a a oe ee bs Bete ee Sa ee tet ay re ee SS as et are Pen emt aioe " oe Fel fone creer ese een se a tase tanto tn = arse Library of The Theological Seminary PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY TPKE PRESENTED BY Samuel Agnew, Esq. 1858 — — = Pee edge = a Digitized by the Internet Archive | in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/refutationofaria0Opaul SPDR. REFUTATION ARIANISM, A DEFENCE PLENARY INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, THE SUPREME DEITY OF THE SON AND HOLY GHOST, rHE ATONEMENT, ORIGINAL SIN, PREDESTINATION, THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS, &e. . THE SERMONS ‘ THE REV. WILLIAM BRUCE, D. D. Senior Minister of the First Presbyterian Congregation of Belfast ; TOGETHER WITH OCCASIONAL ANIMADVERSIONS ON CERTAIN STATEMENTS AND REASONINGS OF : ia (DR MANT, NOW LORD BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNOR 5 * DR. MILLAR, OF ARMAGH ; AND GRAVES, KING’ S PROFESSOR ‘IN pareiny COLLEGE, DUBLIN, ‘And Chaplain to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant. — das vA BY THE REV. JOHN PAUL, ' CARRICKFERGUS. - *¢ Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” —Pavt. ‘«‘ Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints.” —Junz. “ Buy thg truth and sell it not.”—-SoLomon. | BELFAST : PRINTED BY ALEXANDER MACKAY, JUN. ee NEWS-LETTER OFFICE. ™ . 1826. PREFACE. Witna deep-rooted aversion to the usual practice of apologizing, I feel it necessary to write a preface rep lete with apologies: My readers, 1 presume, are prepared to ask a variety of questions, all of which deserve to be answered. First, they will ask me, why my Rerura- tion did not appear sooner. I answer : Much time was lost in vain expectation that some abler advocate would plead the same cause : and, after I had reluctant- ly engaged in the controversy, my various avocations, and a number of other circumstances, the detail of which would be altogether uninteresting, tended great- ly to retard my progress. I regret, indeed, in common with my readers, that my REFUTATION OF ARIANISM did not appear sooner ; but I regret still more, thata much longer period of time was nat, allowed me for exe- cuting a task so arduous and important—for writing a book which embraces a whole body of controversial divini- - ty—a book which professes to defend almost all the lead- ing doctrines of our holy religion. A question, however, of ge more importance, and involving a far more serious charge, will probably be put by some of my readers. In your Refutation of Arianism, they will say, why do you attack the Church of England ? Answer—lI do not attack the Church of Faclaad.: I defend the 1V Church of England: I defend the doctrines of the Thirty-nine Articles. But why, they will ask, do you attack the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, Dr. Millar, and Dr. Graves— Answer—I do not attack those Dignitaries? I am not the assailant: I am only the humble defendant: I reluctantly submit to the painful necessity of defending my own principles—the doctrines of the Church of Scotland—the doctrines of the Church of England—against the attack of those venerable Di- vines. Was it not, however—the querist wil! say—was it not highly improper to class the Arminians with the Arians >—Answer—J did not class them ; they classed themselves with the Arians. Dr. Millar made com- mon cause with Dr. Bruce in attacking Calvinism. It is not, therefore, from choice, but from necessity, that I have attempted to defend my principles against their - united attack. But was it not imprudent to make so many enemies ?—~ Answer—lI hope I have made nu ene- mies at all. Surely the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, Dr. Millar, Dr. Graves, and Dr. Bruce, are Divines of more candour and liberality than to be offend- ed at me for an humble attempt to defend my own principles—principles which I believe to be founded in truth, in reason and scripture. | + Still, however, it will be said, that had I tiie no notice of the Dignitaries of the Church of England, the. members of that church would have rallied round me ; the Arminians would have patronised my publication ; I would have had more friends, and larger profits—All this may be true; but it does not convince me of the impropriety of my conduct. I contend for truth not for money. Accustomed from my youth to submit to YY: privations for the sake of truth and a good conscience, I will not temporize now when I am o/d» No man can finally be a loser by an uncompromising attachment to truth. I know who has said, ‘* Be fat iful unto seats and I will give thee a crown of life.” a4 - But what necessity, it may be said, for mentioning the names of those Arminian divines in my Prospectus, or in my Title-page ?—Answer—Because I do not choose to fight under false colours: I do not wish to practise deception ; I wish my Prospectus or Title-page to be a faithful) index of my book. : My readers, how- ever, will carefully observe, that whilst I contend against Arminianism, as well as against Arianism, I do not re- gard the two systems as pete remote from truth. I believe that the difference between Arminians and Calvinists is frequently more in words:than in tdeas: I believe that: multitudes who are. Arminians in head, are Calvinists in heart. Were the Calvinistic system fairly represented and well understood, Ta am confident. opposition would in a great measure cease. ‘The view I have given in the following Defence is, I flatter my- self, mare to the standards of the Churches of Eng- land and Scotland—it is substantially the same, I pre- sume, with that of the great body of Calvinists. This ‘view I have never yet seen opposed. Anti-Calvinists, so far as I know, have never yet ventured to attack it, though it has been frequently exhibited by such writers as. Edwards, Fuller, Newton: ‘and Scott. When our opponents attack Calvinism, they attack a view of it which the Calvinists themselves do not ecknowledge.— They form a kind of medley system, composed of pas- sages taken out of their natural order—unguarded ex. v1 pressions extracted from the works of ancient divines— and large.quotations from Antinominian writers—this factitious—this monstrous system—a system which no- body ever believed, and which nobody defends—they heroically attack, and triumphantly demolish. They then shout victory, and are hailed by the acclamations of the unthinking multitude, the dupes of their artifice. By such sleight of men and cunning craftiness the simple are decerged: truth is laid low, and error enjoys a temporary triumph. ‘This disgraceful mode of war- fare I am reluctantly compelled to expose in the subse- quent pages. Should Arian or Arminian divines think proper to follow up their attack—and I have no objec- tions at all to see them in the field—I shall expect them to come forward as honourable antagonists. I shall expect them to attack, not a shadow, not a man of straw, not a mock Calvinism, but the real Calvinistic system, as exhibited in our standards, and defended in the following sheets. : Some readers may perhaps say, You have ne Bis Bruce with too little ceremony—You are guilty your- self of the very same things which you censure in him —You blame him for using abusive epithets, such as fanatics, enthusiasts, and bigots ; and yet you employ language no less severe, -as misrepresentation, calumny, forgery, &c.—Answer—I do not blame the Doctor merely for calling his opponents fanatics, enthusiasts, and bigots; but I blame him for using those epithets in a licentious and wanton manner, without proof.— If I arraign a man for theft, and bring forward evidence to substantiate my charge, I may call him a thief ; but if without proof I apply such epithets, I expose myself Vil to an action for defamation of character. Dr. B. em- ploys opprobrious epithets without proof or shadow of evidence: it is for this I blame him—it is for this I censure him. On the contrary, I hope my readers will find, that such terms as mzsrepresentation, calum- ny, forgery, &c. are used by me, only when the charges implied in those epithets are fully substantiated.—But why use such epithets aé all ?—-Answer—Because | wish to call things by their proper names. I do not wish to call evil goud, and good evil. Ido not wish by -soft names to reconcile men’s minds to errors or to vices —a practice quite fashionable indeed, but fraught with consequences the most baneful and pernicious. ‘To- wards those learned, and highly respectable Divines, on whose writings I animadvert, I am conscious of no feelings but those of kindness and benevolence. Should any of my expressions appear too strong, or be regard- ed as personal, I shall feel mach mortified; for, I can assure my readers, that, if I know any thing of my own heart, it was errors, not men, I meant to attack. ~My “ Refutation’’ is a work entirely argumentative. Against such books I know there is a prejudice—a pre- judice, as I conceive, highly unreasonable. Reasoning and argument characterised the first propagation of Christianity. The founder of our religion recsoned and argued : when only twelve years of age, he disputed with the Doctors. During the whole period of his public mi- nistry we find him addressing the understandings of men—reasoning with the Pharisees and Saducees, the ‘Seribes and the Lawyers—detecting their impostures and exposing their corruptions, refuting their errors and putting them to silence. Imitating their Divine Vill -Master, the Apostles and Evangelists reasoned and argued. In the synagogues of the Jews, the Apostle Paul reasoned every Sabbath. In the school of Ty- vannus he disputed daily. The Epicurean and Stoic -Philosophers, the Jewish Rabbin and the learned coun- -sellors of Mars-hill, he encountered by reasoning and confounded by argument. The proto-martyr Stephen reasoned down the ‘Libertines, the Cyrenians, and «© Alexandrians—they were not able to resist the wis- *¢ dom and spirit by which he spake.’’? Luther, Calvin, ‘Zuinglius, and all'the fathers of the Reformation, rea- soned and argued. By reasoning and by argument the strong holds of the ‘* man of sin’? were stormed, and a spiritual emancipation gloriously effected. Nor need -we anticipate a victory over the many-headed monsler error, if we refuse to wield those spiritual weapons.— Impressed with this conviction, [have humbly attempted to defend by argument what I regard as the great fun- damental truths of Christianity. 1 have addressed myself, not to the feelings, the passions, or the preju- dices, but to the understandings of my readers. In replying to the polemical sermons of the Rev. Dr. Bruce, I have endeavoured to meet every argument which I considered material. The only subject which I have not discussed, is, the eternity of punishment.— The Doctor’s idea, that the wicked will be punished im hell for a certain period of time, and then annihilated, being a completely gratuitous assumption, and having ‘no countenance either from Scripture or reason, I con- sidered unworthy of a refutation. What reason to be- lieve, that the happiness of the righteous will be ever- lasting, and the misery of the wicked only temporary, 1x when, in the very same passage,* the very same word in the original is employed to designate the duration of both? With regard to the wicked, our Saviour assures us, that “their worm dies not, and the fire is not “ quenched.’’ Now, if the Doctor’s idea be ¢orrect, the Redeemer’s declaration is not true ; for surely the worm of conscience will die, when the subject: is annihilated—surely the fire of misery will be quenched, when the unhappy victims. are all reduced to nothing / Those who wish to see a triumphant defence of the eterni- ty of future punishment, may consult “ Edwards against ‘* Chauncey,’ and: President. Edwards’ “* Remarks.” - » Dr. B., in his preface, boasts of the progress of Arian principles, particularly in the Synod of Ulster. Iam happy, ‘however, to find, that the Synod-has denied the truth of the charge, and very properly repelled: it by a counter-declaration. The truth is,;-that in the Synod of Ulster, Arianism seems to be in the last — stage of a consumption. _ When an Arian minister dies, he is almost uniformly succeeded by one of orthodox principles. Of the Synod of Munster there is no room for boasting: that body appears to be reduced to a ske- -leton, and Arianism to be dying a natural death. That Arian principles have obtained the ascendency in Ge- neva, I believe is true ; but the tide is turned, and the Arians are endeavouring to stem it by persecution.— The attempt however is vain: those who have drank the new wine of sect o are turning from it. with dis- gust, exclaiming, as they embrace their ancient. cone ples, Ms ‘The old is better !” _ Mat. xxv. 46. 2 B . Lhe reader of the following treatise will not suppose, that I mean to condemn every thing contained in the Doctor’s sermons ; nor that I approve of all those sen- timents which I have not opposed.—The sermons re- viewed contain many things which I not only approve but admire, particularly on the intercession of Christ, and the doctrine of repentance. They also contain many things which I dzsapprove, but on which my li- mits would not allow me to animadvert. Should the - Doctor himself, or any of his friends, think proper to stand forward in defence of his principles, I may then have an opportunity of extending my animadversions. In the mean while, it is my heart’s desire and prayer to God, that he would render my humble exertions instru- mental in arresting the progress of error, and extending the triumphs of truth. .“ Arise, O God, plead thine * own cause.””? | | CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. rh Objections to Dr. Bruce's mode of managing the controvers} Ye Oxsxct. J. Abusive epithets applied to his opponents— Fanatics— Enthu- SIAStS—-Bi gots .cecseccecesceccccecescsseceeccerasesccesessesesacseceseveccereres Oxssect. II,— Dr. Bruce meanly attempts to raise a prejudice against his 0 pponents, by raking together the most foolish and absurd Paya found their writings during a period of three hundred years...... ssscccosres ars III.—-The Doctor misrepresents and misstates the doctrines of his '" opponents—he puts in ‘their mouths sentiments which they never en- tertained, never Uttered, NEVEL WLOtC..cecseevoosecocergresecces eecccsercosess Ossrcr. 1V.— He blends Calvinistic doctrines with those of Ait nonaabe and other enthusiasts .cocccccsccsscccccessccccccseseccccsstcevecevcsscsccorens Oxsrcr. V.—He has not studied, and he does not understand, the system The OPpOses ..200 ceseccecercscccccscoresresseetossccsseccssseccccese er oveseseerecs Ossxcr. VI.—Fi nding that his principles cannot be defended on ‘the broad basis of Divine Revelation, be retreats to the citadel of the four Gos- pels—nor is he willing to appeal to these as the standard of doctrine; but only to those few verses which are found in them all*.........s.+++ Oxsect. VII.—The Doctor’s principles have a chilling and benumbing ten- dency—by sinking divine truth in our esteem, they are calculated to repress a spirit of inquiry and to arrest the progress of religious know- ledge C2 OCHO TAPTHTHOFTHLZGS VON COSTCO OA POOTOSVOLEROHOT OHS OCOTOL OH OL OOFH+ OR ESCRADEOOS CHAPTER II. Doctor Bruce’s attack on the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures repelled What the Doctor reeommends as a “‘ sure guide,” shown to be false, destruc- LIVE, AN WNPLOUS ceeeceseseraccvccsareseceverseccacreecessscccsseresscsssesorcnes What he recommends as a “ safe rule,” shown to be subversive of all di- vine ordinances and doctrines—inconsistent with his principles as a Protestant, a Dissenter, and a member of the Antrim Presbytery...... A maxim laid down in his “ Being and Attributes’ examined— leads to Deism, to Atheism, and to Pee eae go CHAPTER III. The Supreme Deity of Jesus Christ defended. Sacr. I.— Proved from his names .ecocccccccccccsscccrssse osesecsseoccsias sreee SEecr. Ii.—from his attributes SOOTHES HODEEHOHAOLOSOHOSOH EO READE 0:0 a5 9 8 COU SURE eRe”) 9S 9 Suor. [1L.—from his works ......ccccssccssseceesocneenenrereeteasenevesseesorens * Sce Chapter II. P, 51, bot, Page ] 12 18 34 Xi ! Page Seer. 1V.—from thé worship ascribed to him) ..:...ccccccescseseseececdeceesee 106 Suct. V.—from the absurd and blasphemous consequences of Antitrinita- PRAM DRTC BR ois sehen delene cobs uc Vier es Pebwiin be veics é RAR vieGesee Dae E Secr. VI.— Objections answered ............-. By eeevdavu sca tbawe yeu bie oursis Jae 121 CHAPTER IV. The Supreme Deity of the Holy Ghost defended, and the absurdity of the | Arian eystem exposed \.i2..6.cisecneees dncersdedoocscessss ade have tac odaeekes 144 Dector Bruce’s view of the sin against the Hoty Ghost shown to be erro- POOR ses one ninsigunssstercisdinwv RES sme wBbIOE AEB WLEA Vas oc cub bck OMe tas sia tami 147 vohis objections answered....\.0565.0... ccseossccedeeseces cesses eene'iyes seeuaiehs | Mae> Baptism and the Apostolic Benediction, on Arian principles, involve great ab- surdities veree COOH HO Coe COLO OL Oe ER ee CeLereerenooert ce ses neeoeeeseers COOP ee eesesee 155 CHAPTER Vi The Atonement defended. Seor. I.—The necessity of it proved .....;. Ce ieapemegetiis theneue nederesbgagivercy LOT Stécr. II.—Reconciliation shown to be necessary on the part of God as well as on the part of man ..... ep pee Re aS eee pty eee a ctvesvesdumes 167 Sror. I1I.—The death of Christ VICATIOUS oes ot ey Meee ee ee TTY Secr. 1V.— Objections answered. .........cccceecescenseecees fis colencedacssssbuee COR Sect. V.—The moral tendency of the Atonement ........... ehcaae td enter ten: SUL Secr. VI.— Extent of the ALONEMENE... 00.00, s00rcsereeesescseececeessereceas wet 208 CHAPTER VI. Original Sin defended ....0..jscccecesceee edahis strc Oodle RO Jeli orees Qi avews 215 Poel VOC OPI os s0s 4 cebu pvsdel sa aehasduecancven, senile adie PAA, 217 Arminitd opminnl cae slk ORO latins es Oe pidctedinccelaccossten Mak Anan pinion ws Oiled ts Gah NSW ieeakedt ede 2 CIEE be Us Coc deeds Sedae 222 Dr. Millar inconsistently joins with Dr. Bruce in condemning the West- minster Divines’ description of Original Sin, whilst the Ninth Article of his own Charch teaches that doctrine in the strongest language...... 225 Dr. Bruce’s objections answered Seebvetecencsecvessesevetcegesscssssserececersesase Q2G His attempt to answer Calvinistic reasoning shown to be weak and unphi- PHWOROREAL. | sdsntetn codeys sso daasiresy Wvaedisdsboceveleene Wine aes delice divers’ 236 CHAPTER VII. Predestination defended. Serer. I.— The grace of God distinguishing — Arminian doctrines quite sub- .-versive of the grace of God ...e-eeececccoeececs osee,, Wiseresiseeeeakuns «. 243 Secr. I1.—Opposition to Calvinism originates in erroneous ideas of liberty esi lcheaedh ig 4 ak Le PRETEND LOGIE COL als ie Wa sae danni oe calhals Spr ase er Sect. IIf.—Election and reprobation more formally defended, and the at- . tacks of the most eminent Anti-Calvinists repelled........... ...seeeesees 203 CHAPTER VIII. The Perseverance of the Saints defended .. Coane. dec tvenweesesscans epedeasres wrev Std { = INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. Objections to Dr. Bruce's mode of managing the controversy.— Objection 1st—Abusive epithets ap- plied to his opponents” ban alles ay neti att? rs da | TN the controversial Sermons of the Rev. Dr. Bruce, we would naturally expect fair, candid and manly dis- cussion. His reputation as a Divine, and celebrity as a scholar, would lead us to conclude, that he would never condescend to excite vulgar prejudice by any of those low, mean arts, which too frequently characterise in- ferior controversialists. In these reasonable expecta- tions we feel ourselves not a little disappomted. The Doctor’s mode of managing the controversy appears to me, in many respects, highly exceptionable. I shall state my objections in order. soaks OzsecTion 1. I object to those abusive epithets with which he con- stantly loads his opponents. Fanatics, enthusiasts, and bigots, with him are quite common appellations—appel- lations which, it must be confessed, are but too well - ealeulated, to foment in the minds of his hearers Pha- risaic pride ; to rivet upon them the chains of their pre- : — 2 judice ; and to inspire aly with hatred, animosity, and_ contempt. Whilst the Doctor charges his opponents with fanati- cism, enthusiasm, &c. he probably flatters himself, that he is quite free from those odious vices. It is possible, however, that he may be mistaken. Let us examine a few of his sentiments, | In his first Sermon, (P. 6,) he assures us, that *¢ The ‘‘ humblest rustic, who is in the habit of assiduously and « « seriously perusing his Bible, knows all that is known ** by the wisest man upon earth of the divine nature.— ‘< The existence, ee and providence or God are ‘‘ his daily study, &c.” Now, ifall this be so, for what purpose have thousands of sermons been preached? For what purpose have thousands of treatises been written on those subjects >— What becomes of Dr. Clarke’s famous demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God? What becomes of Abernethy’s Sermons? And, above all, what becomes of Dr. Bruce’s own treatise ?—that treatise on the Being and Attributes for which he expected the Aberdeen prize? Why publish volumes upon volumes on the Being and At- tributes of God, when the humblest rustic ioe as much of the divine nature, as the wisest man upon earth 2— What egregious trifling! With ena to the same illiterate rustic, the Doctor as- sures us, that ‘ the scenes of nature are exhibited to his ‘* mental eye—that he is taught the benevolent uses for “* which they were designed ; and how they demonstrate ‘« the wisdom, power, and goodness of their Creator—and ‘¢ what more,” he asks, ‘does the wisest philosopher @ « know than this? Make out an account of all his << surplus knowledge, and what does it amount to ?”’ Of course, Ray, Derhbam, Paley* and others, who ) wrote volumes on the wise ends, and benevolent uses of — the works of God, were all laborious triflers! They knew ™ nothing more on those subjects, than the khumblest rus- tic! Why then should the world be pestered any longer with such useless lumber? All such treatises, according * to Dr. B., are quite superfluous! | Gis But this is not all—The Doctor’s rustic is a character still more extraordinary. ‘ He is conversant with all « the authentic information which any man possesses, of ‘¢ the conduct of Providence in the government of na- s¢ tions.” pi | Indeed! And does Dr. B. mean to assert, that there ‘sno authentic history in the world, but Scripture his- tory? Does he mean to assert, that the histories of Rollin, Robertson, Gibbon, Mosheim, and a thousand others, give the man of letters no advantage over the rustic, in contemplating the wisdom of God in the con- duct of Divine Providence? ed matter for cumbrous volumes, abounding with “ cyiticisms, which I should be ashamed to expose to “ intelligent and unprejudiced men ; for you could not “ yefrain from smiling, when you heard the nature of ‘the Supreme Being, and the faith and salvation of “ Christendom, suspended on the transposition of a let- “ ter, or the construction of a particle, the insertion of ‘¢ a dot, or the omission of some grammatical or rhetori- ‘Sealimark.)’-./ te, | : Now, I grant, that the first Presbyterian congre- 116 ' gation in Belfast might smile at all this. How could they avoid it ? The description partakes largely of the ridiculous. But if they really imagine, that there is any thing in nature to which the picture is like, they are much deceived ; and whilst they are smiling at the supposed folly and stupidity of Trinitarians, the latter are probably prepared to smile at their credulity. What! ‘The nature of the Supreme Being suspended on the insertion of a dot !—the nature of the Supreme Being suspended on the transposition of a letter !—the nature of the Supreme Being suspended on the omission of some grammatical or rhetorical mark !—And is it by exhibiting such a picture as this, that the grave and dig- nified Doctor Bruce hopes to raise the laugh against Trinitarians? Be it known to Dr. B.—be it known to the first Presbyterian congregation in Belfast—that, not upon doés, nor on /etters, nor on the whole volume of revelation, nor on the heavens, nor on the earth, nor on any thing exterior to himself, do Trinitarians suspend the nature of God! ‘Trinitarians maintain, that the Supreme Being is sel/-existent and independent.— Whilst raismg the laugh against our neighbours, we should beware of rendering ourselves ridiculous. Again; I would ask our learned author, what divine ever suspended the salvation of Christendom on the in- sertion of a dot? How ludicrous the fiction !What divine ever suspended the faith of Christendom on the insertion of a dot? With the ninth commandment be- fore his eyes, how could our author write such a para- graph ? By a careful perusal of the preceding pages, the reader, I trust, will be fully convinced that Trini- tarians build the faith of Christendom, not on the in- rM7/ sertion of dots, nor the transposition of letters, as ; Dr, B. ridiculously insinuates, but on the broad basis of di- vine revelation. They will not, however, look on as — indifferent spectators, whilst Socimians or Arians disfi- gure, mangle, or pervert the word of God, by an arbi- trary insertion of dots, or transposition of letters. By such licentious treatment, unrestrained, the sacred oracles might be so manufactured as to patronise the most abominable errors, heresies, and blasphemies. Trinitarians are so far from being reduced to the necessity of suspending the faith of Christendom on the insertion of dots, &c. that if a hundred of those texts, which prove the Divinity of Christ, were blotted out of the Bible, the remaining hundreds would be abun- dantly sufficient to establish the doctrine. Section V. Antitrinitarian principles lead to consequences the most absurd and blasphemeus. 1. If Jesus Christ be not the Supreme God, the blas- phemous consequence follows, that he 1s not the true Messiah. One distinguishing characteristic of thie true Messiah is, That he should abolish idolatry. (Isaiah ii. 18.) . And the idols he shall utterly abolish.”’ Now, if Jesus Christ be only a creature, he has not destroyed idolatry. On the contrary, Christians have been almost universally idolators—they have almost universally wor- + ENS ar 118 shipped the Redeemer, whom Antitrinitarians maintain to be only a creature. If Antitrinitarian doctrines be true, Christianity is false.—Instead of being a system from which idolatry is abolished, it is « most idolatrous system! Our blessed Redeemer, who was to abolish idols—I tremble as I write—is himself the greatest and most dangerous of all idols !