender- ness and wisdom of the good Shepherd, who “ carries the lambs in his bosom, gently leads the sheep which are big with young,” feeds with milk those who cannot bear strong meat, and says to his imperfect disciples, “I have many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now.” IX. “ Where the loving Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” Keep therefore at the utmost distance from the shackles of a narrow, preju- diced, bigoted spirit. The moment ye confine your love to the people who think just as you do, and your regard to the preachers who exactly suit your taste, you fall from perfection and turn bigots. “I entreat you,” says Mr. Wesley, in his Plain Account, “ beware of bigotry. Let not your love, or beneficence, be confined to Methodists (so called) only ; much less to that very small part of them who seem to be renewed in love ; or to those who believe yours and their report. O make not this your Shibboleth.” On the contrary, as ye have time and ability, “ do good to all men.” Let your benevolence shine upon all: let your charity send its cherishing beams toward all, in proper degrees. So 664 _ LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. shall ye be perfect as your heavenly Father, “ who makes his sur shine upon. all ;” although he sends the brightest and warmest bez his favour upon “ the household of faith,” and reserves his ri bounties for those who lay out their five talents to the best advante ag X. Love, pure love, is satisfied with the Supreme Good—with | Go « Beware then of desiring any thing but him. Now you desire noth else. Every other desire is driven out: see that none enter in age ain ‘Keep thyself pure: let your eye remain single, and your whole bod shall remain full of light.’ Admit no desire of pleasing food, or any other pleasure of sense ; no desire of pleasing the eye or imaginati¢ r . no desire of money, of praise, or esteem ; of happiness in any creature. You may bring these desires back ; but ye need not; you may feel no more. ‘O stand fast in the ‘liberty wherediti Christ hath made © you free!’ Be patterns to all, of denying yourselves, and ie your cross daily. Let them see that you make no account of z pleasure which does not bring you nearer to God, nor*regard any pz 4 which does; that you simply aim at pleasing him, whether by doing or suffering ; that the constant language of your heart with regan pleasure or pain, honour or dishonour, is, All’s alike to me, so I In my Lord may live and die!” 4 XI. The best soldiers are sent upon the most difficult and dangerou expeditions: and as you are the best soldiers of Jesus Christ, ye wil probably be called to drink deepest of his cup, and to carry the heavies burdens. “Expect contradiction and opposition,” says the judicious divine, whom I have just quoted, “together with crosses of various kinds, Consider the words of St. Paul, ‘To you it is given in behalf of Christ,” for his sake, as a fruit of his death and intercession for you, ‘ not only to believe, but also to suffer for his sake,’ Phil. i, 23. Itis given ! God gives you this opposition or reproach: it is a fresh token of his love Z And will you disown the giver? Or spurn his gift, and count it a misfo tune? Will you not rather say, ‘ Father, the end is come, that th ou shouldst be glorified. Now thou givest thy child to suffer something thee. Do with me according to thy will.’ Know that these things, fat from being hinderances to the work of God, or to your souls, unless b your own fault, are not only unavoidable in the course of Providence, but profitable, yea, necessary for you. ‘Therefore receive them from God (not from chance) with willingness and thankfulness. Receive them from men with humility, meekness, yieldingness, gentleness, sweetness.’ ., Love can never do, nor suffer too much for its Divine object. B then ambitious, like St. Paul, to be made perfect in sufferings. Ihe alrzady observed that the apostle, not satisfied to be a perfect Christi would also be a perfect martyr ; earnestly desiring to “ know the fellow- ship of Christ’s sufferings.” Follow him, as he followed his suffering, __ crucified Lord. Your feet “‘are shod with the preparation of the Gos- pel of peace ;” run after them both, in the race of obedience, for = crown of martyrdom, if that crown is reserved for you. And if ye mi the crown of those who are martyrs in deed, ye shall, however, rece the reward of those who are martyrs in intention—the crown of right- eousness and angelical perfection. ee | i LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 665 ___ XII. But do not so desire to follow Christ to the garden of Gethsemane, as to refuse following him now to the carpenter’s shop, if Providence now call you to it. Do not lose the present day by idly looking back at yesterday, or foolishly antedating the cares of to-morrow : but wisely use every hour; spending it as one who stands on the verge of time, on the _ border of eternity, and one who has his work cut out by a wise Provi- dence from moment to moment. Never, therefore, neglect using the two talents you have now, and doing the duty which is now incumbent upon you. Should ye be tempted to it, under the plausible pretence of wait- ing for a great number of talents : remember that God doubles our talents in the way of duty, and that it is a maxim, advanced by Elisha Coles himself, “ Use grace and have [more] grace.” Therefore, “to continual watchfulness and prayer, add continual employment,” says Mr. Wes- ley, “for grace flies a vacuum as well as nature; the devil fills what- ever God does not fill.” “As by works faith is made perfect, so the com- pleting or destroying of the work of faith, and enjoying the favour, or suffering the displeasure of God, greatly depend on every single act of obedience.” If you forget this, you