—Nay, 2. From Antitrinitarian principles, the still more — blasphemous. consequence follows—ihat God himself has led his creatures into temptation—temptation to that very sin, which above all others he hates and ab- hors—temptation to idolatry !/—The Deity declares, that he is a “jealous God ;” that his ‘‘glory he will ‘‘ not give to another, nor his praise to graven images.”’ He most pathetically expostulates upon this subject, (Jer. xliv. 4.) ‘* Oh, do not this abominable thing, that «< Thate.”” With what care does the Supreme ifeug guard against all temptations to idolatry! Lest the Is- raelites should worship the relics of Moses, the Deity himself privately interred him, and ‘‘ no man knoweth ‘‘ of his sepulchre unto this day.”” ‘The brazen serpent also was destroyed, lest it should lead the Israelites into idolatry. Now, if the Deity used such precaution to pre- vent men from worshipping the body of Moses and the brazen serpent, is it reasonable to suppose that he would use no precaution, where the temptation was infinitely greater? Is it reasonable to suppose he would use no precaution, to prevent men from ‘worshipping his Son, if only a creature? Reasonable, did I say ? Is not such a supposition in the highest degree absurd and unrea- sonable 2 Not only is there no precaution to prevent men ; but there is every temptation to induce them to 119 worship the Redeemer. The most glorious names of the Deity are given to him ; the most glorious perfec- lions of Deity are wuaiined to him; the most glorious — works of Deity are performed by him—those very works by which the being and attributes of God are proved—by which his eternal power and Godhead are manifested—and by which he is distinguished from all false gods.— And, finally, he is every where represent- ed as the object of the prayers of men, and of the unit- ed praises and adorations of all intelligent beings.— What temptations to idolatry, if Jesus Christ be only a creature! All the temptations to idolatry that ever existed, compared with these, were nothing and less than nothing. If the healing of the stung Israelites was a temptation to worship the brazen serpent, how much greater the temptation to worship him who has removed the sting of death which is sin! If the Jews were tempted to worship the inanimate brass, or the dead body of Moses, surely the inducements to worship the lzving Saviour are infinitely greater. If the veneration attached to the memory of states- men, patriots, and benefactors, proved a principal source of idolatry, how much greater the temptation to worship him, to whom we owe all the inestimable blessings of _ Creation, Providence, and Redemption? Jehovah is _ , jealous of his glory. When, in praise of Herod’s oration the people exclaimed, “ It is the voice of a god and not ‘‘ of a man,” he was eaten with worms, and gave up the ghost—why ? ‘* because he gave not God the glory.”’ —When Moses sanctified not the Lord before the peo- ple—when he arrogated a part of the glory of a tempo- 120 - yal and typical salvation, saying, “ Hear now, ye rebels, “‘ must we bring water out of this rock?’’—he was ig- nominiously excluded from the promised land—his car- case fell with the rebels in the wilderness. With such instances of divine jealousy before his eyes, can any man believe that Jesus Christ, if only a creature, would be permitted to arrogate, with impunily, the glory of be- ing not only the zstrument, but the author, not of a temporal and typical, but of eternal salvation? ‘The man who is able to believe all this, is surely more cre- dulous than he who believes, according to the Scriptures, that his Redeemer is “* Over all God blessed for ever.” For—In a word: if Jesus Christ be only a creature, patriarchs, prophets, and apostles; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (shall 1 utter the blasphemy?) have all combined to lead men into idolatry: ; : 3. If the Socinian or Arian system be true, it fol- lows—That Mahomet was more successful than Jesus Christ in communicating correct ideas of the divine na- ture !—That Mahomet has been incomparably more successful than the Redeemer, in abolishing idolatry !— That Mahometanism is superior to Christianity !—and, That the Coran is superior to the Bible !* If the Socinian or Arian doctrine be true, it follows, That God has no peculiar name, by which he may be distinguished from his creatures \—-That God has no peculiar atiribule, by which he may be distinguished from his creatures !—That God has performed no pe- culiar work, by which he may be distinguished from * See my tract “1 defence of the Divinity and Atonement of Jesus - Christ, in reply to Dr. Channing. Pet his creatures !—'That God claims, or is honoured with, no peculiar worship, by which he fy be distinguished from his creatures ! | | If the Arian: doctrine be true, we have no proof of the being of a God, nothing to prevent us shoo plunging into—Atuetsm ! : 5. If Socinian or Arian principles be true, our bles ed Redeemer, who made all things, may himself be annihiliated! If he be a creature, he that made him can surely wnmake him—he that brought him out of a state of nonentity, can, with equal ease, reduce him to nothing ! ; 6. Finally, if Socinian or Arian principles be true, may not the Redeemer fall ?—may he not be condemn- ed like Satan ?—may he not be for ever miserable !— My reader will pardon me for putting such blasphemous questions. ‘They are naturally suggested by the errors ZT oppose. | , Section VI. Objections answered. | Lo prove the inferiority of Jesus Christ to his hea- | oe Father, Dr. B. produces such texts as the follow- ing: “ The Father is greater than I.—Of myself I ‘can do nothing.—As the Father gave me command-— ‘ment, so I do.—My doctrine is not mine own, but ‘his who sent me.—I speak not of myself; but the. “« Father who sent me gave me a commandment, what ee 16 Tez ‘““T should say, and what I should speak.’*—To bring forward such texts as these in this controversy—as Dr. B. and Antitrinitarians in general do—is completely sophistical. It is that species of sophism which logi- cians style ‘ ignorantia elenchi,”’ or a mistake of the question. When Dr. B. and his coadjutors crowd their pages with such quotations, labouring to prove. the in- feriority of Jesus Christ to his heavenly Father, they are guilty of the most egregious trifling. ‘They are la- bouring in vain, labouring to prove what nobody denies. Nobody denies that Jesus Christ is inferior to the Fa- ther—inferior as he is man—inferior in his official cha- racter as mediator. _ Socinians and Arians may, in fu- ture, save themselves the trouble of such quotations.— In this controversy they prove just nothing at all—no- . thing but what we all acknowledge, and, therefore, no- thing to the purpose. Of those texts brought forward. to invalidate the doctrine of the Redeemer’s Divinity, that which pre- sents the greatest difficulty is, Mark xii. 32, <* But of ‘‘ that day and that hour, knoweth no man; no, not ‘‘ the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but ‘‘the Father‘only.’? A more careful perusal of the passage would, I presume, convince Doctor Bruce that this text does not refer to the day of judgment, as he imagines, but to the destruction of Jerusalem. After rectifying this mistake, he will please to observe, that no Trinitarian ever hel Meat that our Saviour, as man, Was” omniscient. ‘His knowledge, as man, was progressive. He advanced in wisdom, as well as in stature. To: ‘say, therefore, that, as man, he was ignorant of the time of Jerusalem’s destruction, is no 125 ‘way inconsistent with his omniscience as God. Be: gides: As the communication of the knowledge of that time formed no part of our Saviour’s commission— as he had no instructions to make it known—in this of- ficial sense, he might be said not to know it. Nor does the Doctor’s polite note (P. 30!) convince me of the absurdity of this view. “Some account,” says he, “ for our Saviour’s language, by charging him with ‘¢ duplicity, similar to that which Calvinists impute to ‘“his Father. They allege that he denied, in his hu- «¢ man capacity, or as mediator, what he knew in his « diyine ; and disclaimed in one character, what he ‘¢ could perform in another. What should we think of ‘¢ a witness, who should first deny his knowledge of a « fact, and’ then confess that he knew it in his public ‘character, but not in his private capacity ?” That Calvinists impute duplicity to the Father is not true; nor does their interpretation of the above-cited text impute duplicity to the Son. We do not say, that the Redeemer knew the day and hour alluded to in his public capacity, but not in his private, as Dr. B. ab- surdly insinuates. We say the very reverse. Nor did our Saviour make the declaration in the capacity of a witness, as the learned Doctor still more absurdly in- sinuates, but in the capacity of a prophel, commission- ed to reveal some events, but not all. Asawitness, he told the whole truth ; but not as a prophet.—As a prophet, he revealed only those truths which he was commissioned to reveal. ‘To say, that we do not know’ in a public capacity what we know in a private, argues no duplicity—involves 70 contradiction. A member of the Synod of Ulster, in reference toa threat of Lord a 24 Castlereagh, exclaimed in open court, ‘« Who 1s this Ny Lord Castlereagh? We do not know Lord Castle- « reagh!”? Did such a declaration involve the Synod in the guilt of duplicity ?. Surely not. In opposing the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Doctor quotes Mat. xx. 23, ‘* But to sit on my right hand and “ on my left, is not mine to give; but it shall be given ‘« to them for whom it is prepared of my J'ather.’’? The English reader will perceive, that the words, “ it shall ‘be given to them,” are printed in ‘Italics; which shews that-there are no such words in the original; that they are only a supplement inserted by our ales Though our translators have done justice to the English reader by printing all their supplements in Italics; and though their supplements are, in general, judicious ; there are some exceptions, and this is one. It com- pletely destroys the sense of the passage. It represents our Saviour as having no power to reward his followers by assigning them places of honour and happiness in his kingdom. ut this is quite contrary to the express declarations of Scripture. At the judgment of the great day, he will say to them on his right hand, ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit a kingdom os ages for you before the foundation of the world.” —(Rev. 10. 21), ** To him that overcometh will I ‘* grant ‘ sit with me in my throne.’? Leaving out | the supplement, except the words ‘¢ fo them,” the pas- sage will read thus: “ To sit on my right hand and on as my left is not mine to give, except to them for whom ‘« it is prepared of my Father.” ‘That our Redeemer has power to give seats in his kingdom, no person who reads: the preseding qpotations can doubt; but ta rG 5g ; 125 whom ? only to the elect—to those for whom the king- dom was prepared before the foundation of the world. This gloss may not exactly please our author, who greatly abhors the doctrine ‘of election. It appears, however, to be the only plain, natural, and ope ssent meaning of the passage. | , In reference to the commencement of John’s Cashel, the Doctor makes the following remarks: (P. 114), ** We, therefore, feel no dificuley in applying the in- ‘* troduction of John’s Gospel to our Lord. ‘The Word «was a celestial being, and was with God in the be- $6 ginning. This is intelligible ; ; but there is no sense “in saying, ‘God was God, and was with God.’ ?— I grant, indeed, there is no sense in this; ; but who is guilty of the nonsense? Not the Evangelist : he says no such thing—Not the Trinitarian: he says no such thing. ‘The nonsense recoils on the Doctor himself.— To. substitute God for Word, and then, instead of «©The Word was God,” read God was God, is cer- tainly very ingenious—it is an admirable specimen of that “ sleight of men and cunning craftiness,’? whereby the simple are deceived. It is shell calculated to con- found and deceive the man of plain understanding, un- accustomed to the arts of sophistry. To point ont and expose the fallacy and absurdity of such management, let us take a similar proposition ; for instance, ‘ Elias ‘‘wasaman.” This proposition is, in all respects, si- milar to that on which the Doctor shows his. skill. ¢* Elias was a man,” and “ The Word was God,” are parallel propositions. If for ord, in the last propo- sition, the Dector substitutes God —upon the very same principle, for izas, in rene frst I will substitute man : of ee 7. | ce 126 ‘and then the two propositions will stand thus: God was God, and man was man. Now Iagree with Dr. B., that there is no sense in such propositions. But, if by such reasoning—I should rather say quibbling— he can prove, that Jesus Christ is not the Supreme God, by the very same logic J can prove—that Elias was not aman—that Dr. B. is not a man—and that there ne- wer was a man on the face of this globe!!! Nor is it any contradiction to say—that Jesus Christ was with the Father. The Deity is in one sense ome, in another sense three. In that sense in which the Supreme Being is three, there is no absurdity in representing the one person as dwelling with the other. | The Doctor sees no difficulty, upon his scheme, in ap- plying the introduction of John’s Gospel to our Lord. Is there no difficulty in the idea of a creature creating himself 2—and yet, this most absurd of all ideas, as we have already seen, is inseparably connected with the Arian system. On Arian principles, Jesus Christ is one of the highest of the angels—let us call him Gabriel, and then John’s Gospel may be read thus :—‘ In the be- « sinning was Gabriel, and Gabriel was with God, and «¢ Gabriel was God ; all things were made by Gabriel, ‘and without Gabriel was not any thing miade that ‘<¢ was made (of course Gabriel acted before he existeu, «and made himself) ; and Gabriel was made flesh, and «¢ dwelt among us.’’ The Socinian gloss is still more absurd ; for what sense in saying that “‘.4 man was “« made flesh 2*__How blind are men to the difficulties and absurdities of their own systems—systems to which they have been long attached—systems received by tra- dition from their fathers ! | 127 _ Dr. B. affirms, that our blessed Redeemer expressly rejected and disclaimed religious worship. He quotes our Saviour’s own words: ‘* Thou shalt worship the | ‘Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.’’— Now, if Jesus Christ be ‘ The Lord our God,” how has he disclaimed religious worship? That our blessed Redeemer is “ The Lord our Ged,” Dr. B. cannnot consistently deny. He admits, that the personage who appeared to Moses in the bush, and gave the law from Mount Sinai, was the Redeemer. Now this glorious personage declared, (Exodus, xx. 2), “I am THE ‘< Lornp Tuy Gop, which have brought thee out of the ‘land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”— Thomas also exclaimed, ‘‘ My Lord and. my God !”— When we worship our Redeemer, therefore, we are worshipping “ rHe. Lorp our Gop.’’ Peter refused _ religious worship—the angel refused religious wor ship— but our blessed Redeemer never rejected nor disclaimed it; on the contrary, he fname it to be the duty of all men ‘to honour the Son, even as they honour the * Father.” Dr. B. alleges (P. 109) that Jesus Christ rte marked a plain distinction between himself and the Almighty, in these words, “ This is life eternal, that they might ‘‘ know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom *‘ thou hast sent.”” We readily grant, that the Re- deemer is here plainly distinguished from his heaveuly Father : but how ?—not in respect of nature or essence, but in respect of his official character as ‘‘ the sent of “God? Tf by this text the Doctor can prove, that Jesus Christ is not the true God, the same reasoning will prove, that God the Father is not the wise God. 128 '—In the Epistle of Jude, as we have already shewn, Jesus Christ is styled ‘* the only wise God ;”’ but, does any per son imagine that this excludes God the Father ? —So, in like manner, when the Father is styled ‘ the «only true God,” should any person imagine, that this excludes his only begotten Son ?—by no means.—_ He is ‘Fur true God AND ETERNAL LIFE. Jesus Christ is styled ‘the only wise God,’’ and God the Father “THe ONLY TRUE Gop,’ not to the exclu- sion of each other, but to the exclusion of idols.— ‘‘ Little children keep yourselves from zdols. Amen.” ‘From John, xvi. 23, ‘* In that day ye shiall ask me ‘‘ nothing,” Dr. B. infers, that we should not address our prayers to the Repeemer. Now, this text has no reference to prayer at all, but only to the questions put ‘to our Saviour on difficult subjects. ‘This is evident from two things: 1, From the 19th verse, ‘ Now «s Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, &c.’? —2, That our Saviour was speaking of questions om difficult subjects, and not of prayer, is evident from this—That zt 2s not fact that his disciples after his as- cension asked him nothing in prayer; for we have al- — ready seen that Stephen prayed to him—that Paul prayed to him—and that the apostolic church was in the constant habit of praying to him. The Doctor's loss would make our blessed Redeemer a false pro- phet. In opposing the Divanity of Jesus Christ, De: By seems principally to rely on those texts, in which he is styled the Son of God. In Page 108, he writes thus : «The title which he commonly assumes, is that of the. <«¢©Son of God.’ ”? This necessarily implies priority of 129 “existence, and superiority of dignity on the part of «his Father. He also styles himself ‘the only be- ‘¢ gotten Son of God.” By this we are to understand _ ‘his only Son, by way of pre-eminence; and also his | ‘¢ dearest Son; as human parents are most tenderly at- *¢ tached to an only child. The word has often this ‘ sionification in the original language, and is, there- ‘‘ fore, tantamount to another appellation which. our <¢ Saviour assumes, the Beloved, and the Beloved Son “of God. ‘This is the meaning of these phrases, and ‘they imply, that he is inferior in dignity, and subse- ‘¢ quent, in point of existence, to the Father, and pe- “< culiarly dear to him. Whatever mysterious sense may ‘be put upon them, it will still remain unquestionable, ‘¢ that a father must exist before his son, and the origin “‘ of the son, being a fact, must have taken place, at some particular time, however remote. The strictest ‘ assertors of the divinity of Christ, acknowledge him “to be a derived being.””—Part of this paragraph is so ungrammatical and incoherent, that I have been obliged to abandon it as unintelligible. In language, however, quite distinct and perspicuous, the Doctor maintains, that the phrase Son of God “ necessarily ‘implies priority of existence, and superiority of dig- ‘‘ nity, on the part of the Father.’’* In reply, I would offer the following observations : * Dr. B. tells us, that it is not required of a son to ‘equal his father, nor of a scholar to vie with his master. A strange doc- trine indeed, and far enough removed from that which teaches the perpetual perfectability of man—if true, our world would soon be peopled with pygmies and Lilliputians. If the phrase Son of God proves, that the Redeemer was inferior to God, would not the ‘V7 180 1. Many Trinitarians do not believe in the doctrine of eternal generation. Though they believe that Jesus Christ is'God equal with the Father, they do not be- lieve that the appellation ‘Son of God” is descriptive of any eternal necessary distinction in the divine nature, but only of a new covenant relation. According to this opinion, the Doctor’s reasoning has no force. — It falls to the ground at once; for all acknowledge, that as man and mediator, Jesus Christ is inferior to the Father. But, B 2. Viewing the epithets, father and son, as descriptive of an eternal distinction in the godhead, and of a natural and necessary relation, it does not follow, that worms of the dust are able to explain the nature of that relation. Our author, in his appendix, mentions five Trinities.+— Had he wished to treat his opponents with respect, he s phrase Son of man prove, that he was also inferior to man? Would not this prove too much, and by consequence—anothing at all? + Dr. B. in his appendix, mentions a variety of Trinities—the Ciceronian, Platonic, Aristotelian, &c.—Now, what does all this prove? It proves, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not peculiar to Christians, but is believed also by Heathens. Through all ages, and in almost all heathen nations, it flows down through the cor- rupt channels of tradition, This very circumstance is no con- temptible proof of its truth. If the doctrine had not been origi- nally revealed, on what principle of human nature could it have been propagated—by what means could it have obtained so wide a circulation? But, as our author shows us in his appendix, Christians as well as Heathens,, are divided on the doctrine of the ‘Trinity. And what then? Does this prove that there is no truth in the doctrine? Surely not. Men are divided in their opinions with regard to the chief good. On this subject there are upwards of three hundred opinions. Is there therefore no chief good ?— Men are divided in their opinions respecting the nature of vir- tue. is there therefore no virtue? We will not follow the Doc- tor’s safe rule—we will not abandon the. doctrine of the Trinity, be- cause men are divided about it. i ip! a) A would have said “‘ five different views of the Trinity.” The fifth Trinity, he tells us, according to Bishop ‘Stillingfleet, is the Trinity of the mobile, which isheld _ by the common people, or by such lazy divines as-only | say, that it is an inconceivable mystery. Now, I must. confess, that this fifth and last Trinity—this Trinity of the mobile or of the mob, as the word signifies—is the Trinity which I advocate. I confess myself one of those’ lazy divines, who say that the Trinity is an in- conceivable mystery—a mystery which cannot be ex- plained. I believe in the Supreme Deity of the Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghost. I believe that these are in one respect ¢hree, and in another respect one. «1 believe these facts; because they are revealed in the sacred volume. But how they are three, and yet: but one, is a mystery. I believe nothing about it. Iam required to believe nothing about it. Instead of at- tempting to ascertain the facis, divines have endeavour- ed to explain the How. In this I blame them. By at- tempting to explain what is inexplicable, both philoso- phers and divines expose their folly, and weaken their cause. It is one of the most important laws of matter, that all heavy bodies tend to-the centre. But should a philosopher attempt to explain the cause why they so tend, he would only expose his own ignorance and > folly. Why does the magnetic needle point towards the north ?—What are the causes of its variation and dip >—‘“* How do the bones grow in the womb of her that is with child 2”? These, and a thousand other -questions, all the philosophers in the world cannot an- -swer, With asmuch justice and propriety may such philosophers, as do not pretend to explain the mysteries 132 _ of nature, be branded with the epithet lazy ; as those divines are so nick-named, who do not attempt to ex- plain the mystery of the Trinity—When Orthodox divines speak of the Son as derived from the Father, they use the term derived in a qualified sense, as appli- cable, not to his essence, but only to his personality. For my own part, however, I must confess, that I see no warrant for such aterm at all. I dislike it. I re- ject i+: and I believe, that a great majority of Trini- tarians will agree with me. However the Doctor may reason and dispute about the meaning of the phrase ** Son of God,”’ one thing he cannot dispute, That the Jews understood the phrase as implying, not inferiority to his heavenly Father, but equality. Upon this ground they. stoned him, afterwards endeavoured to apprehend him, and finally crucified him. (See John, x. 31—40, compared with Matt. xxvi, 63—67.) When our Sa- -viour, in the first of these passages, declares, ‘¢ I and ‘¢my Father are one,’ Dr. B. and Antitrinitarians in general contend, that this was not a oneness of ‘nature and essence. As a parallel text, they quote John, xvii. 21, “ That they all may be one, as thou Father art in ** me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” They allege that Jesus Christ is one with the Father in no other sense, than that in which Jelevers are one. To a superficial thinker, this may appear plausible enough ; but it will bear no examination. For, if our Saviour meant to say, that he was one with the Father only in the sense in which believers are one —if this was the natural construction of his words— why did the Jews consider him guilty of blasphemy ?— why did they take up stones to stone him? It is abun- 133 dantly evident, that the Jews understood him as we ‘understand him—as making himself equal with God. The same observations will apply to the phrase, | « Son of God.’ The Jews, who surely knew its mean- ing better than Dr. B., understood it not as implying inferiority to the Father, but equality. ‘They express- ly declare, that this was the reason why they stoned him —that he, being a man, made himself equal with God ; ° because he said, I am the Son of God, On this ground they conceived him guilty of blasphemy, and proceeded to inflict the penalty which the law of Moses attached to that crime. : Doctor Bruce, and other opponents of the Divinity of Christ allege, that our Saviour rectified this mistaken notion of the Jews, and disclaimed equality with the Father in the following terms: ‘‘ Jesus answered them, ‘¢ Ts it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods ? « If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God “came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; Say ye ‘¢of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent «‘into the world, Thou blasphemest ; because I said, <¢ T am the Son of God ??’—In these verses our Saviour, so far from disclaiming, persists in asserting, his own Deity. He proves it by an argument from the less to the greater. If Jewish magistrates, as types of the Redeemer, were denominated: gods, why should the Deity of the antitype be denied 2? Why should he be regarded asa blasphemer for claiming equality with his heavenly Father ?—That the Jewish magistrates were called gods, as they were types of our blessed Redeem- er, is evident from the following parenthetical clause, * And the Scriptures cannot be broken.’ These 134 words plainly show, that Jesus Christ is styled God, not in conformity with the phraseology of the Jews, by which their magistrates were denominated gods; but, on the contrary, that Jewish magistrates were so deno- minated, as types of him who is ‘ Over all, God bless- ** ed for ever.”,—The Scriptures cannot be broken,— There must be an antitype answering to the types—a person who would think it no robbery or blasphemy to be equal with God. That our Saviour did not intend to disclaim his own Deity and equality with the Father, is evident from this—That, after his explanation, the Jews again sought to take him. This shows plainly, that the Jews understood the Saviour,. as we do, not as disclaming, but asserting, his divinity. So far was the Redeemer from denying his own Deity, that he died a martyr to that doctrine. When the high priest ad- jured him by the living God, to tell whether he were the Son of God, * Jesus said unto him, Thou hast “* said.— Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, ** He hath spoken blasphemy. What further need ‘have we of witnesses ? behold, now you have heard “his blasphemy. What think ye? ‘They answered ‘and said, he is guilty of death.” The remarks of our author, when reasoning with the Socinians, are ap- ‘propriate here. ‘‘ Neither,’’ says the Doctor, “* would ‘he (Jesus) have left the Jews under a misapprehen- “‘ sion of his meaning, when they said, How is it that «¢ he saith I came down from heaven. ‘The candour of © our Lord would surely have induced him to undeceive «them, if they had misunderstood his words.””—Now, I ask Dr. B., when Jesus Christ said, that he and the Father were one, and that he was the Son of God ; - * Ses a & — ? ee Oe ge Oe ha ie ee ah Id and when the Jews thought that these expressions were blasphemous, and that he, beg a man, was making himself equal with God—if the Jews were mistaken in all this, as Antitrinitarians say that they were, why did not the candour of our Lord induce him to undeceive them ?. Why did he give them such an ambiguous ex- planation, as left them still under misapprehensions— misapprehensions which induced them, first to attempt to stone him, and afterwards to crucify him ?—Ac- cording to the doctrine of Socinians and Arians, our blessed Redeemer died ‘‘as a fool dies!’ He. was guilty of little less than suiczde / ‘The use of ambigu- ous language was the cause of his death! He had not so much candour as to induce him to undeceive the Jews! He had not sufficient candour to save his own life! His want of candour was the reason why he was first stoned and afterwards crucified! He was stoned for blasphemy; he was crucified for blasphemy ; and, upon Socinian and Arian principles, it would be impos- sible to acquit him of the crime; for the language he employed conveyed the idea of his equality with God. By doctrine fraught with such absurdities, I had almost said blasphemies, do modern divines endeavour to ex- plode—the Supreme Deity of our blessed Redeemer ! Upon the whole, it appears, that the phrase ‘* Son of God,”’ applied to our Saviour, is so far from proving his inferiority to the Father, that it is an invincible proof of his equality. When the Jews charged him with blasphemy for claiming this equality, he did not re- nounce the claim; but, by boldly asserting it, he died a mariyr tu his own Supreme Deity. ‘ Dr. B., as we already noticed, condemns Ssaisnias 136 - and Trinitarians, for the use they make of verbal criti- cism. He boasts, that the Arian scheme is so consis- tent and rational, that it requires no such aid. ‘To convince him that this is only vain boasting, I would take the liberty of turning his attention to Phil. u. 5, 12—that text, from which he has preached so long a sermon, im opposition to the Supreme Deity of our bless- ed Redeemer. ‘ Let this mind be in you, which was ‘¢ also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God, * thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but ‘¢ made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the ‘‘ form of a servant, and was made. in the likeness of ‘©men: And being found in fashion as a man, he hum- “ bled himself, and became obedient unto death, even *‘ the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath — ‘highly exalted him, and given him a name which is ‘¢ above every name: That at the name of Jesus every ‘‘ knee should bow, of things in heaven, and ¢hings in ‘earth, and things under the earth: And that every ‘* tongue should confess that Jesus Christ zs Lord to “the glory of God the Father.”——Now, what is the reason, that Doctor Bruce did not attempt to re- concile this text to the Arian system, without the aid of verbal criticism? ‘To this question only one — answer can possibly be given. Hz coup not—With- out the aid of verbal criticism, all the Socinians and Arians in the world could not explain this single text. Without the aid of verbal criticism, this one text would completely overturn and annihilate their systems. If, Jesus Christ thought it no robbery to be equal with God, then he was equal with God : and if he was equal with God, his Supreme Derry rests upon an immove- i ¥ vs5 r. 137 able basis, and the long existing controversy is for evet settled. Where is now the vaunted consistency and ra- tionality of the Arian scheme—a scheme, which, with- out the aid of verbal criticism, one single text would scatter to the winds, and totally annihilate ?—So then, Dr. B. has recourse to verbal criticism. Why ?—Je- cause he could not help it. ‘The case was desperate.— Without the aid of verbal criticism, his whole system would crumble into dust. Nor is this all :—to preserve his scheme from utter destruction, the Doctor was obliged to have recourse not only to verbal criticism, but to erroneous criticism. He tells us, that “the word “* translated robbery, signifies any thing taken by vio- ** lence, and particularly plunder taken from an ene- **my.’’ With great deference, I deny that the word has any such meaning. ‘The word ‘aprayy« signifies any thing taken with violence, &c.; but it 1s not ‘apraymue, Which is translated robbery; it is ‘aprayyoc, a word of a different signification—a word which signi- fies, not plunder, but the taking of plunder; and, therefore, literally and analogically translated robbery. I say analogically ; because it is principally by the ana- logy of the language, that the true meaning of the word is ascertained. ‘The same word does not occur in any other part of the New Testament, nor in the Sep- tuagint translation of the Old; and some maintain, that it does ‘net occur in any of the profane authors.— This, however, appears to be a mistake. It is found in Plutarch, but not used in the sense given it by Dr. B. Jt is there employed to signify the action, as our translators understand it, and as the analogy of the +- 18 t 138 _ Greek language requires. —The following, among many; are Instances of this analogy : Szapaccw signifies to lace- rate or tear; from this is formed the noun cmapay noc, laceration or tearing, and czapayya, the fragment or part torn off. rita xalowpo and xalapio, to purge, are formed. the verbal nouns xalagucs and xabapiouoc, both signifying purgation, or the act of purging ; whereas xabapuc signifies the offscouring or filth. Under such circumstances, nouns terminating IN pos are not to be confounded with nouns in »«; the former express the action, but the latter refer to the object or effects of the action. Nouns terminating in “os are not synonymous’ with nouns in ye, but with nouns in 73 xabepuoe, xabagiruos and xabepoc, are all synonymous—they all denote the act of purifying. Proceeding on this plain principle of analogy, our translators have very judicious- ly and accurately translated ‘apzayyor, robbery. : ae eg a oe a erg ERE a ae Serena ets — 2 Sa gn a ry hee a em a ign es ~ sae OS > Before dismissing this disputed word, I must caution q i my reader not to be deceived by the bold and confident assertions of ourauthor. In his appendix (Page 303), be confidently assumes what is not true—* that all agree ‘‘in his interpretation of the word.” Hantinandl M‘Knight, Wardlaw, and all Trinitarians that I have consulted (except one), defend the received version, in opposition to the Doctor. The writer which I have ex- cepted, is Stuart of Andover, who says, ‘ Greek syn- ‘¢ tax would place the words thus, as to their sense ; vx * nynsaTo To eye Ia Jew (xara) ‘ apmayuore With great. de- Fes os I conceive that the learned professor is, in this instance, quite ‘mistaken. Upon the principles of Greek syntax, the elipsis cannot be supplied by xaza 5, 139 but requires eq. In addition to this, [ may observe, that his objection to our translation is satisfactorily an- swered by Dr. Wardlaw. , When it is said, that our Saviour thought it no rob- bery to be equal with God, the Doctor endeavours to explain away the force of the term equal, by telling us that the word wa, in the original, often implies only a near resemblance. ' On this criticism I would make the following remarks : 1. Tt has never.yet been satietetorily proved, that the original werd ever signifies, exclusively, likeness or resemblance. ‘The authorities produced by Dr. Whitby are inconclusive. In every instance, as Wardlaw ob- serves, the word implies equality. 2. Supposing the word ica to signify, not only equali- ‘ty, but also likeness, upon what principle does Dr. B: presume to lay aside the primary meaning of the’ word, and to adopt the secondary? Upon what principle ean he do this, but upon the sophistical principle of begging the question ?—Antitrinitarians, taking for granted the thing to be proved, That Jesus Christ is not equal with the Father, very modestly conclude, that the primary meaning of the word must be laid aside, and a secondary one, agreeable to their own precon- ceived opinions, adopted ! © 3. In the text under consideration, according to the Doctor’s own showing, the word cannot signify likeness or resemblance. All that he pleads for is, that the word - “‘ often implies only near resemblance.”? Now, upon the principle that Jesus Christ was only a creature, between him and the Deity there was no near resem- 140 ‘blance. The resemblance between the rudest savage and Solomon the wise was infinitely nearer. Between a creature and his creator, there is an infinite. distance, and, consequently, the resemblance must. be infinitely remote. It is therefore evident, that though the word may sometimes imply only near resemblance, this can- not possibly be the meaning of it here. The Doctor alleges, that the original word, if. translated equal, “‘ would. signify that God was equal to himself ; or «else, that there are two Gods.’? But does he not know, that Trinitarians believe the Deity to be, in one respect three, and in another one ?. They do not be- lieve, that there are three persons, and yet but one person; or three Gods, and yet but one God—this would be a contradiction—but they believe, that there are three persons, and yet but one God. Jesus Christ thought it no robbery to be equal with God. This proves, that he and the Father are two distinct persons ; but not that they are two Gods, or that God is hie to himself. From the phrases, ‘‘ form of God,”’ sa, es eae of a “ servant,’ the Doctor concludes, that Jesus Christ was not really a servant, but only resembled a servant ; and that he was not really God, but only resembled God. From the very same premises, I would draw the very opposite cunclusion.. From the . phrase «
— The fulfilment of all these rendered it impossible that the bitter cup should pass from the Redeemer—that sin should be pardoned without a satisfaction. “ With- “ gut shedding of blood there is “0 remission.” — ey ae eS eo et A STIR AE ee ee ‘164 In opposing the necessity of the sufferings of Christ, our author appears completely bewildered. Witness the following extraordinary paragraph (P. 21 2), “ One “text which fayours the opinion, that the crucifixion “of Christ made an original part of the plan of re- « demption, is in the thanksgiving of Peter and John: « (Acts, xv. 27), Of atruth, against thy holy. child, ss Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and « Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of « Israel, were gathered together for to do whatsoever thy «hand and counsel determined before to be done.— ‘‘ The words determined to be done, may, however, ‘only import, that these events were foreseen as the ‘* natural consequence of his mission.’ , The Doctor himself grants, that Acts,i iV. an, fa- yours the opinion, that the crucifixion of Christ made an original part of the plan of redemption. Now, if the text favours that opinion, that opinion must be true; for surely, no text of Scripture would favour an erroneous opinion, The Apostle Peter favoured the opinion: Dr. B. favours the opposife opinion | Now, Christian readers, whether it be right in the sight of God, to adopt the opinions favoured by Dr, Bruce, ra- ther than those favoured by the Apostle Peter, judge ye! Our author grants that the text favours the opinion, that the crucifixion of Christ made an original part of the plan of redemption ; and yet, strange to tell! in the very same paragraph he denies that it favours such an opinion! He proves—or thinks he pr oves—that it does not. How? by avery simple process—by telling us, that. the Apostle said one thing and meant another— that though he declared. the Redeemer’s crucifixion, to 165 ‘be detetermined. before—he only meant that it was seen before !—Thus, in one short paragraph, Dr. B. contradicts the Apostle—contradicts himself—and_pub- lishes to the whole world a wonderful discovery——that foreordination may import nothing more. than fore- knowledge !* | is Endeavouring to prove, that the Redeemer’s blood was not very important in the work of our redemption, and that it might have been dispensed with, the Doctor employs an argument, if possible, still more extraordi- nary. In the parable of the householder, after the mal- treatment of a variety of servants, God the Father ‘is represented as sending, last of all, his Son, saying, «© They will reverence my Son.” ‘* Here,’’ says Dr. — B., ‘‘an expectation of the success and safety of his * Son is plainly implied.”’—What | Is it possible ?— Did God foreknow, from all eternity, that his Son would be crucified, and yet expect he would mot be erucified?. In his crucifixion, did his enemies do whatsoever God’s hand and counsel determined before to be done; and yet did God expect that his Son would not be crucified 2. Did God inspire prophets to predict the crucifixion of his Son, and yet did not expect that acl ele NAAR SE cn en _* When Dr, B.[substitutes foreknowledge for predetermination, the reader may suppose, that the original word admits of such a construction. He will be surprized, however, to learn, that it never has such a meaning. powpice, the word translated deter- mined before, is derived from ’epa, to raise up—thence comes ’ of 06, mountain, because mountains are elevations—thence, _ again, "opoc, a boundary, because mountains are boundaries—from ‘opos, a boundary, comes “opie, to bound, and mpoopstw, the word in the text, to bound or determine before. _ » Lage lop intva swe xa” 166 he would be crucified ?» Did God—but why expose the absurdity any farther? The Deity never expected— nor could possibly expect—any event inconsistent with his own Joreknowledge, his own decrees and his own predictions. Nay, I will go farther and assert, without any fear of rational contradiction—that the Deity never expected any event to come to pass, which does not actually come to pass. To suppose, that any event may fall out. otherwise than: the Deity expected, is to suppose, that the divine expectations may be disappoint- ed, and, of course, that the ever blessed God may be unhappy! In vain does Dr. B. depreciate the death of our blessed Redeemer —in vain does he ‘endeavour to represent it as an unessential part of redemption,. by quoting our Saviour’s words before his crucifixion, ‘* J ‘* have finished the work thou gavest me to do.” Dr. Millar’s reply is judicious and satisfactory: (P. 105), ‘¢ When, however, our Saviour said in his prayer, that ‘“ he had finished the work which his Father had given ‘him to do, he must be understood to speak of his mine Mustry. 3: 286.5%) the addg\.). have manifested thy “© name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the “world. This was the work to be done by. our Sa- *‘viour. That which remained, was to be suffered by “AM ees ts | Dr. B. admits, that “the death of Christ was a prin- “ cipal part of redemption—that it was essential to his ‘* resurrection, which is the most incontrovertible proof ‘‘ of the divinity of his religion, the corner stone of ‘* the church, and the foundation of the faith of Chris- ** tians—that without the awful catastrophe of his per- “‘ secution, death, and resurrection, all other evidence 167 «¢ would have been inadequate* to subdue the stubborn «incredulity of this sceptical age.” (See P. 241-2-3.) How such concessions are consistent with the opi- nion, that the death of Christ was not indispensably necessary, remains to be explained. Christ’s death was the principal part of redemption ; and yet was not es- sential to it!—was not indispensably necessary !— Christ’s death was the most incontrovertible proof of the divinity of his religion, and yet was not indispensably necessary! Christ’s death was the corner stone of. the church, and yet was not indispensably necessary !—_ Christ’s death was the foundation of the Christian faith, and yet was not indispensably necessary! One thing, bat least, the Doctor will acknowledge to be indispen- - sably necessary—that while a writer is contradicting the doctrines of divine revelation, he should be care- ful not to contradict himself ! | : Secrion II. Reconciliation shown to be necessary on the part of God, as well as on the part of man. __ . Our author, having laboured hard, but laboured in vain, to prove that the death of Christ was not indis- pensably necessary, proceeds more formally to attack oe The awful catastrophe of our Saviour’s death is quite intelli- gible—but the awful catastrophe of his resurrection is absurd ; it is another specimen of that confusion of ideas which is so frequently discoverable in the Doctor's sermons. , ‘ 168 the doctrine of the Atonement.—And how does the Doctor advance to the charge? By endeavouring to deprive of all definite meaning the language employed in the communication of the doctrine. The word atone- ment in his text (Rom. v. 11) is translated in the mar- gin reconciliation. _What inference does the Doetor deduce from this? A very extraordinary one indeed— that the original word has “no peculiar signification !’’ What! In the nineteenth century—in the Athens of Ireland—and by Dr. B., the quondam celebrated prin- cipal of the Belfast Academy—to be told that certain Greek words have ‘‘no peculiar signification’? Every scholar, who has the least acquaintance with the philo- sophy of language, knows, that every word has some peculiar—some radical meaning, from which all its other meanings—if it has any other—are deduced.— But (delenda est Carthago) the Atonement is to be exploded, and this object can never be accomplished, without a sacrifice of the first principles of language and general grammar.—So long as there is any definite meaning in words, the doctrine of atonement must ~ remain impregnable. Involving the doctrine in obscurity, with a view to the complete subversion of it, Dr. B. writes thus: (P. 314) ‘ The English word atonement has a variety “6 of significations 1 in our Bibles.”’—After enumerating those various meanings, he sagely concludes ; ‘« These ‘“‘ instances may tend to correct the superstitious no- tions, so often attached to this mysterious word.”— By such a simple process, the Doctor contrives to ex- plode the most important doctrines of the Christian sys- tem—first the Supreme Deity, and now the Atonement 169 of our Blessed Redeemer. The word God has various meanings, and therefore we cannot prove by the appli- cation of this term, that the Redeemer is God in the © highest and. ordinary sense of that word! The word atonement has various meanings: it is a mysterious word; and, therefore, its common acceptation is to be rejected! An admirable contrivance indeed !—a con- trivance well calculated to explode all the doctrines of divine revelation! aint | : If variety of meaning render words peeve and isp tan ; and if stick ambiguity and mysteriousness render them unfit for proving any doctrine, what doc- rine could be proved? On this principle, the whole Christian system might be exploded at once! Every person acquainted with the nature of reasoning and language, will join with me in’ protesting against such desolating principles of logic and of criticism. © - Atonement or at-one-ment, is the ‘‘setting at one ‘‘ again,’’ of persons previously at variance. In this ori- ginal meaning of the word, as Dr. B. justly observes, it was synonymous with reconciliation. Now, if those two synonymous words are found, one in the text, and the other in the margin, how does this prove that the original word xaraaaayn, of which they are translations, has no peculiar meaning? The solution of this pro- blem, Iam convinced, would require a philologist far superior either to Dr. B., or his humble opponent. As the original word isin every other place rendered recon- ciliation, it should, I presume, have been so translated in the text. Still more necessary is it to adopt this trans- lation now, as the word atonement has undergone a change of signification; and the two words remain no 22 170 longer synonimous. Though Dr. B. will agree with mein translating the word xzraa,xqy, reconciliation, in preference to atonement ; yet, with regard to the ap- plication of the word so translated, whether it is to be understood as reconciliation on the part of God or man ; whether it means God’s being pacified towards us, or ‘our laying aside our enmity towards him—this is. the point in dispute. The advocates of the atonement maintain that reconciliation is necessary, both in refer- ence to God and man—that God requires to be recon- eiled to man, as well as man to be reconciled to God.— The enemies of the atonement deny this, and maintain, that there is no necessity of God being reconciled to man; but only of man being reconciled to God. ‘This is the cardinal point, on ~ the whole controversy seems to turn. by ‘The opponents of the atonement maintain, that, in the Scriptures of truth, man is always said to be recon- ciled to God, but God is never said to be reconciled to man. In reply to this, I would observe 1st—That, were the statement true, it would not prove what 1s mtended. - In Scripture ‘phraseology the offending party is said: to be’ reconciled, when the party offended is pacified.— Thus (Mat. v. 23, 24), ‘* Therefore if thou bring thy ‘+ oift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy bro- «ther hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before ‘sthe altar, and go thy way ; first be reconciled to thy ‘brother, and then come and offer thy gift.”” Here the offending brother is enjoined to be reconciled; though the meaning plainly i is—that, by proper, acknowledg- ments or restitution, he should endeavour to. pacify the brother offénded. In like manner, when ‘men, the of- PAE fending party, are said to be reconciled to God, this does not ne but _— his reconciliation towards them. hrestaae , aa os 2. God, Shahid is “as to. arn yc sacifieds aril. | is ntl to his being reconciled. (Ez. xvi. 63), ‘© That thou mayst remember and be confounded, and ‘<¢never open thy mouth any more, because of thy: ‘¢ shame, when I am pacified toward thee, for all. ‘that ‘‘ thou hast done, saith the Lord God.” To be recon- — % ciled, and to be pacified, are phrases-of similar import— Again, (Isaiah, xii. 1.) ‘* And in that day thou shalt “say, O Lord, I will praise thee; though thou wast “ angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and «thou comfortedst me.’’—Here, God is. reconciled ; his anger is turned away, and the soul comforted., - -3. The text, from which Dr. B. preaches his two sermons against: the atonement, proves the very doc- _trine he so violently opposes» _ (Rom. vy. 11,) “ And “‘ not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord - << Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the 6 atonement.”? ‘That atonement, or reconciliation as the word should be rendered, is expressive of God’s be- ing pacified, and not of man’s being reconciled, will.be evident on a moment's: reflection ; for how. could. we receive our own reconciliation. Would it not be non- sense to’ say, we have received the laying aside of our own enmity ? Daniel prophesies, that Jesus Christ would make reconciliation for inquity ; and Paul declares, that _ our great antitypical High Priest made reconciliation for the sins of the people—and how ? The same apostle will ‘answer the — : He put away sin by a sacri- “¢ fice of himself.” ee . 172 4. That the blood of Jesus was necessary in order to reconcile God to man, is evident from this—That all mankind were exposed to the wrath and judicial displea- sure of God. (Rom. i. 18), ‘¢ For the wrath of God is ‘¢ revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and un- ‘‘ righteousness of men.” By the vacarious sufferings of Jesus, this wrath is turned away, and God is’ recon- ciled. ‘The Lord 1 1s shia anu for his irene Witake. ou!) | Against this view of the sah Dr. B. saw spain with great. vehemence. (P. 234) «« Another pretence””* says he, ‘¢ for the popular doctrine of the atonement is, ‘‘ that sin is so hateful to God as to excite his wrath in “‘ the highest degree; and that his vengeance cannot be <¢ appeased without the everlasting destruction of the ‘© sinners ; but that he was prevailed upon by Christ, a _ portion of his own essence, to accept of his sufferings ‘‘in their stead. This is an extraordinary accumula- ‘tion of false doctrine and contradiction.’’—Again, (P. 290), “ You may begin to apprehend, that Iam “ yunning into the common error of magnifying the << Son above the Father ; of ascribing all the grace to ‘‘ Christ and all the wrath to God.’”,—Who magnifies the Son above the Father? Who ascribes all the grace to Christ and all the wrath to God? The Doctor de- clares, that these errors are common. I call upon him to name a single individual, who, either from the pul- pit or the press, ever advocated such errors. | Who ever maintained, that God was prevailed on by Jesus Christ, A ae a a * All is mere pretence it seems. 173 a portion of his own essence, to accept of his sufferings in the stead of sinners ? It is painful to animadvert on such’ gross misrepresentations. The advocates of the atonement never imagined that God the Father was Jess — placable or less merciful than Jesus Christ. | They ne- ver imagined that the Redeemer rendered God placable. They always spurned with contempt such foul imputa- tions. Dr. B. knew this; for he quotes the following words of the Archbishop of Dublin: ‘The sacrifice *‘ of Christ was never deemed, by any who did not wish * to calumniate the doctrine of the atonement, to have ‘¢ made God placable.’