will hardly do now whatsoever your hand findeth to do. Much less will ‘you do it with all your might, for God, for eternity. XIII. Love is modest: it rather inclines to bashfulness and silence, than to talkative forwardness. “In‘a multitude of words there wanteth not sin;” be therefore “slow to speak ;” nor cast your pearls before those who cannot distinguish them from pebbles. Nevertheless, when you are solemnly called upon to bear testimony to the truth, and to say “what great things God has done for you;” it would be cow- ardice, or false prudence, not to do it with humility. Be then “always ready to give an answer to every man who [properly] asketh you a rea- son of the hope that is in you, with meekness [without fluttering anxiety] and with fear” [with a reverential awe of God upon your minds, | 1 Pet. ili, 15. Perfect Christians are “burning and shining lights,” and our Lord intimates that, as “a candle is not lighted to be put under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may give light to all the house ;” so God does not light the candle of perfect love to hide it in a corner, but to give light to all those who are within the reach of its brightness. If diamonds glitter, if stars shine, if flowers display their colours, and perfumes diffuse their fragrance, to the honour of the Father of lights, and Author of every good gift; if without self seeking they disclose his glory to the utmost of their power, why should “ ye not go and do like- wise?” Gold answers its most valuable end when it is brought to light, and made to circulate for charitable and pious uses; and not when it lies concealed in a miser’s strong box, or in the dark bosom of a mine. But when you lay out your spiritual gold for proper uses, beware of imitating the vanity of those coxcombs who, as often as they are about to pay for a trifle, pull out a handful of gold, merely to make a show of their wealth. XIV. Love or “charity rejoiceth in the [display of an edifying] truth.” Fact is fact, all the world over. If you can say to the glory of God, that you are alive, and feel very well, when it is so; why should you not also testify to his honour, that you “live not, but that Christ liveth in you,” if you really find that this is your experience? Did not St. John say, 666 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. “Our love is made perfect, because as he is, so are we in this world ? Did not St. Paul write, The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in u who walk after the Spirit” Did he not, with the same simplicity, aye that although “ he had nothing, and was sorrowful, yet he ficou al things, and was always rejoicing ?” Hence it appears, that, with respect to the declaring or concealing what God has done for your soul, the line of your duty runs exactly betweer the proud forwardness of some stiff Pharisees, and the voluntary humili of some stiff mystics. The former vainly boast of more than they ex. perience, and thus set up the cursed idol, sexr: the latter ungratefully ‘hide “the wonderful works of God,” which the primitive Christians spoke of publicly in a variety of languages ; and so refuse to exalt their gracious benefactor, Curisr. The first error is undoubtedly more odious than the second; but what need is there of leaning to either 4 Would ye avoid them both? Let your tempers and lives always de- clare that perfect love is attainable in this life. And when you haye ~ a proper call to declare it with your lips and pens, do it without for- wardness, to the glory of God; do it with simplicity, for the edification of your neighbour ; do it with godly jealousy, lest ye should show the treasures of Divine grace in your hearts, with the same self complacence with which King Hezekiah showed his treasures, and the golden vesse of the temple to the ambassadors of the king of Babylon, remembering what a dreadful curse this piece of vanity pulled down upon him: “ And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord, Behold the days come, that all that is in thine house shall be carried into Babylon : nothing shall be left, saith the Lord.” If God so severely punished Hezekiah’s pride, how properly does St. Peter charge believers to “ give with fear an account of the grace which is in them!” and how careful should ye be to observe this important charge! XV. If you will keep at the utmost distance from the vanity whi proved so fatal to good King Hezekiah, follow an excellent direction of Mr. Wesley. When you have done any thing for God, or received any favour from him, retire, if not into your closet, into your heart, and say, “I come, Lord, to restore to thee what thou hast given, and I freely relinquish it, to enter again into my own nothingness. For what is the most perfect creature in heaven or earth in thy presence, but a void, capable of being filled with thee and by thee, as the air which is void and dark, is capable of being filled with the light of the sun? Grant therefore, O Lord, that I may never appropriate thy grace to myself, any more than the air appropriates to itself the light of the sun which withdraws it every day to restore it the next; there beg nothing in” the air that either appropriates his light or resists it. O give me the same facility of receiving and restoring thy grace and good works! I say thine, for I acknowledge that the root from which they spring is in thee, and not in me.” ‘The true means to be filled anew with the riches of grace,*is thus to strip ourselves of it ; without this it is ex. tremely difficult not to faint in the practice of good works.” And, therefore, that your good works may receive their last perfection, let them lose themselves in God. This is a kind of death to them, resem- bling that of our bodies, which will not attain their highest life, their immortality, till they lese themselves in the glory of our souls, or rather } I TT LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMINAISM. 