? One should think that this bold protest’ of the Archbishop against the wilful calumniators of the doctrine, would have prevented future calumnies. But no. It will not do. The preceding quotations show, that protests and remonstrances are of no avail. The enemies of the atonement will go on to 5 el tng sent we calumniate the doctrine. Dr. B. (P. 229) indulges in the following invective : “If, therefore, the common doctrine of the atonement *¢ or propitiation imply, that God is not naturally pro- ** pitious, placable, and merciful, it contradicts every “principle of natural and revealed religion. He re- quires nothing to make him merciful, but to be ‘merciful ourselves ; nothing to make him placable, “but that we be meek, lowly, and forgiving: no- thing to make him propitious to us, but that we be ‘kind and tender-hearted to one another. With re- ‘© spect to himself, he requires only that we walk hum- ‘* bly before him. Any construction, therefore, of this “doctrine, which represents God as implacable, should “be rejected without foxther i inquiry, without exposing: a i r e 4 “ your religious feelings to be degraded by sophistical “ arguments and fanatical harangues.” We grant: Dr. _ Ba. that if the common doctrine of the atonement im- plies, that God is not naturally propitious, placable, and merciful, it contradicts every principle of natural and revealed religion. But the common doctrine of the atonement implies no such thing. The advocates of the atonement abhor the idea. They regard it with in- finite contempt. It is not the friends, but the enemies of the atonement, that represent God as naturally im- placable. It is Dr. B. that thus represents him. Ac- cording to the’ Doctor, God is ‘not naturally merciful, propitious, or placable; but requires to be MADE so !— And who will waxe him so? Wes oursreives!! He requires our mercifulness to make HIM MERCIFUL !— our meekness, lowliness, and forgiving disposition, to make HIM PLACABLE !—our kindness and tender-heart- edness, to make nim Proprtious !—What even the blood of the Son of God could not accomplish, is thus modestly ascribed to human virtue! Let the reader now judge whose principles are most calculated to expose our religious feelings to be degraded by sophistical argu- ments and fanatical harangues—whose doctrine it is that contradicts every Liga ia sisi and. revealed religions ar) Pvt iia’: excite The advocates of the ‘atonement constantly affirm, that Father, Son, and’ Holy Ghost, are equal in placa- bility—in merey—in grace—in love—in all divine per- fections. “They ' ‘onstantly affirm, that it was the sove- reign mercy, grace and love’ of God, which imduced him to provide a remedy, to lay help upon one that was “ to save—to. send his'Son into the world to save 175 sinners. They constantly affirm, that ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that «« whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but «« have everlasting life.’”? Such are the real. views. of | those who hold the doctrine of the atonement—views very different indeed from that “ extraordinary accumu- ‘‘jation of false doctrine’? and contradiction, ay chores upon them by Dr. B _ After our author has euiiciivalys abet, train imaginary false doctrine, he proceeds to state, what he conceives to be the érue doctrine. Sin, he grants, to be hateful to God, and at the same time as- sures us, that ‘‘ God’s hatred of sin can mean only «his hatred of the sinner, and his love of righteousness ‘¢ can be shown only by his kindness to the righteous.” Now, if God hate sin, and if his hatred of sin can on- ly mean his hatred of sinners, it follows of course, that God hates all mankind; for all are sinners! We distinguish between God’s hatred of sin, and his ha- tred of sinners; the Doctor denies any such distinction. It follows then, that since God hates sin—and hates it - with an implacable hatred, as our author will not deny— he must also hate sinners with animplacable hatred !— And as the whole human family who are capable of mo-. ral agency are sinners, he must hate with implacable _ hatred the whole human family !—but, if he hate the whole human family with an implacable hatred, the whole human family must be eternally miserable !— They must all be damned! Not one soul can possibly be saved! God /oves mankind, according to the Doc- tor, yet hates them—hates them as he hates sin, that is, with an implacable and eternal hatred !! . Such are a 176 - Dr. Bruce’s ideas of God’s hatred of sin and sinners ! Such is his mad, true, and. consistent doctrine! | ! Let us attend to his views of God’s love of righteous- ‘ness. God's love of righteousness,”’ says the Doctor, ‘< can be shown only by his kindness to the righteous.” New and strange doctrine indeed! A doctrine as un- scriptural and absurd, as it is novel. ‘Tell me, Dr. B., can God only show his love of righteousness by his kind- ness to the righteous? Can he not also show it’ by punishing the wicked? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance ? The sentiments of David on this subject differ widely from those of our author. (Psal. xi. 6, 7;) ‘* Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brim- ‘< stone, and an horrible tempest : this shall be the por- “tion of their cup. For the righteous Lord loveth ‘‘ righteousness ; his countenance doth behold the up- “right.” Here we see, that God’s love of righteous- ness is testified, by raining a horrible tempest on sin- ners, as well as by showing kindness to the righteous.— (See Rev. xvi. 5, 6.—Rom. ii. 6, 9, inclusive. )—I sub-) mit, now, to every reader capable of the slightest reflec- tion, whether the friends of the atonement, or Dr. B. may more justly be charged with an extraordinary accu- mulation of false doctrine and contradiction. be ie 177 Section III. The Diith of Christ. Vicarious. The way of a sinner’s nehwela is. SO plains; that i & wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err therein. — But is there any thing so plain, either in the volume of nature or divine revelation, as not to be controverted ? | That there is a God has been denied—that there is a | sun in the firmament has been questioned—that there is no material world, has been asserted—that there is nothing in the universe but ideas and sensations, has been strenuously maintained.—It would seem, that the pride of man piques itself in opposing those truths which are the most plain and incontrovertible ; whilst it glories in advocating errors the most. paradoxical and abighards Were this weakness of our nature—to call it by no worse name—manifested only in abstract theories, and philosophical. speculations, it might be regarded as of very little consequence—it might afford matter of ri- dicule or amusement : but, when it is employed in sub- verting the Christian system, or razing the foundations of the sinner’s hope, the pious Christian cannot avoid feeling the most acute and painful sensations. Good, how- ever, results from evil. Not only Christianity itself, but all the doctrines of the Christian system, are calculated. to bear the most rigorous examination—the most fiery trial. Whilst the wood, hay, and stubble, of erro- neous ce are burnt up, the gold, silver, and pre- 23 178 cious stones of gospel doctrines shine forth with reful- gent splendour, delighting every mind with their beau- ty, and dazzling every eye with their glory. | The great atoning sacrifice of Jesus was predicted by prophets, typified by sacrifice, proclaimed by apostles, preached by the Redeemer, and celebrated in. the rap- turous inspired anthems both of the Old and New Tes- tament church. Hundreds of texts prove that glorious doctrine, which is the foundation stone of the Christian system—the cardinal point, on which turn all our hopes for time and eternity. The doctrine of a vicarious _ atonement, being of great, of paramount, of infinite im- portance, is taught in the sacred volume, so abundantly and so clearly, that he who runs may read. Isatau assures us, that our blessed Redeemer was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities ; that the chastisement of ow peace was up- on him, and that by his stripes we are healed—that it pleased the Lord to bruise him, to put him to grief, to make his soul an offering for sin, and to hey upon him the iniqusties of us all. Danie predicted, that the Messiah should be cut off, but not for himself—that he should finish trans- gressions, make an end of sins, make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness. Tue APOSTLE ea assures us, ‘that we are bought with a price—that. Jesus Christ gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity—that we have re- demption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins— that he has purchased the church with his blood—that he has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made acurse for us—that God has set him forth to be a propi- 179 tiation through faith in his blood, and has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. That Jesus. Christ gave himself for us, as a sacrifice and offering 1) a sweet smelling savour; and er away sin by the s sacri- fice of himself. | tt -Perer affirms, that we are redeemed, not with cor- ruptible things, as silver or gold, but with the precious bloed of the Son of Ged, as of a lamb without spot or blemish—that Jesus Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God—that his ewn self bare our sins in his own body on the tree. Tur Apostle JOHN assures us, once and again, that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins—and that his blood cleanseth us from all sin. Our BLEssED Lorp HIMseELF declares, that he came not to be ministered unto, but to ministers: and to give his life a ransom for many. pie oe These, and a multitude of other Scriptures too nu- merous for quotation, prove to the humblest and most literate mind, the doctrine of a vicarious atonement.— - The obvious meaning of such texts Dr. B. endeavours to evade by a variety of stratagems. He tells us, that ‘¢ the words in Greek which are translated for, as Christ died for us,”’ and ‘‘ he was a ransom for many,” are equivocal. . But I will tell the learned Doctor, that the words ar7:, veg, and 7p, in Greek, are no more equi- vocal than the word for in English. When the mere English scholar reads, that an orange was given for a lemon, or an apple for a pear, does he feel any difficul- ty in the application of the wor d for? None at ail. He knows quite well, that it signifies substitution or 180 exchange. Were Dr. b. to tell him, that he is quite mistaken—that the word for has various acceptations— that, therefore, he should not conclude that there was any barter, substitution or exchange in the case—would not the most illiterate peasant laugh at such criticism ? - With equal contempt will the plain unlettered Chris- tian treat that criticism, which denies that there is any substitution implied in such texts as these: ‘* Christ ‘‘ died for the ungodly’’—He “ gave his life a ransom ‘for many’’—* Who gave himself a ransom for all.’ And with still greater contempt will such criticism be treated by the man who understands the force of the ori- ginal. ‘The radical meaning of the preposition utp, is above. The first quoted text might therefore be more literally rendered, ‘‘ Christ’ died above the ungodly.”’ The idea is strikingly significant. ‘The sinner is repre- sented as lying prostrate at the feet of his offended so- vereign, and the arm of divine vengeance lifted up, rea- dy to strike the fatal blow; the blessed Redeemer throwing himself, ‘v7+s, upon or above the sinner, is pierced by the sword of divine justice, whilst the sinner — escapes. ‘The ordinary signification of the preposition avi, is also substitution. (Ex. xxi. 23, 24}, ** And if ‘¢any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, ‘« ye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for “© foot.’’—lIn all these instances of substitution, the pre- position for, is a7 the Septuagint. Multitudes of si- milar instances might be adduced, When we are assur- ed, that Jesus Christ gave his life a ransom for many. (xurpov avr: woanoy), can we doubt that substitution is in- tended? The appropriate meaning of xv7p0r, isa ransom, and of «v7s, substitution. —1 Tim. il. 6, is, if possible, still eta 181 stronger. Who gave himself (avravzsov) a vicarious ransom (‘ump xarrav) instead of all... ‘The vicarious na- ture of the ransom is pointed out, first by the preposi-_ tion a7, and, if this were not sufficient, it is again pointed out by the preposition ‘vzts..On some of the senses of these prepositions, Dr. B. tells his hearers, the doctrines ‘of imputed righteousness and) vicarious punishment have been chiefly erected. Whether pre- positions, or nouns, or verbs, or some of the other parts of speech, contribute most to the support of those doc- trines, I have never yet inquired ; nor do I conceive it important to determine. One thing I know, that if those doctrines, or any other doctrines, be erected at all, they must»be erected on some of the senses of pre- positions and other parts of speech! I know, also, that the prepositions, in their most usual acceptations, are entirely. in favour of those doctrines : and still farther, I know, that if our°author be able to overturn those doctrines, it will not be by the ordinary senses of either prepositions or any other class of words. » Let: not Dr. B. think to explode those doctrines, by telling his hear- ers that the words by which they are supported have various meanings. We all know this. .The words which support a// doctrines have various meanings. Let him come forward like a true philologist, ina manner worthy of his high literary attainments—let him show that the words fur, bear, &c. must be taken in senses different from those which we ascribe to them—let him do this, or confess that he has done nothing, or, what is worse than nothing—darkened counsel by words without knowledge. In the same manner, the Doctor involves in darkness the whole work of redemption, by 182 vepresenting such terms as ransomed, redeemed, pur. chased, bought, &c. as metaphorical expressions—forms of speech adopted by the Apostles from habit, or from a wish to accommodate themselves to the usage of their correspondents and disciples. He conceives also, that the death of Christ is styled a sacrifice, only in allusion: to the sacrifices of the legal dispensation. He con- founds types with antitypes, shadows with substances, and envelopes the whole in darkness and confusion.— *s The law was a shadow of good things to come,”’ Jesus Christ, his offices and benefits, were the substance. Dr. B. inverts this order. He represents redemption by Christ, the ransom he paid, and the sacrifice he of- fered, as mere shadows, embellishments of speech, and figurative allusions—allusions to redemption from Egypt —to legal sacrifices, &c.* pe «* Other . expressions,’’ says our author (P. 219), <¢ are borrowed from the Jewish sacrifices, on account “¢ of an apparent resemblance between. the crucifixion «¢ and the death of a victim; but this is only apparent, ‘s and there is no more reason for taking these literally ‘¢ than the former.’’ So then, it seems, that between the legal sacrifices and the death of Christ there was not so much as a resemblance. ‘The resemblance was * Dr. B. brings forward the arguments of Socinians and Arians —arguments, the sophistry of which Archbishop Magee has com- pletely detected and exposed. Though he has read Magee on Atonement and Sacrifice, without paying the least attention ‘to the reasonings of that justly celebrated author, he proceeds with the utmost confidence to exhibit once more the exploded doctrines of Taylor and Priestly. For such unaccountable conduct, he falls under the merited censure of Dr. Millar, of Armagh, who repeats some of the Archbishop's arguments. ahaa 1838 only apparent, but not real! Christ’s death, according to Dr B., was not a real, but only a metaphorical, saeri- fice. Neither is the metaphor itself veal, but only ap- > parent—a metaphor without any real resemblance!—a _ false metaphor !—the shadow of a shadow !—Such an at- tack upon an inspired Apostle requires no comment. Dr. B. asserts, that the paschal lamb was no sacrifice. P. 222, he writes thus: ‘* But the paschal lamb was. ** not sacrificed : no sacrifice could be performed except **in the temple; but the paschal lamb, to which our *« Saviour is compared, was killed in a private house, ‘‘ and dressed and eaten at a domestic entertainment, ‘‘ without any sacrificial ceremonies. If, therefore, <‘ Christ was literally sacrificed, he could not be liken- ‘‘ ed to the paschal lamb.’’—In this quotation, Dr. B. asserts, that the paschal lamb was nota sacrifice, but the _ Spirit of God asserts that it was. (Ex. xii. 27), ‘Ye _ shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover.’’ (Ex. xxxiv. 25), “ Thou shall not offer the blood of my “* sacrifice with leaven ; neither shall the sacrifice of the < feast of the passover be left unto the morning.’ — Hearers of Dr. B., and readers of this RrerurTaTion ! _ whether it be right in the sight of God, to believe the - Doctor rather than God, judge ye! It is true, in- _ deed, that the Jews originally killed and eat the pass- over in private houses: their circumstances forbade them to do otherwise: but it is no-less true, that when they came into the land of Canaan, the practice was changed : they were strictly enjoined’ to sacrifice the _ passover, only in the place which the Lord their God should choose. It was one of the great anniversary feasts celebrated at Jerusalem. After the temple was 184 built; the paschal lamb was sacrificed only in the temple. Was Dr. B. ignorant of this fact? Did he never read Deut. xvi. 2, 6? The Apostle Paul asserts, that Christ: our passover is sacrificed for us. In this assertion, he likens the sacrifice of Christ to that of the paschal lamb ; but how could the sacrifice of Christ, whether literal or metaphorical, be like that of the paschal lamb, if the paschal lamb was not ‘sacrificed at all? To deny, therefore, that the paschal lamb was sacrificed, is an outrage upon language and common ‘sense.—It is to charge an inspired Apostle with likening one thing to another, when between the two objects there is no re- semblance! Speaking of the death of Christ, the Doc- tor says\(P. 936), *‘if it be a sacrifice, it is not a pass- ‘‘ over; and if a passover, no sacrifice.”’—The prece- ding observations will show, that this bold dogmatic as- sertion is not true. ‘The death ee Christ is both a opens and a sacrifice. | ‘In opposing the vicarious avvibice of Jesus Christ, Dr. B. gravely tells us, what every one knows, that the scape goat was not sacrificed, nor put to. death in any way. He declares, that the ceremony “was an « elegant emblem of free pardon—a gratuitous pardon, ‘* without sacrifice, ransom, imputation of sin, or vica- ‘¢ sjous punishment.”? The Doctor, however, forgets to tell us—that it’ required two goats to complete the ceremony—that the first. was sacrificed before the other was sent away as a scape goat into the wilderness. ‘The sacrificed goat represented the atonement of Jesus; and the scape goat, the efficacy of that atonement in re- moving guilt. Accordingly, all the sins of all the con- gregation were confessed over the head of the goat.— 185 That the sins of the children of Israel were typically transferred to the goat, is evident from this—that he is said to carry them away; and the priest who confessed those sins over his head, and the person who conducted _ the goat to the wilderness, were both regarded as un- clean, and were both obliged to submit to a course of legal. purification. The ceremony, therefore, plainly exhibited those great and important doctrines of impu- ted guilt, and vicarious punishment. To hide these doctrines from the eyes of his hearers, Dr. B. is obliged to conceal one half of the ceremony. He exhibits to view the scape goat ; but®carefully conceals the goat which was slam. He puts asunder what God has join- ed, and thus contrives to lay aside thé most important doctrine of the Gospel. The Doctor asserts, that if Jesus Christ was asin offering, he could not be a peace offering ; and if he was a peace offering, he could not be asin offering—and that he was neither. ‘This is one of those bold dogmatic assertions with which his ser- mons every where abound—assertions founded neither in Scripture nor in reason. ‘That the Redeemer was both a sin offermg and a peace offering, the Scriptures plainly teach. He was a sin offering; for he ‘ put “away sin by the sacrifice of himself.’? He was also a peace offering; for he ‘“‘made peace by the blood of _ ‘his eross.”” With the same groundless confidence the Doctor asserts, that sin offerings were never vicarious. — It is evident, however, that ad/ these offerings were vi- carious. or what other purpose, than to point out their vicarious nature, and to denote a transfer of cere- monial guilt, did the offerer lay his hand on the head of the victim ?—If the sacrifices of the patriarchal and le- +. 24 . 186 gal dispensations were not vicarious—if they were not typical of the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ, what were they ?—for what purpose were they instituted ?— Why were so many thousands and millions of victims slain; and so many oceans of blood shed ; if not to ty- pify the atoning blood of Jesus Christ? For such an immense waste of blood, no rational account can be gi- ven by the enemies of the atonement. ‘They have in- vented, it is true, a great variety of hypotheses; but they are all completely futile and unsatisfactory.* The hypothesis of Dr. B. is quite as absurd and unreason- _ able.as those of his predecessors. ‘‘ Sacrifices,’’ says the Doctor, *‘ were.a symbolical address te God, ex- * pressing the devotion, repentance, and other pious . ‘* affections of the sufferer.’”’—Devotion! What kind of devotion could be expressed by the daily embruing of hands in blood ?—Pious affections! What pious affec- tions could possibly be expressed, by the dying agonies, and expirmg groans of suffering animals ?—Unconnect- ed with the atonement, such scenes of suffering and blood were calculated to eradicate and destroy, rather than to promote and excite, pious and devout affections. Such. scenes were calculated, not to improve, but to blunt the moral feelings—not to render the worship- pers merciful and humane, but cruel and ferocious! !|— Socinians and Arians are constantly ringing changes on the mercy of God. Mercy! What mercy ?—to butcher millions of animals, and shed oceans of blood, and even the blood of God’s own son, without any necessity !— -* See those hypotheses refuted and exposed by Magee on the” Atonement and Sacrifice. 187 “Not clemency and mercy, but cruelty and blood, cha- racterise the Antitrinitarian Deity. 4 a4 8 The millions of sacrifices that were offered, were so many millions of proofs of the doctrine of the atone- ment. he language of every victim whose blood stained the altar, was, ‘‘ WITHOUT SHEDDING OF ‘6 BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION.” ‘* BEHOLD THE « Lams or GoD WHO TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE “© WORLD !|”” Almost all things were by the law purged sith lac: The mercy seat or the throne of God was sprinkled with blood—plainly shewimg, that before mercy is dis- pensed, justice must be satisfied—that justice and judg- ment are the habitation or the basis of the throne of God ; whilst mercy and truth move in glorious proces- sion pilav him—Moses also ; sprinkled the book ; and all the people. He sprinkled ‘the book; thereby signifying, that it is by the peace-speaking blood of Jesus, that all the curses written in that book are ean- celled ; and that it is through the same atoning blood, that the people ‘of God are entitled to all the blessings written in that book. He sprinkled the people.—As only those Israelites, on the upper lintels and door posts of whose houses the blood of the paschal lamb was sprinkled, escaped the destroying angel; so none but those whose souls are sprinkled with the atoning blood of Jesus Christ can possibly escape the wrath to come.’ - Moses made atonement for the holy place ; thus sig- ‘nifying, that it is through the blood of Jesus that we obtain, not only remission of sins, but an inheritanee . among all them that are sanctified. By this atoning blood we are not only freed from the wrath to come ; but 188 have access to the enjoyment of God in heaven. Jesus is entered into the holiest of all, not with the blood of bulls nor of goats, but with his own blood, having ob- tained eternal redemption for us. As the whole of the way by which the high priest passed into the most holy place was sprinkled with blood ; so we have now a new and living way to the holiest of all—to the mansions of eternal glory and bliss—consecrated by the blood of Jesus Christ !—Under the law, not only the tabernacle, but all the vessels of service were sprinkled with blood. Atonement was also made for the altar ; because of the uncleanness of the Children of Israel. Sin cleaves to our most solemn services, and requires the atoning blood of Jesus. | In misrepresenting the doctrine of a vicarious atone- ment, Dr. B. proceeds as follows :—(P. 235.)—‘ But ‘* this unaccountable proceeding is explained by another ‘« yet more unaccountable; by imputed sin and imput- ‘¢ ed righteousness ; a doctrine to which the Apostles ‘¢ were entire strangers. It implies, that man was ren- ‘dered pure and innocent by laying his sins upon ‘* Christ ; and by this accumulation of imputed sin, «‘ Christ became hateful to his heavenly Father, that is, to himself, for they are said to be one; and was ex- s¢ posed to his wrath, and to all the pains and penalties «incurred by the sins of the whole world. Ihave heard “ of a tyrannical master, who, when his son committed ‘—why was he amazed and exceeding sorrow- ful ?—sorrowful even unto death ?—why was he ‘in an agony, and his sweat as great drops of blood? If he was not at that time suffering the wrath of God; or, in other words, the penalty of the broken covenant—if Je- hovah was not then bruising him, putting him to grief, and making his soul an offering for sin, what account can be given of such circumstances ?—they are utterly unaccountable—nay, such circumstances would have be- trayed a timidity quite unworthy of the meanest martyr. If we adopt the Socinian or Arian hypothesis, we must admit the blasphemous conclusion, that many a mar- tyr displayed more fortitude than our blessed Re- deemer ! . 198 Oinesioedsy IIL. Another objection to the doctrine of the atonement is stated thus: (P. 233) * Lastly, to complete the climax ‘‘ of absurdity, the sufferer, in this case, is thought to ** be the same in essence and substance, coessential and “¢ consubstantial with the sovereign himself. If-Jesus *‘and the Father be literally and identically one, he “ sacrificed himself to himself, and accepted of his own ‘« sufferings as an atonement to himself; while the real “* criminals were exempted from ‘punishment, relieved “from guilt, and rewarded with high privileges and “blessings, without faith, repentance, or reformation.”’ In reply to this objection, I would observe, that Jesus Christ didnot make the atonement in the same charac- ter in which'he received it. He made the atonement in the character of Mediator; but accepted it in the character of God. As a gracious sovereign he offer- ed his human nature a vicarious sacrifice ; which sacri- fice, as a lawgiver and judge, he accepted in the room of guilty sinners. The same person may, in the cha- racter of a friend, pay a debt, and in the character of a judge, discharge the debtor. In this I see no absur- dityat all; but a wonderful display of grace and conde- scension.— Lhe remaining part of the objection, that the real criminals are exempted from punishment, re- lieved from guilt, and rewarded with high privi- leges and blessings, without faith, repentance, or refor- mation, deserves no reply. I shall not call it a calum- ny ora falsehood ; I shall only rank it amongst the al- {99 most infinite number of mistakes and misstatements, which the Doctor has made, in consequence of his ig- norance of the principles he opposes. I regret much, that Dr. Millar, of Armagh, in animadverting on the — passage under consideration, has joined with Dr. B. in an unjust and ungenerous attempt, to roll upon the Calvinistic system the principal odium of the above foul misrepresentation.. ‘‘ The Calvinist,’? says he, ‘* does ‘* indeed teach, that the salvation of men is arbitrary, ‘‘ irrespective, and unconditional ; and so he may be ‘‘ charged with holding, that faith, repentance, and re- ‘‘ formation, are not conditions of salvation, however ‘he may maintain, that by the influence of the grace of ** God they always follow election.”? I ask Dr. Millar, Does the Calvinist teach what Dr. B. has asserted ?— Does he teach, that the criminal is exempted from pun- ishment without. faith? No. He teaches, that he who believes not shall be damned.—Does the Calvinist teach that the criminal is relieved from guilt without faith ? No: he teaches the very reverse. He teaches, that we are justified by faith—that in order of nature, faith precedes justification—that in order of nature, faith precedes relief from guilt—that the criminal can never be relieved from guilt till he have first believed—that he who believes not is condemned already. Does the Cal- vinist believe in irrespective salvation, as Dr. Millar as- serts. He believes in no such thing. He knows of no salvation irrespective of faith, repentance, and reforma- tion. May the Calvinist ‘be fairly charged with hold- ‘‘ ing that faith, repentance, and reformation, are not ‘“eonditions of salvation’? Though Dr. B. has charg. ed him, he cannot be fairly charged, with holding any 200 such doctrine. He holds that faith, repentance and reformation are conditions of salvation—not meritorious conditions indeed ; but conditions szve qua non—indis- pensable conditions—conditions which he is able to per- form, not by the self-determining power of his own will, but by the omnipotent influence of the blessed Spirit of all grace. He holds that none can be saved without faith—that none can be saved without repen- tance—that none can be saved without reformation—a complete and entire reformation—a reformation which involves a new birth or regeneration—not a mere bap- tism regeneration; but the renewing of the Holy Ghost, in which old things pass away, and all things become new.—lI say again, that I greatly regret to find a divine of the learning and talents of Dr. Millar, in a treatise expressly written against Arianism, joining is- sue with an Arian Doctor ia misrepresenting Calvinism, though his own creed—as I shall afterwards show—is undoubtedly Calvinistic. OxsectTion IV. Our author contends, that the doctrine of atonement is inconsistent with the freedom of pardon. ‘The Apos- tle, however, is of a different opinion. He assures us, that we are “justified freely by grace, through the re- ‘ demption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath “set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his ‘“‘ blood.” It was the free grace of God that provided a Saviour, and though the pardon of sin cost the Re- deemer dear, it is dispensed to us free/y, without mo- 201 ney and without price. Our sins are not to be regard- ed as a pecuniary, but as a criminal debt. Our credi- tor was not obliged to accept of payment from the sure-- ty; but might have demanded it from the original — debtors. -To provide such a surety, and to accept of such payment, was an astonishing display of rich, free, and sovereign grace. Section V. Of the moral tendency of the Atonement. | Our author very properly observes, that we should prefer those views of religion, which are most condu- cive to good morals. On this ground, the doctrine of the atonement is greatly preferable to the unscriptural views of Antitrinitarians. Antitrinitarian views are hos- tile to morality in two respects. 1, In reference to the law. 2, In reference to sin. | 1. Antitrinitarians have mean ideas of the moral law. They think that it may be violated with impunity—that, though God has attached a penalty to the violation‘of his law, he is not bound to inflict that penalty ; but may pardon sin without a satisfaction. Such ideas of the law of God have a direct. tendency towards vice and immorality. What doctrine can be more favourable to vice ?——-What doctrine can be more hostile to- virtue, than the doctrine which teaches, that vice may pass with impunity, and that sin may be pardoned without a satisfaction 2? The enemies of the atonement are ene- 4. 26 mies of the moral law, and, therefore, enemies to mo- rality. Though constantly declaiming in favour of mo- ral virtue, they sap the very foundations of morality, by bringing into contempt the moral law of God. It is the observation of an eminent English divine, that all errors whatever maybe resolved into opposition to the moral law. The doctrine of the atonement is a doctrine according to godliness, .and is highly favour- able to morality ; for it has its foundation—at least as taught ’by Calvinists—in the immutability of the divine law*—it goes upon the principle, that though the hea- vens and the earth may pass away, yet a jot or a tittle can asin no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. . Antitrinitarian views are hostile to ‘‘ good mo- om not only as they lower the standard of morality, and degrade the moral law, but also, .as they represent sin as an evil-of a comparatively trifling nature. Dr. B. reasons thus: © But grant, that Christ died to explate the sins of “ the world, how can the death of one be an equivalent _‘* for pardoning the accumulated trangressions of mil- lions, for a succession of ages? ‘To obviate this ob- “ jection, the advocates for satisfaction are driven to a *‘ oreater excess of extravagance. They say, it is ‘‘ true, that the offences of mankind were infinite in ‘number and degree ; and therefore it was necessary ‘¢ that the satisfaction should be infinite; and accord- «ingly a being of infinite merit and excellence was sa- * On the moral tendency of the Atonement, Fuller on Systems, and Stevenson on the Atonement, may be perused with great ad- vantage. 203 « crificed, in order to atove for them. But, in the « first place, the sins of the world were not infinite + “for as man is a finite and limited being, so every ‘¢ thing pertaining to him is finite and limited ; his ex- ‘© istence and his powers of doing good or evil ; his vir- ‘tues and his vices. Guilt is, no doubt, aggravated ‘‘ by the relation in which we stand to the authority of- <‘ fended, as of asonto his father; but, on this pr- “ ciple, every offence against God would be chargeabie *‘ with infinite atrocity, ane would a Gee the expia- ‘¢ tion and atonement of an infinite being.”’ Arminians agree with Antitrinitarians in denying the infinite evil of sin. The preceding reasoning, t there- fore, 18 applicable not to the Arminian, but only to the Calvinistic view of the atonement. Candour should have induced the Doctor to distinguish. Archbishop Magee (Atonement, vol. i. P. 1'71) writes thus::*‘* On ** this subject, Dr. Priestly thus represents the arguments ‘eof the Orthodox. ‘Sin, being an offence against an ‘infinite Being, requires an infinite satisfaction, which ‘can only be made by an infinite person ; ; that is, one ~ <¢ who is no less than God himself. Christ, therefore, - « in order to make’ this infinite satisfaction for the sins of «men, must himself be God, equal to God the Father.” ‘<¢ With what. candour this has been selected, as a spe- ‘* cimen of the mode of reasoning, by which the doc- ‘trine of atonement, as connected with that of the di-. « vinity of Christ, is maintained by the Established __« Church, it. is needless to remark. ‘That some few in- A deed have thus. argued, 1s certainly to be admitted — ‘and lamented, igi how poorly such men have rea- “ soned, it needed not the acuteness of Dr. Priestly to “discover. On their own principles the reply is obvi- “ ous—that sin being committed bya finite creature, “* requires only a finite satisfaction. for which purpose a “‘finite person might be an adequate victim.” With great deference to the Archbishop, I must confess my- self one of those “‘ poor reasoners,’’ who believe that sin is infinite and requires an infinite satisfaction. Nor am I at all convinced of my error, either by the reason- ing of Doctor B., or that of the celebrated author just now quoted. The former of these writers reasons thus: “ As man is a finite, and limited being, every thing “* pertaming to him is finite and limited.”” This I deny. Is man’s duration finite and limited 2 Surely not. His soul is immortal.—Again, if man may be the subject of infinite or eternal misery, may he not, on the same principle, be the subject of infinite guilt? Though man, therefore, is a finite and limited being, it is not true that every thing pertaining to him is finite and limited. I ask Doctor Bruce—Why may not ’ the sin of a finite bemg be infinite, as well as his duration, his happiness, or his misery? Sin is in- finite ; because committed against an imfinite God— because it is the violation of an infinite obligation. Onur author himself grants—that “ guilt is aggravated << by the relation in which we stand to the authority of- “‘ fended, as of a son to his father.” Upon this prin- ciple, the more amiable the father, the greater our obligation to love him—the more worthy the father, the greater our obligation to cstcem him—the greater the authority of the father, the greater our obligation to 205 obey him. If the father is possessed of one degree of amiableness, dignity, and authority, we are under one degree of obligation to love, esteem, and obey him.— If he is possessed of a thousand degrees of amiableness, dignity and authority, we are under a thousand degrees of obligation to love, esteem, and obey him.—lIf pos- sessed of injintie amiableness, dignity, and authority, we are under infinite obligations to love, esteem, and obcy him. It follows, of course, that if we violate these infinite obligations, we incur infinite guilt. Who will deny, that we are under infinite obligations to love, “es- teem, and obey our heavenly Father, and that in violat- ing these obligations our guilt is infinite ? To this reasoning, I know, it has been objected, that if every sin is an silts all sms must be equal; for no- thing can be greater than that which is infinite. But this conclusion does not follow; for one infinite may be greater than another. An infinite surface is greater than an infinite straight line, and an infinite solid than an infinite surface. Or, in other words ; an object infinite- ly long and broad, is greater than one only infinitely jong ; and an object infinitely long, broad, and deep, is greater than one that is only infinitely long and broad. All objects infinitely long are equal in that dimension, length ; but they may differ widely in other dimensions: so all sins though equal in this one aggravation of being committed against an infinite God, may nevertheless be very different in respect of other aggravaticns. _ “ Sume ** sins, in themselves,” say our Westminister divines, ** and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous “in the sight of God than others.” And again: 206 * Every sin deserves God’s wrath and curse, both iy “< this life, and in that which is to come.*’* Can Dr. B. resist the force of the preceding reasonmg ? He casxot. It is true, he considers it highly absurd ; but it is no less true, that he fully admitsit! In the wery act of opposing if, he fully admits it! He ad- mits the premises, that “« cuilt is aggravated by the rela- “< tion in which we stand to the authority offended ;” and he admits the conclusion, that “ on this ae “ every offence against God would be chargeable with “ infinite atrocity, and would require the expiation and “‘ atonement of an infinite being.’”? Now, this is all we contend for. The highest Calvinist can ask no more. Iam quite aware, meal. that such an admis- sion is a flat contradiction to what the Doctor is endea- vouring to prove. He is endeavouring to prove, that sin is xeT infinite ; and that it does not require an infi- ite satisfaction : ai yet he fully admits the very re- verse. How powerful is truth! How inconsistent and contradictory iserror! Archbishop Magee grants, Bs “ from the Divinity of Christ we may infer “‘ the great heinousness of human guilt, for the expiation * « ee which it was deemed fit, that so great a Being << should suffer.” But why not infer mfinite guilt ?— Would God, who does nothing in vain, apply an infi- nite remedy to a finite disease ?—Would this be fit ? Would this be proper : 2 An infinite atonement to expi- ate finite guilt, in my humble apprehension— < Besembles ocean into tempest wrought, “ To watt a feather, o to drown a fly.” - “These principles have been ably, I had almost said mathema- tically, demonstrated by President Edwards. 207 From the infinite value of the atonement we may surely infer the infinity of sin. Calvinists—I speak of them in general, for some individuals do not contend for the infinity of sin—Calvinists see more atrocity in one single sin, than Socinians, or Arians, or even Arminians, see in all the sins of all mankind! Sin, according to Soci- nian and Arian views, is comparatively stethang an evil of a very trifling nature—a kind of cutaneous dis- ease, that does not require any powerful remedy. Ac- cording to Calvinistic views, sin is a disease of an inve- terate, malignant, and alarming nature—a disease which no medicine can cure, but only the healing balm of the Redeemer’s blood. I appeal now to the candid reader— Which of the two systems is more favourable to morality ? that which represents sin as a comparatively trifling evil ? or that which regards it as infinitely malignant and atrocious ? Surely no person possessed of the slightest degree of candour, can hesitate for a moment to pro- nounce that system most favourable to morality, which } regards sin as the greatest evil. Still farther, we may observe ; as the friends of the atonement conceive them- selves infinitely deeper in debt, than its enemies do: 5 80 they conceive that God forgives them infinitely more ; will they not therefore loos more? In proportion as Socinians and Arians see little need of a Saviour, in the same proportion they will feel themselves under little obligation, of course they will love but little; and, as love is the fulfilling of the law, their obedience will be proportionally defective. It is, therefore, demonstra- tively evident, that the doctrine of the atonement is a doctrine according to godliness ; and that it is incompa- 208 ably more favourable to good morals, ties the Socinian. or Arian Poppe: } Section VI. Extent of the dtonement. ‘With Dr. Bruce, I fully agree.in reprobating that ill- berality which confines the benefits of redemption to those who are baptized—or to those who belong to a particu- lar church, sect, or party. In common with all Calvin- ists, I firmly believe in the sufficiency of the atonement. I believe that the blood of my Redeemer is of infinite value, and sufficient to save the whole human family.— But the question is, Was it so designed? Did God design to save all mankind by the death of his Son ?— Did Jesus Christ design to save all mankind by laying down his life? Arminians, as well as Socinians and \rians,. answer these questions in the affirmative. — Calvinists answer them in the negative. ‘To suppose, a that God designed to save all mankind, and yet, that all mankind wii not be saved, appears to me absurd, I : had almost said, blasphemous. ‘To me it appears self- " evident, that God’s designs can never be frustrated —that his intentions can never be disappointed. Ifhe design- ed that all should be saved, all would be saved ; for, ‘¢ who hath resisted his will ?”’ If he designed that all should be saved, and yet all are not saved, then the divine design is frustrated, and the Divine Being is unhappy ! Every being must be unhappy in proportion as his de- 209 signs are frustrated, and his intentions disappointed. In» proportion to the greatness of the designer, and the “ grandeur of his designs, must be the greatness of his— disappointment and mortification, if he fail in the ac- complishment. Now, as God is an infinite Being, and the design of saving souls is an infinite design, in the loss of every soul the Divine Being must feel infinite disappointment and mortification. In a word ; he must be infinitely miserable!!! Such is the blasphemous but unavoidable consequence of maintaining, that God - designed to save all mankind by Jesus Christ; or, that Christ shed his blood with an intention to save the whole human family.* oe yt The Arminian doctrine of a universal atonement is clogged with a variety of other absurdities. - If it is ab- surd to suppose, that God sent his Son to do that which he previously knew would never be done; and, that _ Jesus Christ shed his blood to accomplish that which he previously knew would never be accomplished, is it ne t equally absurd to suppose, that the same debt shoul _ * Ata Missionary meeting, I once heard a very sensible Ar-— minian addressing a large audience, on the propriety of prayer _ for the conversion of the Heathen, Reasoning from that beauti- ful promise made to the Redeemer, ‘ He shall see of the travail ** of his soul, and shall be satisfied,’ he said, with great earnest- ness and emphasis, ‘* And he will not be satisfied’: he will not be “ content, while there is one soul that ts not brought home to himself.” Had not the impropriety of disturbing the harmony of such a meeting prevented me, I would have immediately added: “ Then ** the Redeemer never will be satisfied !—he never will be content |— “he must be for ever miserable! If the Redeemer will never be satisfied nor content, till every individual of the human family is saved ; and if every individual will never be saved ;~-the conclusion is inevitable—that the Redeemer will never be satisfied nor content ! Let any Arminian show, if he be able, that the doctrine of uni- versal atonement does not lead to such blasphemous conclusions. 27 210 twice exacted, first from the sinner, and then from the surety ?—that Jesus Christ should suffer on the cross for the redemption of those who were at that very. mo- ment suffering the vengeance of eternal fire! Is it not equally absurd to suppose, that Jesus Christ would shed his blood for the whole human family, and yet would refuse to pray for them? (John, xvii. 9), ‘“ I pray for ‘thents: F pray not for the world, but for those whom “ thou fast given me out of the world.” ‘The Scrip- tures teach no such absurdities. They teach, that Christ laid down his life for the sheep ; but they no where assert, that he died for the goats. They teach, that he died to gather together in one, the children of God which were scattered abroad ; and that he died for his church. (Eph. v. 25), ‘ Husbands, love your ‘* wives, - even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave i himself for it.” If the love of Jesus Christ in dying is “anente was not piotpages and clap digi it ota be established by a eae eet of euments, deduced both from Scripture and rea- son. ‘Toa mind unprejudiced, and capable of reason- ing, ‘the preceding, I hope, will be found satisfactory. i: I am perfectly aware, that a multitude of Scriptures . seem to favour the opposite doctrine. I know it is writ- ‘ ten, that Christ died for al/—for the world—the whole hg world —and every man. Every attentive reader of the Bible must, however, be sensible, that such terms are fre- quently used inalimited sense. We read that all the world “wondered after the beast, while, at the same time, there were with the lamb one hundred and forty-four thou-’ 211 sand. John declared, that the whole world was lying in wickedness, when thousands were converted to the faith of the Gospel. Our Saviour himself declared, — that, from the days of John the Baptist, the kingdom of God was preached, and every man was pressing into it : when, in fact, the far greater part of the human family had never heard of the kingdom of God. Mul- titudes of similar instances might be adduced to show, that there is nothmg more common, in Scripture, than ' the words ail, every, world, whole world, &c. taken - universal terms are not to be taken in their most exten- © sive signification, is evident, not only from the reasons | mentioned above ; but also from this, that though the — most extensive terms are used in English, yet not in the — in a limited acceptation. But it may be asked—If_ Christ died only for the elect, why were such universal terms employed in reference to his death? I answer, To correct the prejudices of the Jews, who foolishly confined salvation to themselves. ‘* He is the propitia- “ tion for our sins, ‘says the Apostle John ;’ and not “for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole “6 world’’—that is, He is the propitiation for the sins, not only of us Jews, but also of the Gentiles—of all his sheep through the whole world. That these original Greek. ‘The word ¢txacres, in Greek, signifies every individual; and «aze¢ and cuuzzc, signify all col- lectively ; but none of these most extensive terms are ever applied to the death of Christ. It may, however, be still farther % asked, If Christ did not die for all indiscrimi- nately, why is salvation offered indiscriminately to all ? Why does God offer salvation to all, if he never design-_ ed that all should be saved? Is not this to tantalize p a) bes the creature ? Dees it not argue insincerity in God ? This objection is, at first sight, plausible; but it may be retorted thus: If God foreknew from all eternity those who would reject salvation through Jesus Christ, why does he offer them salvation? Why does he invite those that he previously knew would reject the invita- tion? Does not this argue insincerity in God ? Let the Arminian, the Socinian, or the Arian, show me, that it does not argue insincerity in God to ofter salva- tion to the man that he previously knew would reject it, and I will show him, that it does not argue insincerity in God to offer salvation to the man whom he never de- signed to save. Thus the objection might be retorted. The difficulty arising from apparent insincerity in God, is common to all systems of divinity. The Socinian, the Arian, the Arminian, and the Calvinist, are all equally concerned to solve it. My views of this diffi- cult subject, I shall endeavour to ee by the follow- He illustration : ate In the late French revolutionary war, the Sani Cu-- lotte, in an engagement with the English, was sunk.— - Her crew refused to accept of quarter. They went ~ down with shouts of Vive la Republique ! . Supposing that the English admiral had picked up a certain num- ber of the drowning French, and saved their lives.— Supposing, moreover, that he had sent out a boat, and offered to save the rest, knowing, at the same time, that they would reject his generous ofter—Could such an admiral be justly charged with insincerity ? iis de- sign in sending out the boat, it 1s true, was not to save ‘them ; for he knew they would not accept of salvation ; but his design was to exhibit to all the clemency of the 213 English, and, at the same time, the horrid infatuation and implacable enmity of the French. If the obstinacy | of the French was so great, and their enmity against . the English so inveterate, that they would rather drown — than be indebted to british clemency, would not every person say, that they deserved their fate—that their blood was upon their own heads? In this case, those who were saved were wholly indebted for their salvation to the gracious clemency of the British admiral; and those who were drowned had no apology to plead; the admiral offered his clemency, but they basely and un- gratefully despised and rejected it. They deserved to die ; for they chose death'rather than life. Such is the situation of sinners drowning in a deluge of wrath.— Life and salvation are offered. to all idiseriminately ; and all are disposed to treat the offer with contempt.— Such is the enmity of the human heart, against God, and his law, and his Son, that none would come to the Redeemer for life—all would despise and reject the life boat of salvation. . But God, in his infinite mercy and grace, destroys fe enmity of .scme, bends their stub- born wills by the influence of his Spirit, and makes them willing in the day of his power—willing to accept of salvation freely, without money and without price. The rest perish, not because they: are reprobates—not because Christ did not die for them; but because they - are sinners—because they are rebels—because they will ~ not lay down their arms—they will not be reconciled to God—they will net come fo his Son, that they may, have life. When a drowning man is offered a boat, if, instead of embracing the offer, he should cavil and dis- pute about the desien ‘of the offerer, would he not be 214 regarded as insane? Undoubtedly he would. How much greater the folly and madness of sinners, who, instead of accepting salvation through Jesus Christ, as it is freely offered to them in the Gospel, stand cavil- ling at the decrees of God, and the particularity of re- demption—curiously prying into the secret counsels of the Almighty, and foolishly inquiring, whether God, by sending his Son, intended heir salvation, or whe- ther Jesus Christ shed his blood for them / Oh the stu- pidity and infatuation of men! The ministers of Jesus should offer the Gospel indis- criminately to all. They should address rebels in the language of the Apostle: (2 Cor. v. 20), “« We are *‘ ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech “‘ you by us: we pray you in Christ’s-stead, be ye re- “ conciled to God.” Whilst, in thoughts that breathe, and words that burn, they call, invite, and expostulate, they should at the same time fervently pray, that the Gospel may come, not in word only, but in power—_ that, by the blessed agency of the Divine Spirit, it may happily prove the power of God, and the wisdom of God unto salvation. © —" Nr CHAPTER Vi. Original Sin. Tue Calvinistic doctrme of original sin, our author attacks in his tenth sermon. In entering on this important subject, he abandons his “ sure guide,’’* and contradicts himself. He asserts (P. 45), that if any doctrine is not plainly declared’ in every one of the four ivangelists, we may be assured, that ‘2/725 not even ‘< an important truth.’ In the commencement of this sermon he assures us, that the doctrine of original sin is not to be found in any of the Gospels, for our Sa- viour, he maintains, has not said one word about it : yet, strange to tell, he nevertheless grants, that ‘ it ‘© may be an important truth.’’ In the one page he asserts, that it is not even an important truth ; in the other he admits, that such a doctrine may be an impor- tant truth. This is Dr. B. versus Dr. B.! It is a _ trite observation, that “ sometimes second thoughts are ‘“‘ best.”? In this instance the proverb is verified. I * If Dr. B. has not sufficient faith to follow his own ‘sure guide,” how can he expect the first Presbyterian Congregation in Belfast to follow it ? 216 am glad to find our author recanting—giving g up a canon so unscriptural, so unreasonable, and at last candidly admitting, that a doctrine, though not contained in all the Piling may nevertheless be an impor- tant truth; and particularly, that the doctrine of ori- ginal sin may be an important truth. How. glad should” I be to find him admitting, not only that it may be, but that it actually is, an important truth. This instance, I am sorry to say, is not the only one calculated to show, that the Doctor passed too high a eulogium on his volume of sermons, when, in his preface, he pronoun- ced it.“ consistent with itself and the Gospel.” » In the introduction to his sermon on original sin, the Doctor has not only. contradicted. himself, he has also contradicted matter of fact. He asserts, that “the ‘‘ advocates of the popular notion of original sin do not: ‘¢ pretend to appeal to any of our Lord’s discourses in “ favour of their opinion.”? Now this assertion is the very reverse of the fact. .The fact is, that the advo-: cates of the popular notion of original sin do appealto: our Lord’s discourses. They appeal to his discourse to Nicodemus, © That which is born of the flesh, is flesh.’” The very first doctrines which our blessed Lord taught vy Nicodemus, were those which Dr. B. rejects—the doc-\ trines of original sin and regeneration. Our Saviour’ taught that we are born, not only depraved, but totaly: depraved, not only fleshly, but flesh itself. He taught,’ that such is our natural state of depravity, that « Ex- “cept a man (7s any one, man, woman, or child) be ‘born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” To account for the origin of evil, is one of tlie most. difficult problems in divinity. No view of the subject, o1y perfectly free from difficulties, has, as yet, been exhi- bited to the world. The account given in the sacred ° volume is brief ; and from it have been formed a varie- _ ty of opinions. ‘These may be all reduced to’ three— 1, That by Adam’s fall we are both depraved and guilty. 2, That by Adam’s fail we are only depraved, but zot guilty. 3, That by Adam’ s fall we are neither depraved nor guilty. \ The first of these opinions is: that of the Calvinists. — _ That we are all guilty of Adam’s first sin, they prove from various texts of Sctipture; but particularly from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, from the twelfth to the nineteenth verse inclusive. In this por- tion of Scripture we are assured, that by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon allmen, for that all (co’ «in whom) all have sinned—that by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation—and that by one man’s diso- bedience many were made sinners. The penalty at- tached to Adam’s disobedience was death : “In the “« day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” This penalty was imflicted, not only on Adam, but on his posterity. - Now Calvinists infer—and I think justly— that if Adam’s posterity had not been involved in his guilt, they would not have been involved in his punish. - - ment—in the penalty attached to his disobedience.— Doctor Bruce maintains, that this penalty was only temporal death; but that it included eternal death is evident from ida words of the Apostle : «The wages “of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life’ “through Jesus WClvine our “hibede ”? Now, if that life which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ i 1s efernal 28 Pe. 218 . life, the antithesis shews, that that deathimdil is the wages of sin must be eternal death.* ie: If, therefore, we believe the sacred oracles rather | than Dr. B., we will believe, that, in consequence: of Adam’s sin, his posterity are not only exposed: to ¢tem- poral death, but death eternal; and that they are al- so spiritually dead—* alienated from the life of God— ‘« dead in trespasses and sins.” ‘This spiritual death, or depravity of nature, is every where taught in the sacred volume. ‘That God made man upright, is a. dictate both of Scripture and -reason. The Scriptures assure us, that the Deity created Adam in his own image and after his own likeness. Having lost this moral image, he could not transmit it to his posterity. Accordingly we read, that Adam begat a son in his own image; and the Apostle assures us, that we have borne the image of the earthly Adam. ‘* What is man, that he should ‘‘be clean; and he that is born of a woman, that he 46 should be righteous? Who can bring a clean thing «© out of an unclean? not one.’’ David acquiesced in this doctrine when he exclaimed, ‘‘ Behold I was «« shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive oT ees a a re OA a . * Mr. M‘Affee says, that by quoting this textin my defence of creeds and confessions, I have made a grand mistake ; for the ‘Apostle was not speaking there of the penalty of the Adamic covenant, but of that annexed to the covenant -of grace.—If Mr. M‘Affee’be open to conviction, he may at once be convinced, that the grand mistake is made, not by me, but by himself—he may be convinced of this by comparing the text in question with the last verse of the preceding chapter, ‘ That as sin hath reigned “ unto death; even so might grace reign. through righteousness ‘unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” This text is exactly parallel with the former, and the Apostle is undeniably. treating of the penalty of the _Adamic covenant. Many a grand mistake is made by neglecting to compare Scripture with Scripture. ode ¥ , ‘A 219. ‘sme!’ That this depravity is universal,” is abui- dantly taught in the sacred volume, particularly in the Epistle to. the Romans, third chapter, from the tenth verse: ‘* There is none righteous, no, ot one ; there — ‘“‘is none that understandeth: there is none that seek- “eth after God. They are all gone out of the way, ‘* they are together become unprofitable ; there is none ‘‘ that doeth good, no, not one.—Every mouth must ‘be stopped, and all the world be found guilty before “God.” . Against such descriptions Dr. B. cautions his hearers thus : “ You-are not to be deluded by ge- ‘* neral descriptions of the depravity of the world ; for “« those passages-do not apply to every individual, but “to the general corruption of mankind.”? The Apos- tle assures us, that the corruption is universal. ‘The Doctor assures us, that it:is mot universal. ‘The: Apos- tle assures us, that there is not one solitary exception, none, none, none, none, no not one, no not one: but, in the face of all this, the Doctor assures us, that there are exceptions, and that such ‘‘ passages do not apply ‘to every individual, but to the general corruption of “ mankind.’”’ Reader of this treatise! believest thou the: ‘Prophets : 2? Believest thou the Apostles? I know that thou believest. Learned divines may delude thee ; 3 but the Deity never can ! | ‘Such is the Calvinistic doctrine relative to the fall of “Adam, and the effects of that fall upon his posterity, and such appears to be the scriptural account of that mournful, and all important event. Calvinists do not pretend to be able to assign all the reasons which influ- enced the divine mind in connecting so intimately. the fate. of Adam with that of his posterity. We see, how. ad 7 & wy ha = — as 220 ¥ ever, something very similar in the connexion: of one generation with another. The virtues and the vices, the happiness and miseries of men, we plainly see, are greatly influenced by previous connexions and relations—by ten thousand adventitious circumstances—circumstances over which they themselves had no control. Who would deny that such connexions, relations, and circumstances, have a powerful influence on human conduct; and yet we all acknowledge—for our own consciousness proves it—that man isa free and an accountable agent. The placing of Adam at the head of our family, as our representa- tive, was a constitution, which, viewed abstractly, ap- pears characterised both by wisdom and goodness.— Adam was much better qualified to stand for us, as our representative, than we would have been to stand for ourselves. We come into the world children; our ap- petites and passions get the start of our reason and con- sciences, and hurry us into vice before these higher powers of our nature have acquired sufficient energy to keep them in check. On this single principle alone, some have endeavoured to account for the universality of human guilt. This, however, was not the case with Adam. Mis appetites and passions did not get the start of his reason and conscience ; for he was created not a ‘child, but a man. In this respect it cannot be denied, that, Adam was much. better qualified to stand represen- tative for his posterity, than each to stand personally for himself. Besides ; ; Adam saw himself at the head of a numerous family, whose happmess or misery was. sus- pended on his good or bad management. If this mo- tive has a powerful influence on men now depraved, and sometimes even on the most depraved of men—if — 4 it sometimes proves effectual to reform the rake and re- claim the prodigal—how much more powerfully was it calculated to operate on the mind of innocent Adam in preserving him in a state of persevering obedience? _ In this respect again, federal representation appears greatly preferable to personal responstbility.* Upon the whole ; our opponeats may pour forth tor- rents of declamation and invective against the federal representation of Adam; but, on the abstract question, Whether federal representation or personal responsibili- ty were, mn its own nature, better calculated to secure the happiness of the human, family—on this abstract question they have never yet met us, and, I abies never will. a ' Having thus briefly stated the Calvinistic opinion relative to the fall and its effects, we come now to the say | Srcoxp Opinion, which is that of the Arminians. They maintain, that, inconsequence of Adam’s fall, we are all depraved, but they deny that the guilt of his first ‘sin is imputed to his posterity. To suppose that we are guilty of asin, committed nearly six thousand years be- fore we were born, involves, I confess, a great difficul- ty. To get rid of it the Arminians deny the fact.— ‘They say we come into the world depraved, but not guilty. They deny that we come into the world guilty, but they admit that we come into the world so depraved, that ‘as soon as capable of moral agency we must become guilty. Now, how does this relieve the - Bras r ty & =v aes ; < on sy A ie ps ¥. TP Dae 7 oe ‘ fi, These topies « are. e ably alustaaed By President Edwards on “original sin. POR difficulty ?. How does this vindicate the justice of God ? ‘Where is the difference whether I come into the world guilty, or with such a hereditary taint, that in ‘avery 3 short time I must become guilty? Besides: I am quite unable to distinguish between a depraved being and a guilty being. A depraved innocent being appears to me a contradiction in terms—as great a contradiction as an honest thief, or a white negro. Ina word ; the Arminian removes the difficulty a little farther off; but affords no manner of relief—gives no solution. Tue tuirp Opinion is that of the Pelagians, Seci- nians, Arians, &c. ‘They maintain that we come into the world neither guilty nor depraved, but as pure and holy as innocent Adam. ‘This isthe opinion of Dr. B. By thus denying both guilt and depravity, Socinians and Arians vainly imagine that they have completely solved the difficulty ; but they deceive themselves, and they deceive their followers. ‘The difficulty is, indeed, removed alittle farther out of view; it is, however, nothing lessened, but rather augmented. Dr. B. ad- mits, that the whole human family sin as soon as they become moral agents. Now, the great question 1s, Why do men universally run into sin as soon as capable of it? The Doctor answers this question by asking another. ‘‘ Can it be difficult,” says he, “¢ to account for « the sinfulness of men at present, surrounded as they “are by necessities and pleasures, temptations and dis- ‘‘ couragements ?”’ So then, we come into the world nei- ther guilty nor depraved ; but, nevertheless, as soon as capable of acting, we all become guilty, we all commit sin—we are surrounded with such necessities and plea- sures, temptations and discouragements, that we cannot , 223 avoid it.—The temptations with which we are surround~ ed are so powerful, that none have ever been able to. resist them! The Calvinist tells me, that I came into’ the world guilty. This is a great difficulty; but the — Arminian kindly comes forward to relieve me. He tells me that I was not born guilty, but that Iam so depraved, that in the course of a few years I must. be- come guilty. This I regard as very poor comfort indeed! The Arian, seeing me still in distress, makes a gener- ous proposal of his kind offices. You come into the world, says he, neither guilty nor depraved ; but you come into a world so full of snares and temptations, that there is no hope of your escape—you must become gutl- ty in a very short time! Cold comfort indeed !— May I not address the Arminian; the Socinian, aiid the Arian, in the language of Job to his mistaken friends; ‘‘ Miserable comforters are ye all?’ The Calvinist says, Your disease is coeval with your birth.— The Arminian says, ‘The seeds of disease are in your constitution, and the disease itself must make its appear-. ance at a very early age. The Arian says, No; you are born in good health, and of a good sound constitu- tion; but your benevolent Creator, at your very birth, has plunged you into a pest-house, where none have ever escaped the effects of contagion. Alas! then, say I—If I am todie of a disease, what matter whether that. disease be coeval with my birth, arise necessarily from a radical defect in my constitution, or be caught by contagion which ‘I cannot avoid? Thus we see, that the hati and the Arian dei abs fail im remov- ing the difficulty. But this is not all ; their hypotheses, so far from casting light on the subject, involves it. in ar &. : £% , LO difficulties still more: embarrassing aud insuperable. | In commenting on the fifth chapter of the Romans, Dr. B. explains the terms justify and condemn thus: (P. p94) ** As to justify signifies to make just, to plaee’ “in the situation of just men by pardon 5 so this ex-. «pression to thake sinners is equivalent to condemn, to «place men in the situation of sinners. As a guilty “ person may be treated as an mnocent one, by being ‘‘ pardoned and received into favour, so an innocent «man may be treated as a criminal and condemned.— — «* The one situation is expressed in Scripture by being « justified or made righteous, and the other by being “made a sinner.” Having thus explained, he goes on to comment thus: ‘* For as by the disobedience of one “ many were made sinners, or were treated as sinners, ‘ being subject to death by the sentence of God, &c.” . From these quotations, it appears, that Dr. B. agrees with the Calvinists in maintaining, that God treats the posterity of Adam as if they were sinners; but he differs from them in this: The Calvinists say, that God treats us as sinners, because we are sinners, because we have all sinned in our federal representative ; but the Doctor affirms, that God treats us as sinners, though we are perfectly innocent! The Calvinists say, that God condemns the gw7lty posterity of Adam; but the Doctor affirms, that God condemns Adam’s én- nocent posterity He condemns to death his own innocent offspring !—He condemns them for a crime they never committed !—in which they had no con- cern !—~of which they were perfectly innocent !— Thus the learned Dr. B., in the heat of his zeal eine Calvinism, is forced to charge his Maker with that: 295 abominable: thing which: his soul hates.—( Prov. xvii. 15), ‘ He that justifieth the wicked, and he that con-_ «* demneth the just, even they both are abomination to “‘ the Lord.’’—Say now, reader, what system is most — reasonable ?—the system of the Calvinist, who. says, God condemns the gvilty.; or that of the Arminian or Arian, who says, God condemns the zmnocent?*) Dr. Bruce quotes and condemns the Westminster Divines’ description: of original depravity. Dr. Mil- lar, of Armagh, seems to justify our author in rejecting that description. ‘‘ It isnot unnatural,’’ says he, <‘ that ‘‘an exposition of this doctrine, so strongly and so ‘‘ harshly stated, should dispose any man of mild dispo- - sitions to seek another interpretation.—Such a tem- perate statement of this doctrine might: have been ‘found: in the ninth article of our church.’? Now, what is the mildness of the ninth article ?) Let us see. The ninth article states, that original sin is the fault or * In explaining the words justify, condemn, &c. the Dr. appears evidently to write without thinking. ‘ In Hebrew,” says he, ‘‘ the ‘¢ simple word, (what simple word?) means to be a sinner. In «‘ another form of the verb, (what verb?) to make-one a sinner. *¢ And it is so translated throughout the Old Testament.” Strange ! So translated! It is not so translated. The very instances ad- duced by the Doctor to prove that it is so translated, prove that it is not so translated. The jist instance is, ‘‘ Whom: the judges ‘* shall condemn.” It isnot so translated here. His second in- stance is, ‘If I justify myself my own mouth will condemn me.” It is not so translated here. His third is, “« Wilt thou condemn him “ that is most just.’ It is not so translated here. It is not so trans- lated in any one of the instances mentioned by the Doctor. In all. these instances the word is translated, not to make uw sinner, as our author affirms, but to condemn. They all prove, not what they were adduced to prove, but the very reverse—they prove, not that the Doctor has wilfully violated matter of fact, but they prove, that he does not always think when he writes, and that his book 1s not always consistent, either with itself or the Scriptures. © 29 226 corruption of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam—and that in every person born into the world it deserveth God’s wrath and damna- tiun! Where now is the mildness? Did ever the Westminster Divines, or did ever any Calvinist say, that original sin deserves more than God’s wrath and damnation ? But, nevertheless, if we believe Dr. Mil- lar, the doctrine is stated mildly by the Church of Eng- land. ** The article, moreover, is concluded,”’ says he, *‘ with observing, that the Apostle doth confess, not ‘‘ rigorously denounce, that this same concupiscence “¢ and lust hath of itself the nature of sin, even avoiding ‘* to declare that it is sin in a true and proper accepta- ** tation of the term.” Now, with great. respect, per- mit me to ask the learned Doctor, How does it come to pass, that original sin is not sin in a true and proper aceeptation of the term, when at the same time it is acknowledged to deserve God’s wrath and damnation ? Let Dr. Millar answer this question if he can. He may defend Arminianism if he please ; but, in defend- ing it, he should not quote the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England ; particularly, he should not — quote the ninth article—an article so highly Calvinis- tic. ‘sf . With regard to the “ strong’? and “ harsh”’ language of the Westminster Divines, I would only request the candid reader to compare that language with the Scrip- tures referred to, and then say if the language of Scrip- ture be not fully as harsh as that of the Catechism.— After quoting the Divines’ description of the sin and “misery introduced by the fall, Dr. B. exclaims, ‘ Thus ‘are children initiated imto the glad tidings of salva- Ai ) 927 ‘‘ tion, and taught to love God. and honour all men.’ The Doctor, no doubt, regarded this sentence as a fine stroke of irony: but did he not know, that the disease — is one thing, and the remedy another? Did he. not know, that the description of our sin and misery is one thing, and “the glad tidings of. salvation’? are an- other ish that teaching ‘‘to love God and:to honor ‘‘ all men,” is another still? Why does he confound things so different? But though these things are. so different and should not be confounded, they are not opposite. A description of our sin and misery is no way inconsistent with the glad tidings of salvation :. on the contrary, the one presupposes the other. Were we not previously convinced of our sin and misery, the good news of the Gospel would not be regarded as glad tidings at all. The Westminster Divines are not like those unskilful physicians, censured by the Almighty—physi- cians who heal the wound of the daughter of his people slightly, saying, ‘‘ Peace, peace, when there ‘isi no peace.”? The Westminster Divines, like skilful surgeons, first. probe the wounds of sin, and then apply to them the healing balm of the Redeemer’s bloods: Dr. B., breaking through his irony, and blend- ing literal with figurative language, alleges that the description of our original sin, depravity, and misery, given by the Westminster Divines, is calculated to coun-_ teract the affectionate invitation of their gracious Lord, «« Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them ‘not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.’’—Now, I confess myself utterly at aloss to know, how such a de- scription can possibly counteract such an invitation, The greater the depravity and guilt of children, the greater 228 necessity, I should think, to bring them to Jesus Christ, the Saviour... On the contrary ; if they have no: depra- vity nor guilt at all, what necessity to bring them at all ? A’ Socinian or Arian might reason thus: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners; but my childs no sinner ; and therefore Jesus Christ did not come in- to the world to save it; consequently, I need not bring it to Jesus Christ |—Again : Jesus Christ came to seek and save that which was lost : but my child is not lost ; therefore Jesus Christ did not come to save it ; conse- quently I need not bring it to Jesus Christ !—Once more: Jesus Christ came to save from the wrath to come: but my child is not a child of wrath ; therefore Jesus Christ did not come to save it; and, consequent- ly, Ineed not bring it to Jesus Christ! I will not suffer my little children to come to the Redeemer. I seeno need. They are not sick ; and therefore have no need of Jesus as a physician! They are not sin- ners; and therefore have no need of Jesus as a Saviour ! They are not defiled; and therefore have no need of the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness !— In a word ; the little children of Socinians and Arians will require a separate apartment in heaven; for they cannot join the general assembly in their song of praise, «© Unto him that loved-us, and washed us from our sins ‘« ip his own blood—to him be glory and a for ‘© ever and ever. Amen.” Dr. B. asserts, that the little children cal our Saviour, were the children of Pagans or Jews neither baptized nor converted. How does he know this? He does not know it at all. The probability is, that the facts were the very reverse of his statement. It is quite 229 improbable that the children ‘were Pagans, for the Re- deemer was preaching: the Gospel, not. ” Pagans, but to Jews.in the coast of Judea beyond the Jordan.—That the children were not baptized, is equally improbable. It is in the highest degree probable, that the parents were believing Jews. | Had they been unbelievers, they would. not have brought their children to the Redeemer to receive a blessing. It is also highly probable, that the children were previously baptized. .The very first ordinance to which believing parents would naturally bring their children, would be the initiating ordinance of baptism. | That the children were not converted, but vessels of wrath, is a gratuitous assumption, still more improbable than the preceding. . Notwithstanding all these improbabilities, the Doctor. makes his. assertions ‘with as much dogmatic assurance as if delivering oracles. Indeed, his general manner shows, that he calculates largely. on the. implicit faith of his hearers. .) To.render the doctrine of original. sin as shocking as possible, Dr. B. exclaims thus: (P. 201) “ With ‘‘ what feelings of horror and disgust, as well as pity, ‘must a parent who really believes this doctrine behold «his, child, .when, he presents him for baptism, and ‘hears him denounced as a child of wrath, under the curse of Ged, and heir only of hell fire!’ Answer. —The believing parent, whilst presenting his child in the ordinance of baptism, is filled with feelings of love, and gratitude, and joy, whilst, after contemp!atmg with deep humility his child’s lost state by nature, the eye of his faith is directed to the blood and water which issued from. the pierced side of his crucified Redeemer—blood for justification, and water for sanctification. . His eye 230 affects his heart, whilst he contemplates that water which symbollically represents, not only pardon through the Redeemer’s blood, but regeneration through ‘his blessed spirit. With feelings of ineffable gratitude and joy, he draws water out of the wells of salvation; he pleads the promises of the Gospel in behalf of his in fant offspring —that God would pour water upon the thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground—that he would pour his spirit upon his seed, and _his blessing upon his offspring—that God would be his God, and the God of his seed. Whilst he thus pleads the promises, and an- ticipates the eternal felicity of himself and his offspring, so far from being filled with feelings of horror and dis- gust, he rejoices with joy unspeakable and full of glory. _ The Doctor proceeds: ‘ What respect or reverence “ can a child feel for a parent, who is a bond-man of “« Satan, utterly opposed to every thing that is spiritual- *“‘ ly good 2”? . I answer, For such a parent he cannot feel so much reverence as for a pious parent, a child of God—and what then? Let such a parent flee from the wrath to come.