667 of God, wherewith they shall be filled. And it is only what they had _of earthly and mortal, which good works lose by this spiritual dea’ _ XVI. Would ye see this deep precept put in practice? Consider St. “Paul. Already possessed of Christian perfection, he does good works from morning till night. He warns every one night and day with tears. _ He carries the Gospel from east to west. Wherever he stops, he plants a Church at the hazard of his life. But instead of resting in his present perfection, and in the good works which spring from it, “he grows m grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ ;” unweariedly “following after, if that he may apprehend that [perfection] for which also he is apprehended of Christ Jesus,’—that celestial perfection, of which he got lively ideas when he was “ caught up to the third heaven, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not possible for a man to utter.” With what amazing ardour does he run his race of Christian perfection for the prize of that higher perfection! How does he forget the works of yesterday, when he lays himself out for God to-day! “'Though dead, he yet speaketh ;” nor can an address to perfect Christians be closed by _ amore proper speech than his. “Brethren,” says he, “be followers of me—I count not myself to have apprehended [my evangelical perfec- tion ;] but this one thing f do, forgetting those things which are behind, [settling in none of my former experiences, resting in none of my good works,] and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the [celestial] prize of the high callmg of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded ; and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” In the meantime you may sing the followmg hymn of the ' Rey. Mr. Charles Wesley, which is descriptive of the destruction of corrupt self will. and expressive of the absolute resignation which cha- racterizes a perfect believer :— To do, or not to do; to have, Or not to have, I leave to thee: To be or not to be, I leave: Thy only will be done in me! All my requests are lost in one, “Father, thy only will be done!” Suffice that for the season past, Myself in things Divine I sought; For comforts cried with eager haste, And murmur’d that I found them not I leave it now to thee alone, Father, thy only will be done! Thy gifts I clamour for no more, Or selfishly thy grace require, An evil heart to varnish o’er: Jesus, the giver, I desire, After the flesh no longer known: Father, thy only will be done! Welcome alike the crown or cross, Trouble I cannot ask, nor peace, . Nor toil, nor rest, nor gain, nor loss, Nor joy, nor grief, nor pain, nor ease, Nor life, nor death; but ever groan, ‘Father, thy only will be done!” ver . 668 LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM, This hymn suits all the believers who are at the bottom of M Sion, and begin to join “the spirits of just men made perfect.” _ when the triumphal chariot of perfect love gloriously carries you to ne top of perfection’s hill; when you are raised far above the common heights of the perfect; when you are almost translated into glory, like Elijah, then you may sing another hymn of the same Christian poet, with the Rev. Mr. Madan, and the numerous body of imperfectionists who use his collection of Psalms, &¢ :-— Who in Jesus confide, They are bold to outride : All the storms of affliction beneath: With the prophet they soar To that heavenly shore, And outfly all the arrows of death. By faith we are come To our permanent home ; And by hope we the rapture improve: By love we still rise, And look down on the skies— For the heaven of heavens is love! - Who on earth can conceive, How happy we live In the city of God, the great King? What a concert of praise, When our Jesus’s grace The whole heavenly company sing! What a rapturous song, When the glorified throng In the spirit of harmony join! Join all the glad choirs, Hearts, voices, and lyres, And the burden is mercy Divine! , But when you cannot follow Mr. Madan, and the imperfectionists of the Lock Chapel, to those rapturous heights of perfection, you neee not give up your shield. You may still rank — the perfect, if you can heartily join in this version of Psalm cxxxi : Lord, thou dost the grace impart ! Poor in spirit, meek in heart, I shall as my Master be, Rooted in humility. Now, dear Lord, that thee I know, Nothing will I seek below, Aim at nothing great or high, Lowly both in heart and eye. Simple, teachable, and mild, Awed into a little child, Quiet now without my food, Wean’d from every creature good. Hangs my new-born soul on thee, Kept from all idolatry ; Nothing wants beneath, above, Resting in thy perfect love. That your earthen vessels may be filled with this love till they breals, - - LAST CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. 669 and you enjoy the Divine object of your faith without an interposing veil of gross flesh and blood, is the wish of one who sincerely praises God _ on your account, and ardently prays,— ‘Make up thy Jewels, Lord, and show The glorious, spotless Church below: The fellowship of saints make known; And O! my God, might I be one! O might my lot be cast with these, The least of Jesus’ witnesses ! O that my Lord would count me meet, To wash his dear disciples’ feet! To wait upon his saints below! On Gospel errands for them go! Enjoy the grace to angels given; And serve the royal heirs ofheaven” , END OF VOL. Ii. = a a Baa a biet> eh tas } br tnpaig ihe cH ’ j y howl \ - PL a The yo bhaeierh 5 y ven. “sedis Poe ‘ ‘ te, v Is * . au i . Ld . .* ° . ’ , ' ~ Ke ® Ve Date Due bess 53 | m o — \ cr lowed i} : |i? . = i : as cS rr = oo @ = | we) a w Demco 38-297 Wubi