—Let him repent of his wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thoughts of his heart may be forgiven him, that he may escape from the snare of the Devil, and be no longer led. captive by him at his will. Becoming a child of God by faith, and a favourite of heaven, he is entitled to more respect, and. will obtain more respect, from his own children. of) The Doctor goes on with his interrogatories, Aittaie <¢ With what distr ust, aversion, and gloomy horror, must « the parents themselves view each other during life, | «¢ wholly inclined to all evil, and tainted in every action ‘‘and sentiment with corruption—with what anguish 231 and despair at the hour of death?’ Answer.—Let such wicked parents forsake their ways, and such un- richteous parents their thoughts, and let them return unto the Lord and he will have mercy upon them, and — to our God, who will abundantly pardon. Let them look unto the Redeemer and be saved. Their distrust will then be turned into confidence—their aversion into love—their gloomy horror into the assurance of hope —and their anguish and despair into happiness and joy. The last two questions I might have answered more briefly by asking another, viz: What bearing have such questions on the doctrine of. original sin? Answer— NONEIETIALA de eeitot tre bau , Se -. The Doctor goes on: ‘* What encouragement have ‘¢ parents to bring up their children im the nurture and admonition of the Lord, if they think them irrever- “ sibly doomed to damnation ?’? Answer—No parent in his right mind ever: thought that his children were irreversibly doomed to damnation. But what are we to think of that. Divine who is vom oF chasers such a question? = ri 7 The Doctor peddesiil > © How can young haste re- ‘snember their Creator without hatred and terror, who ‘* has brought them into existence only to be vessels of ** wrath ?”? Answer—their Creator never brought any people into existence only to be vessels of wrath.— jaa > Do aul foul insinuations bear no resemblance to calumny ? | The Doulain pretty: aiff There was some consistency, ‘¢at least, in those fanatics who renounced matrimony “for fear of such consequences.’? Answer—There was 20 conststency—such consequences being only bug- 232 bears conjured up by the fertile imagination of Dr. B. and those fanatics'to which he refers. All parents are encouraged to. greene and set — Lai is to them and to their seed. | | HOG ~The» Doctor again asks, | (P. 202) ““ Are not such «< doctrines the source of those gloomy thoughts which “distract. so many pious souls? Do they not deter « many from cultivating or crediting religion, and hard- ‘en them in infidelity and iniquity ? May we not fear ** that they impel many to hurry on their own fate, ra- ‘‘ ther than endure the despondence, agitation and tor- ‘*ment of mind with which they are dcomed to await ‘*it??? Answer—Such is not the native tendency of the doctrines. : Though, in some instances, such doc- trines may be so abused, that is no argument against them. To argue against any thing from its abuse, is not logic, but sophistry. If soothing men’s minds, ‘calming their fears, and luiling their consciences to sleep, be’ meritorious actions, Arian divines deserve great praise. But what should we think of that watch- man, who, when the robber is wrenching the door, or the flames bursting from the window, should dissipate all fear by the pleasing intelligence, “ A// is well—a ‘« fine morning !’? How much more faithful would we regard that watchman, who, without’ ceremony, and with a voice like thunder, should immediately vociferate —Fire! Fire!) The horrid sound might injure some weak nerves. In a state of trepidation, one might break his arm, and another his leg. These are unfor- tunate circumstances, it is true, and much. to be de- plored; but not so deplorable as the fate of those, who, lulled to sleep by their treacherous watehman, fall a prey to the devouring element, or vege by the hand of the midnight assassin. wes. The Doctor intreduces a confused mass of hetero- geneous matter relative to the divine decrees. That God could not decree the fall without infringing the free agency of Adam has never yet been proved, and, I am convinced, never will. . When ever our opponents reconcile the fall with divine foreknowledge, we will re- concile it with divine decrees. For farther remarks connected with this subject we refer our readers to a subsequent. part of this treatise, when divine decrees will be more formally discussed, and the distinction be- tween God’s will of command and will of decree ex- plained and established. prreenely se It is agreed,” says the Doctor, ‘that Adam’s transgression and guilt became ours only by imputa- ‘‘ tion.’? . Answer—Zhere never was any such agree- ment. We are really guilty before God imputes guilt; for his judgment is always according to truth. _ Onur author then asks, ‘‘ Did this imputation find us ‘sinners or make us so?”’* This question, and the c cp the shecligioal distonties of the Rey. James Thompson of Quarrelwood, Scotland, a work which contains an immense fund of accurate information on the most important doctrines of religion —in a foot note (Vol. i. P. 74) we find the following assertion :— [tis not then God’s imputing act that makes them guilty; but “ that act by which he constituted Adam their moral head.” This sentence shews how difficult it is to form accurate ideas, or to ex- “press one’s self accurately, on so abstruse a subject. I entirely dissent from this acute and discriminating Divine. God’s act in constituting Adam our moral head could not possibly make us guilty. No act of God could make us guilty, otherwise God would be the author of sin. I believe all mankind are guilty of Adam’s first sin, and I believe the guilt of that sin is imputed to aD HHT EGO C34: former assertion, are consistent with each other, and mutually destroy each other; for if by imputation alone we! become sinners ; we were not sinners before, and therefore imputation could not find us sinners.— The question, therefore, being inconsistent with the pre- vious statement, is absurd, and shows great want of dis- crimination in the querist.. If imputation found us sin- ners, the Doctor declares that imputation was unneces- -sary. What! unnecessary! If so, it is unnecessary to impute theft to a man whom we have found stealing, or burglary to a man who is found guilty of house- breaking! But our author tells us, that if imputation found us sinners, imputation was unnecessary. Why ? “* We might have perished by our own sins.”? But how we could have perished by our own sins, if those sins had not been imputed to us, will require all the talents and ingenuity of Dr. B. to explain. The Doctor pro- - ceeds: ‘* Ifat found men innocent and made them sin- “ ners, then it was the cause of their sins, and God ‘“‘ was the author ofthem. Again—If it found us free ‘¢ from sin, the imputation was false, charging those with “* sin whom it did not find sinners, and God condemned *‘men on account of his own false imputation. Par- “‘don the expression ; for it is impossible to treat of ‘* these monstrous positions without contradiction and them. I believe these facts, but I cannot explain them. I be- lieve the facts, because the Scripture states them, and because it _would involve the greatest absurdity to deny them. Ifthey had not been guilty of Adam’s first sin, God would not have condemn- ed the whole human family to death for it. God never condemns the innocent. sini 235 ‘blasphemy.’ Monstrous positions indeed !—and suf- ficiently interlarded with contradiction and blasphemy! but they are his own positions—the contradiction his — own—the blasphemy his own—we disclaim them in foto. I am glad, however, to find him on his knees begging pardon. He would do well to beg pardon, not only of his hearers, and his readers, but of his God, whose ma- jesty he has insulted by such contradictory and blasphe- mous statements. Imputation neither finds men inno- cent, nor makes them sinners. Dr. B. should have studied imputation before he opposed it. | Dr. Bruce proceeds to ask, (P. 206) ‘ But a ‘* should we be answerable for only one transgression ? * If our guilt arises from the guilt of Adam, it must be ‘* aggravated by all his offenees; and if we suffer the consequent corruption of his nature, the penalty of ‘‘ his transgressions, should we not also enjoy the bene- “ fit of his repentance and subsequent obedience? If ** we sinned i our federal head, we must hate sid sui ‘* ed also.” Answer— After Adam committed his first sin he ceas- ed to be our representative ; and therefore it is, that we can neither be charged with his subsequent sins, nor enjoy the benefit of his subsequent repentance. By Adam’s first sin the covenant of works was broken, and Adam ceased to be our representative. A new covenant, the — covenant of grace, was immediately proclaimed, in which covenant our blessed Redeemer represents all his spirl-. tual seed. To all these (not the repentance of Adam, but)—the obedience of Jesus Christ is mphege for righteousness. | 236 Dr. B. exclaims, “‘ How strange and paradoxical is ‘‘it, that while God is forgiving our own sins, he ‘¢ should condemn us for the offences of another !’’— Anwer—However strange and paradoxical it may seem, it is a fact.* Still stranger, it is a fact admitted by Dr. B. himself. He has fully admitted that the whole human family are condemned to death for the sin of Adam—and what is still more strange and paradoxical, that they are all condemned to die for a crime. of which they are perfectly innocent! Surely this is strange and paradoxical indeed! ‘There are no such paradoxes in the Calvinistic scheme. | | Doctor B. is generally careful to exhibit, in as fright- ful a form as possible, the difficulties of the system he opposes, whilst he studiously conceals those of his own. We frequently find him proposing, but seldom answer- ing, objections. In this he shows a good deal of gene- ralship. After proposing an immense number of objec- tions to the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin, at the close of his sermon he proposes to answer one, and states it thus: © But it has been asked, Is not the doctrine ‘¢ of original sin necessary to account for the existence ‘© of sin? How else came it into the world? I answer “by another question, How did original sin take «place ? Was it by the corruption of Adam’s nature ? ‘‘ This will not be pretended, &c.”? This objection is erroneously stated, — and as weakly answered. We * When I say, It is a fact, I mean, it is a fact that we are con- demned (not for the offences, as the Doctor erroneously states, but) for the offence of another. Neither Scripture nor Calvinism represents us as condemned for any offence of Adam but one. 237 do not ask, “Is not the doctrine of original sin necessary ‘*to account for the existence of sin.” This would be — an absurd question. But we ask, Is not the doc- trine of original sin necessary to account for the wnzver- sal prevalence of sin and corruption ? We do not ask, « How else came it into the world?” This would be - absurd—but we ask, How else has it spread so wide- ly that none have ever escaped its contagion ? Sucli is the real objection ; let us now attend to the Doctor’s answer—It is this: ‘*I answer by another question, ‘* How did original sin take place? Was it by the cor- “‘ ruption of Adam’s nature ?”’ This is the old exploded answer of Dr. Taylor—an answer which President Edwards has triumphantly ex- posed, as completely weak and unphilosophical. Because all men capable of moral agency sin, we infer — a universal propensity to sin—a universal depravity, and corruption of nature. No general law was ever better established than this, the law of gravitation itself not excepted. How do we know that all heavy bodies gra- vitate towards the centre? We know it, and can prove it only by an induction of particulars. We know, that in every instance in which a stone or heavy body has been projected into the air, it has uniformly returned to the surface of the earth. Hence we infer, that all heavy bodies gravitate towards the centre. In this manner the law of gravitation is satisfactorily establish- ed. And yet, it must be acknowledged, that the m- duction of particulars from which the law is inferred, is far from being complete. With regard to thousands and millions of stones and other heavy bodies, it has ne- 238 ver been tried whether they would return to the surface: or not. The law of sin and death is much better esta- blished. Every son and daughter of Adam, (Enoch and Elias excepted) from-the creation of the world down. to the age in which we hive, have died. Hence we infer, That all men are mortal.’ 3 | Again: Every son and daughter of Adam, as soom as capable of moral agency, have sinned ; and hence we infer—That all men are depraved—that there is in all mankind an original and inherent propensity to sin.— Thus, it appears, that this original inherent propensity to sin, or, in other words, this original depravity of nature, is proved by evidence stronger, if possible, than that by which the law of gravitation is established.— The Jaw of gravitation is established by a partial induc- tion ; but the depravity of our nature, by a universal induction of facts. Now, how do our opponents, Dr. Taylor, Dr. Bruce, &c. answer this reasoning ? Why, they tell us, that if the universal prevalence to sim — proves an original propensity to sin, in like manner, Adam’s first sin proved in him a similar propensity ;— that is to say—one fact is sufficient to prove a general law, as well as a universal induction of facts! Such is the philosophy of that Divine, who regards his neigh- bours as fanatics, enthusiasts, and bigots. Such is the reasoning by which Socinian and Arian writers think to run down the doctrine of original depravity—a doc-, trine founded on the clearest dictates both of expe- rience and Divine Revelation. To such of my readers as may feel still disposed to reject the doctrine of original sin, I would put a few 239 questions: Did Adam eat forbidden fruit? and do not we eat forbidden fruit? Do we not in’ ten thousand instances commit those sins which God’s pure and holy law forbids >—Again: Did Adam fly from the presence of the Lord? and do not we also fly from his presence? do we not frequently feel an aversion to secret prayer, and other ordinances, through the medium of which we are admitted to the high honour of holding intercourse and communion with God ?—Once more: Did Adam and Hive form apologies for their conduct ? Did Adam blame Eve, and Eve the Serpent? And do not we form ten thousand apologies for our crimes? Are we not apt to blame our neighbours, and every thing around us, rather than ourselves ?—Finally: Did Adam.and Eve sew fig leaves to conceal their naked- ness? And are not we prone to think, that the patch- work robe of our own righteousness—our penances, our pilgrimages, our prayers, our ‘tears, our alms, &c. will be perfectly sufficient to render us ac- ceptable in the sight of God? Instead of submitting to God’s righteousness, do we not go about to establish our own righteousness, forgetting that Jesus Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth? Inaword: Do we not bear the image of Adam? Are not his features strongly marked in our character? With what face can we plead freedom from his guilt, whilst we continue to homologate his crimes ? If we say we are perfect, we prove ourselves perverse.— If we attempt to justify ourselves, our own mouths will condemn us. Were we to take snow water, and wash ourselves ever so white, yet the Almighty would plunge 240 us in the ditch, and our own clothes would abhor us.— Let every son of apostate Adam prostrate himself before the throne of grace, confessing, with David, ‘* Behold, ‘* T was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother ‘‘ conceive me’”’—and praying with the same penitent, ‘‘ Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a ‘‘ right spirit within me.”’ In behalf of myself, my op- ponent, and all my readers, I would humbly and fer--— vently pray—That as we have all borne the image of the earthly, so we may bear the image of the heavenly ~ Adam. Amen. 240 Ws CHAPTER. VII. | Predestination. SecTion lL. The Grace of God distinguishing. ‘Muis doctrine has been attacked of late, not only by Dr. B., but by a variety of eminent Arminian Divines of the Establishment. In this combined attack, the learned Bishop of Down and Connor leads the van, and the celebrated Doctors, Millar and Graves, bring up the rear. To attempt a defence against such formi- dable assailants may appear presumptuous. Possessing, however, us I verily believe, the vantage ground of truth, I do not despair of ultimate success. I shall en- deavour to give a reason of the hope that is in me with meckness and fear. | In all our inquiries, whether sersnitthe or religious, our wisest mode of procedure undoubtedly is, to ad- vance from the consideration of those fruths which are more plain, to the investigation of those which are more difficult. Keeping this wise maxim in our eye, were we able to ascertain what is the divine procedure re- ae 3 242 specting man in time, we might easily ascertain what were the divine designs from all eternity. Creation and Providence are the best commentary on the divine decrees ; for ‘‘ God executeth his decrees in the works ‘“‘ of creation and providence.”? Let us first inquire, What does God actually do ? in order to ascertain what from eternity he intended to do. That the Deity does nothing without previous intention and design, every person who believes in his existence must grant: and that none of the divine designs or purposes are formed in time, but that they were all formed from eternity, few, I presume, will venture to deny. Were we fora moment to suppose, that God forms any new design or purpose, we must at the same time deny his immu- tability—we must at the same time admit the blasphemous conclusion, that there is in the divine mind ‘ variable- ‘¢ ness or shadow of turning.”’ If, then, we wish to ascertain the eternal purposes or decrees of God* concerning sinners of our family, * Our author asserts, that it was infinitely absurd to puzzle our- selves about the divine decrees, and that, as the subject itself has never been revealed, it cannot be our duty to study it. Now, my dear Doctor, if you and I have never puzzled ourselves about the divine decrees—if we have never studied the subject—is it not in- finitely absurd to preach and write upon it, and to expect the -pub- lic to attend our sermons, and read our treatises? ‘That our author has never puzzled himself about the divine decrees—that he has never studied the subject, is abundantly evident. We have al- ready heard him asking, whether the decree that man should fall originated before or after the fall. In his sermon on mysteries, (and a very mysterious sermon it is,) he speaks of that part of the economy of grace, which was planned before Christ appeared in the world. A part, of course, was planned after his appearance— but, if there are any new thoughts or plans in the mind of the Deity, what becomes of his immutability? By representing the decrees of the Almighty as secret, belonging purely to God, and 245 we must previously answer this question, What 1s his conduct towards them now in time? How does he now treat them? If he makes any distinctions now a, time, he must have determined and decreed from all: eternity to. make those distinctions. ‘This is a position which no intelligent person will venture to controvert. That distinctions éxist now, and that distinctions will exist hereafter, is acknowledged by all who believe the Bible. That the world is distributed into two great classes, believers and unbelievers, penitent and impeni- tent, righteous and wicked, or sheep and goats; and that the whole human family will be so divided at the judgment of the great day, all Christians admit. Now, the great question is, Who makes this distinction ? Is it God, or the creature 2? When one man believes, re- pents, and reforms, whilst another remains in unbelief, impenitence, and wickedness, Who makes the diifer- ence? Is it the believer himself, or is it God? A proper answer to this question, I humbly conceive, not revealed to us, he proves clearly that he has not studied the subject ; for God has revealed many of his purposes. He has re- vealed them by creation, by providence, and by his word. I know that God decreed from all eternity to create the world, to govern the world, and to judge the world. I know he decreed whatever I know he has done; and I know he decreed whatever he has told me he will do. .Those decrees which have neither been re- vealed by.creation, providence, nor scripture, belong purely to God himself; but those which are revealed belong to us and to our children. Gf revealed truths, the Doctor says, (P.. 63,) ‘«< Some are merely speculative, others are calculated to influence _“ our practice. Itjis evident, that these last are the truths which are «said to belong to.us and to our children.” So then only a parr. of the truths of divine revelation belong to us and to our children. _ ‘Isnot this deism ? orat least semi-deism. In attempting to explode the doctrine of predestination, our author reserts to his usual stra- tagem by involving the subject in clouds and darkness. - would settle the whole controversy between the Cal- vinist and the Arminian. If man makes the difference, the Arminian is right; if God makes the difference, the Calvinist is right. Whether the first movements in faith and repentance are from God or the creature, ‘ac- cording to the judicious statement of the late talented Moderator of the Synod of Ulster, the Rev. Henry Cooke, is the great cardinal point in debate. If the first movements in faith and repentance are from: God, the Calvinist is right ; if from the creature, he is wrong. _ Arminians maintain that God has put salvation in the power of all—that if they make a proper improvement of the talents they possess, they shall infallibly arrive at faith, repentance, and salvation, Now this system, however plausible at first sight, appears to me totally subversive of the grace of God. _ If all men are brought into a salvable state, and if all have talents, which if they improve they shall be saved ; when one man im- proves his talents and is saved, and another neglects them and is condemned ; ; and when the question is put to the man who is saved, Who made thee to differ ? May he not boldly reply—Mysexr? For this differ- ence Lam no way indebted to the grace of God, but wholly to my own exertions. My neighbour, who is now suffering the vengeance of eternal fire, was precise- ly in the same situation with myself—he enjoyed the same means—he possessed the same talents—but he did not improve them, and therefore is miserable’; whilst TL improved mine, and therefore am happy! I ask my reader, Is not this to exclude the grace of God, and to leave ample ground of boasting to the creature ? The Apostle represents it as a thing quite unreason- a *] we, | Oy AMY ike ‘4 + H OAS able and absurd, to suppose that one man should make himself to differ from another, with regard to the mira . culous gifts of the Spirit. L.ask, Is it not still more ~ unreasonable and absurd, to suppose that one man — should make himself to differ from another, with regard to what is incomparably more excellent—/the graces of ihe Spirit. The Arminian makes himself to differ with regard to the graces of the Spirit of God. By "persevering in prayer and other duties, he obtains faith, repentance, and other graces; and_ thus makes himself to differ from his unbelieving neighbours. [or this difference he is in debt, not to the grace of God, but to his own exertions. His principles leave room for. much greater pride and boasting than those of the proud Pharisee. The Pharisee acknowledged, that it was God that made him to differ: “ God, I thank «thee that I am not as other men—or even as this pub- lican.”’’—The Arminian can, in consistency with his own principles, make no such acknowledgment. ‘The consistent language of his prayer would run thus: Thanks to myself, I am not as other men—I am _ not unbelieving, impenitent, nor wicked ! His system, as I said before, entirely excludes the grace of God. I know he denies this conclusion ; but he cannot avoid it. Let us hear his defence. I shall give it in the words of Dr. Graves, the Regius Professor of Divinity in Dub- lin College, and Chaplain to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant : ‘* In our accepting,” says the learned Doctor (Calvinistic Predestination, P. 448), * this of- ‘“‘ fer of mercy, is there any thing whereof to boast ? «¢ Will the condemned criminal boast of his accepting of, £©and rejoicing in, a reprieve, rather than in being led 24.6 ** to an ignominious death ?—will the unhappy being, ‘* sinking under a pestilential disease, boast of his ac- “cepting a cure from that Great Physician, whom *‘ thousands around him hail as the preserver of their ‘lives >—will the prisoner, plunged in a dark and ‘loathsome dungeon, when his chains are loosened, *‘and the gate thrown open which confined him from «the light of heaven, boast, because he walks forth to ‘liberty and life??? ‘This reasoning is, I confess, ex- tremely plausible. It seems to vindicate the grace of God, and to exclude boasting on the part of man. A few observations, however, will show, that it is quite inconclusive, and altogether unsatisfactory. The fol- lowing question will expose the fallacy : Had God left all mankind to perish without any cure, without any reprieve, without ever loosening their chains, or open- ing the gate of their prison :—in a word; had he suf- fered all to perish without ever putting salvation in their power, would he have acted justly, or unjustly? Ar- minians, Socinians, and Arians, all maintain, that it would be unjust in God to condemn any man, if salva- tion were not in his power. The learned Professor himself considers it not only inconsistent with the jus- tice of God, but with ‘the whole tenor of the divine ‘* attributes aud government.’’—Of course, it was an act of justice, and not of grace, to put man into a salvable state. According to the Arminian system, if God brought us into being at all, he was obliged, in justice to offer us a reprieve—he was obliged in justice to offer us a cure—he was obliged in justice to loosen our chains, and to set open our prison doors. All these, according to Arminian principles, were acts of 24:7 justice, and not of grace. Of course, we need not thank the Deity for doing any of these things. We need not thank him for doing that which his justice obliged him to do, and which it would have been unjust not to do. Thus the Arminian scheme cuts up. by the roots, and entirely excludes the grace of God. There isno grace in the foundation of the Arminian system: there is no grace in the superstructure: there is no grace in any part of the building. It is the very reverse of the sys- tem laid down in the Bible. The Scripture system is a system of grace. The foundation is of grace: the superstructure is of grace: and when the top stone is brought forth, it will be with ‘ shoutings of Grace, ‘¢ Grace unto it.”’ God’s purposes towards his people are purposes of grace : his covenant is a covenant of grace : the election of his people is an election of grace : their calling isa calling of grace: they are saved and called with a holy calling, not according to their works, but ac- cording to his purpose and grace, &c.—They are justified by grace, adopted by grace, sanctified by grace, preserved by grace, and saved by grace. We Calvinists believe, that it would have been just in God to leave the whole hu- man family to perish, as he has actually left apostate angels. We conceive that the Deity was under no obli- gations to save the one class of beings rather than the other. We believe, that it is wholly owing to the sove- reign distinguishing grace of God, that we are “ pri- “ soners of hope,’ whilst fallen angels are “ reserved. “ in chains of darkness. ?? Weare convinced that God was under no obligation, either to provide or offer us a Saviour. We adore his unmerited grace, and exclaim Q48 - with the ieee *¢ Thanks be to God for his a. ‘able’ gift 4? Oar Arminian brethren entertain different ielige: They imagine, that if we are brought into being at all, we cannot be justly abandoned to perish without reme- dy. The consequence is, though they do not perceive it, that even the giving of Goad’s own Son is not an act of grace, but of justice! Had God not sent ‘his Son, but abandoned us all to irremediable and unavoid- able misery, the Arminian maintains he would have treated us unjustly. From these premises the im- pious conclusion unavoidably follows, That we have no right to thank God for his unspeakable gift !—That we have no reason to praise him, either for providing or offering a Saviour! To provide a remedy, according to Arminians, Socinians, and Arians, was no act of grace, but a debt: for it would have been unjust in God, ac- cording to them, to permit us to perish w7thoul a re- medy! The truth is, that the atonement of Jesus Christ, accordmg to the Arminian scheme, scems ra- ther to be an atonement for the zyury God has done to us, than for the sins we have committed against him! Arminians seem to regard our state by nature, as a state of great hardship ; and the benefits of redemption, as a kind of compensation for the injuries which we innocently suffer by the fall. They bring the Deity in- to this dilemma—that he must either no¢ bring us into existence ; or, if he do bring us into existence, that he must bring us into a salvable state, and grant us some privileges to counterbalance and compensate the. evils to which we have been mnocently exposed! Dr. Graves: (P. 392) writes thus: ‘* Now, if the infant * Se 2g 24.9 “‘ who expires before he has committed any crime, be ** condemned because of Adam’s sin, or if he inherits ‘a nature so irremediably corrupt, that on his: arriv-— “* ing at maturity, present guilt and future perdition are ‘to him unavoidable ; conferring on him such an exis- ‘‘ tence, seems irreconcileable with the whole tenor of -‘*the divine attributes and government described in the © ‘* Scripture, as, I trust, has been shewn in the pre- ** ceding discourses.’’* | ae ~The native tendency of Arminian principles is to de- preciate, supersede, and make void the atonement.— * In a still more explicit manner, Mr. M‘Afee, another de- fender of the Arminian system, writes as follows: (P. 24) “ Asa * consequence of the first transgression, all men are not only cor- ‘‘ rupted in their nature, but are.also subject to temporal death.— “* As an antidote to the former, Christ is termed the true light “that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. And to ‘* make compensation for the latter, a decree is passed, through “the atonement and resurrection of Christ, which determines the ‘‘ resurrection of every man. In proof of the latter proposition, I ‘*‘ need only refer you, Sir, to 1 Cor. xv. where the Apostle mcre ‘‘ than once tells us, that if the dead rise not, then is Christ not _ * raised. It appears to me that the Apostle’s view of the subject ‘“* was simply this: that as God, who is immutable in bis designs, “ gave man a personal existence through Jesus Christ, and as that ** existence is necessarily accompanied with privations which sub- *‘ject him to temporal death, so, as a counterbalance to this, “God, according to his goodness and justice, immutably pure *‘ posed that all men should be raised’ from the dead through, *¢ Christ.” And again, (P. 13) ‘* As Christ died to give usa per- ‘sonal existence (accompanied with many privations, in conse- “quence of the fall), he has made ample provision for every one, “‘ whereby these things are counterbalanced.”—Thus, the benefits of redemption, through Jesus Christ, are represented as a compen- sation for the privations we suffer—innocently suffer —in consequence of the fall! Thus, the offended sovereign of heaven and earth is represented, in the work of our redemption, as giving compensa~ tion for damages, and paying a debt of justice, to his rebel off- spring, rather than displaying the infinite riches of his grace and mercy !: . 32 250 _“ Arminians im general,’”? says President Edwards in -his. Inquiry, ‘‘ are very inconsistent with themselves in ‘‘ what they say of the inability of fallen man in this “respect. They strenuously maintain, that it would ‘be unjust in God to require any thing of us beyond ‘our present power and ability to perform, and also - hold, that we are now unable to perform perfect obe- «‘ dience, and that Christ died to satisfy for the :mper- ‘¢ fections of our obedience, and has made way that our ‘imperfect obedience might be accepted instead of per- «* fect : wherein they seem insensibly to run themselves “ into the grossest inconsistence. For (as I have observed ‘© elsewhere) they hold, that God, in mercy to mankind, ‘* has abolished that rigorous constitution or law that they “* were under originally ; and, instead of it, has intro- «< duced'a more mild constitution, and put us under a «© new law, which requires no more than imperfect sin- * cere obedience, in compliance with our poor, infirm, ‘‘ impotent circumstances since the fall. Now, how can “© these things be made consistent? I would ask, what ** law these imperfections of our obedience are a breach ‘of? Ifthey are a breach of no law that we were ‘‘ ever under, then they are not sins. And if they be ‘* not sins, what need of Christ’s dying to satisfy for “them? But if they are sins, and the breach of some ‘¢ law, what lawisit? They cannot be a breach of their ‘new Jaw; for that requires no other than imperfect «* obedience, or obedience with imperfections, and, there- «fore, to have obedience attended with imperfections is ‘no breach of it; forit is as muchas it requires. And ‘‘ they cannot be a breach of their old law; for that, ** they say, is entirely abolished ; and we never were 251 “under it. They say, it would not be just in God to “¢ require of us perfect obedience, because it would not ** be just to require more than we can perform, or to» ‘¢ punish us for failing of it. And, therefore, by their ‘* own scheme, the imperfections of our obedience do « not deserve to be punished. What need therefore of *« Christ’s dying to satisfy for them? What need of “his suffering, to satisfy for that which is no fault, and “in its own nature deserves no suffering ? What need ‘©of Christ dying to purchase, that our imperfect obe- ‘* dience should be accepted, when, according to. their «* scheme, it would be unjust in itself, that any other * obedience, than imperfect, should be required ?— «* What need of Christ’s dying to make way for God’s ** accepting such an obedience, as it would be unjust in “him not to accept? Is there any need of Christ’s “< dying to prevail with God not to do unrighteously ? If “‘ it be said, that Christ. died to satisfy that. old law for ‘‘ us, that so we might not be under it, but that there ‘“¢ might. be room for our being under a more mild law ; ‘< still L would inquire, what need of Christ’s dying,’ «that we might not be under a law, which (by their ‘¢ principles) it would be in itself unjust that we should <¢ be under, whether Christ had. died or no, because, in “ our present state, we are not able to keep it 2”—Thus it appears that Arminian principles make void the grace’ of God, supersede the atonement, and lead to Arian- ism or Socinianism. | Dr. Millar, of Armagh, endeavours to retort: ike charge—he endeavours to convince his readers, that it is not the Arminian, but the Calvinistic system, that. has this tendency. In his Doctrines. of ‘Christianity, 252 ‘(P..130,) he writes thus : ‘‘ It was not unnatural, that “‘ when the zeal of Calvinistical Protestants was no ‘‘ longer sustained by opposition, they should them- ‘* selves recoil from the gloomy and terrible doctrine of ‘‘ the arbitary decrees of God. Since Calvin, who seems to have been strongly actuated by the spirit of a lea- ‘‘ der of a sect, could yet acknowledge that the doctrine ‘‘ which he taught, was a horrible decree, it may well ‘* be supposed that, in a later period, when the zeal of * his followers had been gradually moderated by time ‘‘ and tranquillity, this doctrine should give offence to ‘the reason of reflecting men, and dispose them to in- “ dulge themselves without any restraint in qualifying ‘the articles of their faith, that they might form for ‘‘ themselves what they would denominate a rational’ ‘‘ religion. Nor was the peculiar doctrine of Calvin “ free from a direct tendency to generate this corruption “of the genuine principles of the Christian faith._— -“ When human salvation was referred to the arbitrary ‘‘ and irrespective decrees of God, the second person of ‘‘ the Trinity was easily conceived to be degraded from «‘ the rank ofa primary agent in the work of redemption ‘‘ to that of a mere instrument in the execution of a ‘¢ preordained arrangement. ‘Those who embraced this _ ‘s doctrine were accordingly disposed by it to attach less ‘¢ importance to the agency of the Son of God; and the ‘¢ transition was natural from a degraded opinion of his ‘S agency toa degraded estimate of his nature and cha- * racter.”’ a Heh Now, surely, no charge was ever more groundless than this. What! Must the Redeemeer’s character be conceived to be degraded, because he acted on a pre- 258 concerted plan? How unreasonable the conception! _ To act without a previous plan would be degrading to the meanest mechanick. Nor is it at all true, that those ! } who believe in a preordained arrangement are disposed to attach less importance to the agency of the Son of God. The reverse is the fact. They attach to his agency immensely more importance. Arminians main- tain that the guilt which Jesus Christ expiated by his blood was only jinite, Calvinists almost ‘universal- ly maintain that it was infinite. As we therefore con- ceive, that the Redeemer has performed an infinitely greater work, we attach infinitely greater importance to his agency. It is the Arminian, therefore, that en- tertains a degraded opinion of the agency of the Re- deemer ;* and Dr. Millar assures us, that «the trans- * That Antitrinitarianism tends to degrade the merits of the Re- deemer, and to exalt Auman merit, is evident from their writings. ‘‘ And if God constituted the first mana federal head,” says Mr, M‘Afee, “ and had he continued faithful, I see no reason why his ‘“‘ whole posterity, who would have been saved eternally by the “imputation of his righteousness, might not have sung, glory, ‘‘ honour, and blessing, be ascribed to our father Adam, for ever ‘Sand ever.” An Arminian sees nu reason why praises should not have been sung to father Adam; but a Calvinist sees every reason in the world. The Calvinist believes, that had father Adam con- tinued to obey, not only the commandment relative to the forbidden fruit, but all the commandmants of God; not only for a few years, but for thousands of ages; he would have merited—just nothing at all, When he had done all he could, he would have been only an un- © profitable servant—he would have only done what was his duty to do, Were some Nobleman to present a large estate to Mr. M‘Afee and his posterity for ever, on this simple condition, that Mr. M‘Afee should return to the doner one barley corn, would the fulfilment of this condition be so meritorious, aS to entitle Mr. M‘Afee to the praises of his posterity through all generations ?— How absurd the idea! And yet, there is an infinitely greater pro- portion between a barley corn and the fee simple of a large estate, 254 sition is natural from a degraded opinion’ of his ‘agency toa degraded estimate of his character.’”?— The Arminian system, then, and not the Calvinistic, tends to Arianism, as the extract from Edwards fully proves. | oO - The Doctor, however, persists in his attempt to.sub- stantiate his charge. He endeavours-to prove it by facts. P. 224, he writes thus: ‘* If, ‘to remove this uncertain- ‘ty the Synod (of Ulster) should be induced to recur “ to their ancient confession of faith, they would return than between the obedience of Adam and the eternal happiness of the whole human family. in the former case, according to Calyin- istic ideas, the praises would be due, not to Mr. M‘Afee, but to his kind benefactor: and in the Jatter—not to father Adam, but. to our Father in Heaven. Calvinists believe, that the obedience, not only of Adam, but of all his posterity—nay, that the united obedience of all the men on earth, and all the angels in heaven, can merit nothing: and at the same time they believe, that every act of the Redeemer’s obedience was infinitely meritorious. Had Adam continued in obedience, and, in consequence of his perseve- rance, had the whole human family been confirmed in a state of holiness and happiness, his posterity, according to Calvinistic ideas, would have attributed all to the free grace of God: they would have felt no temptation to celebrate the praises of father Adam.—-- So far from thinking with Mr. M‘Afee, that the obedience of Adam would have been more meritorious than that of the Redeem- er!—they would have regarded his obedience as having no merit at all. Mr. M‘Afee labours hard to prove, that the human family would have enjoyed much greater happiness had they never fallen, than is to be enjoyed through the mediation of Jesus Christ—he degrades the work of redemption, and merits of the Redeemer, by sinking them into — ‘itive insignificance. Calvinists, on the contrary, entertain a low opinion of human merit; but high and exalted ideas of the merits of their Redeemer, and of the benefits of redemption—they believe, that immensely more glory will redound to God, and happiness to his creatures, through the me- diation of Jesus Christ, than would have accrued from a permanent state of unsinning obedience.—The reader may now judge, whether it is the Calvinistic or Arminian system, that exhibits degrading views of the Redeemer’s agency and character. SS 255 “¢to that, which, as has already been exemplified. in “ every instance, has naturally tended to pass into that “very Arianism or Socinianism, from which, in return- - ‘ing to it, they would endeavour to ecape. What then ‘© would be gained by the change? ‘They would have ‘‘ abandoned a system, in which very various opinions “are held at the same time, for another, the natural “‘tendency of which has actually shown itself to be 4‘ an alternate movement between the extremes of cal- “ vinistic sp gnc and of arianism or socin- © anism.” In this erscet the learned Doctor professes to reason from facts: Why then does he not adhere to facts? It is not. a fact, that the confession of faith, or the Calvinism of that confession, has in every instance tended to pass into Arianism or Socinianism. Has the Westminster Confession, in the Secession church, tend- ed towards Arianism or Socinianism? No:—there is not in that church a single Arian or Socinian. Has the Westminster Confession, in the Reformed Presbylerian church, tended towards Arianism or Socinianism? J¢_ has not.—There is not in that church one single Arian or Socinian. Dr. Millar should be better acquainted with facts before he begins to reason from them. He should beware of stating as facts things which are not facts at all. It is a fact honourable to the Westminster Con- fi die that in every instance, | in this country, where subscription to that formula has been required, it has proved a bar tothe introduction of Arianism. Another fact equally honourable to the Confession is, that Arian- ism made little or no progress in the Synod of Ulster, till 250 - that barrier was removed—till subseription to aie Con- fession ceased to be required. ay ~The last fact I shall mention, ie one highly hie: able to the Westminster Confession, is, that in no coun- try in the world do “ Sound doctrine and the power of godliness”? more prevail, than in that country where Presbyterianism and Calvinism, as taught in that Con- fession, are the established religion of the state. What country on the face of this globe can bear a comparison with Scotland, either for orthodoxy or morality ? So much for the charge of Dr. Millar, That the Calvi- nism of the Westminster Confession has a tendency to- wards Arianism. What system it is that has earl aten- dency, the reader is now lef | 2 r 2 ae ; w ae Sreriow TI. 4% Of Free Agency. The whole controvery between Arminians and Cal- vinists originates, I humbly conceive, in a misunder- standing with respect to free agency. It is generally imagined, that Ca | but this.is a gross ke. The Calvinist, as well as the Arminian, gr that if man were not free, he ~ could not be accountab ih The Calvinist, as well as the Arminian, grants that man is a voluntary agent, and, when subject to no external restraint, can do what he deny the free agency of man z ‘ : 257 pleases. The Calvinist believes that man, by the fall, did not lose his natural freedom. | Had he lost this free- dom, he would have ceased to be an accountable agent. - But, though man did not lose his natu, al freedom by the Qo fall, he lost his moral freedom. He is a slave to sin.— This moral slavery is quite consistent with natural free. dom. In a philosophical sense, he acts as freely now . in pursuing the paths of vice and folly, as he did before the fall in running the | v ys of God’s commandments. | It is true, that man, in consequence of the fall, is not able to keep the whole law of God; nor is he able of | himself to believe and repent. Man, by the fall, has lost. his ability—not his natural, but his moral ability. By the fall, man lost 1 none of his powers and faculties, He has still an underae anding, will, and affection. ~ These faculties are only perverted, but not destroyed. Man has lost his moraé ability : or, in other words, he has lost, his inclination to good. He is now wholly in- clined to evil. The imaginations of the thoughts’ of his heart are only evil, and that continually. Arminians conceive, that indifference is essential to liberty—that to constitute an action virtuous, the mind must be in a state of equilibrium. Calvinists are of a quite different opinion. ‘They conceive, that the great- era man’ s bias or prepeniy eras good, he 1s the ater his bias or propen-. re vitious. [his appears to me . to ng iy a nto both of Bees e , ee of common - sense. The Scriptures represent rived at the highest degree of wickedness, when. his eyes. are full of adultery, or rather of the adulteress, and 33 : | Dehe. debauchee. as ar- when he cannot cease from sin. In accordance with © this view are the dictates of common sense. ‘The com- mon sense even of the Arminian himself, when the matter is brought home to his business and his bosom, rebels against his speculative principles. No Arminian ia the world would prefer a servant whose mind should be in a state of equilibrium or indifference with regard to moral honesty. In this case, with the Calvinist, he- would certainly prefer that servant whose principles of | honesty were so confirmed, that he could not deliberate fora moment whether he would rob ‘his master ; but would zmmediately, and, as it were instinctively, a every idea of dishonesty. | In a court of judicature, no criminal was ever known to plead, in arrest of judgment, his moral inability.—_ Was any: parricide ever known to plead, in extenuation of his crime, that his hatred to his fat er was so great, that he found it quite impossible to at avoid committing the horrid deed? Such a plea was never set up in ar- rest of judgment by any murderer. On the contrary, malice prepense is that which stamps the crime with its characteristic enormity, and distinguishes it -from man- slaughter. If indifference were essential to liberty and free agency, as Arminians contend, holy angels, and the spirits of the just made perfect, could neither be virtuous nor free agents. Nay, the Deity himself could néither be virtuous nor free! None of these has a li- berty of indifference, they are: all wholly and invariably inclined to good. Nor could devils and damned souls be virtuous; for they have no liberty of indifference : they are wholly and invariably inclined to evil. To such absurd conclusions, Arminian ideas of liberty and free agency unavoidably lead.* | 7 e# sing reTeh te WR ee * Some Arminian writers almost admit those conclusions. ‘The - ‘moment Adam committed this one act of disobedience,’—says Mr. M‘Afee in his Rational and Scriptural Investigation—* he «© entailed on himself a state of debilitation, which laid him under < the necessity of following his corrupt inclinations without any “ power to resist them.”—Again; (P. 19,) he says, “ The first “act of disobedience, therefore, rendered Adam as_ guilty “ashe ever after could become; because it rendered his after *¢ actions necessary, and consequently as such they were incapable é¢ of incurring additional guilt.”-—“ Hence I come to this conclu- “¢ sion’”—says the same writer in the same .page—‘ That had “© Adam lived 930 years after his fall without any restoration of ‘his lapsed powers, his guilt would have been: no greater than it ‘¢ was upon the perpetration of his first sin.” Now, if, in conse- quence of his inability, it was impossible for Adam after the fall to commit sin ; surely it is equally impossible for the damned in the lace of misery to commit sin ; for their inability is at least as great as that of Adam. Upon the same principle, it is equally impossi- ble for the devil and his angels to commit sin; for ¢hezr inability, also, is equally great len the celebrated Mr Wesley first taught, that believers in -may arrive at such a state of perfec- 260 Were the distinction between natural freedom and — moral freedom, natural ability and moral ability, care- fully observed, the controversy between Arminians and Calvinists would, I humbly conceive, soon terminate. When such distinctions are confounded, Calvinism ap- pears an absurd, unreasonable, and horrible system.— We are commanded to obey the whole law of God—to believe, repent, &c.—and yet, according to the Calvin- istic system, we can no more do these things than we can remove mountains. We are commanded to do things which we cannot do—things which are zmpos- sible—and punished for not doing them! ‘This is re- garded by Arminians as hard, unjust, and cruel. And, indeed, it would be so, were the inability natural and of this opinion brand us with infamy, as holding a “ death pur- ‘‘ gatory,” because we believe, that no man is totally freed from sin till the moment of death. ‘They stigmatize us as Antinomians. Now, in all my life, I never knew an instance in which a charge could with more justice and truth be retorted. The advocates of sinless or Christian perfection do not pretend, that they can live without sin with respect to the old moral law given to Adam ; but only with respect to a mew law, which they call a daw of liberty. And thus they bring their hearers to a state of perfection, not by bringing them up to the law, but by bringing the Jaw down to them—not by making them conform to the pure and holy law of God, but by making that pure and holy law conform to their ob- liquities—not by making the object measured conform to the rule, but the rule to the object measured! By such ingenious manage- ment as this, the most crooked object in nature might be proved. to be straight!’ Thus it appears, that Christian perfection is at- tained at the expense of bending and bringing down the law of God, and lowering the standard of Christian. morality, If this is not Antinomianism, I should be glad to know what it is. The trite observation, that extremes are nearest meeting, is here remarkably verified. The Arminian who cries up good works, and the Anti- nominian who cries them down, meet in this point—opposition ‘to the pure and perfect law of God. The very attempt to lower the standard of morality proves imperfection. If we say we are per- fect, we proye ourselves perverse. ) 261 not moral. Nothing could be more unjust, than to command a man to walk without legs, or to fly without wings, and then punish him for disobedience. But» this moral inability of man—his inability to believe, re- _ pent, and obey—is of a quite different nature. It con- sists not in the want of natural powers ; but in the want of will and inclination. Were a man ever so willing, he could not walk without legs, or fly without wings, or remove mountains: these are natural impos- sibilities. But ifa man were willing to believe, repent, and obey, these duties would be performed. ‘The ina- bility, or impossibility, consists in the want of will and inclination. Ye will not come to me, says our Saviour, that ye may have life. It is accepted, says the Apostle Paul, according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not, if there be first a willing mind. To these observations it may be objected, that the darkness of the understanding, as well as the obstinacy of the will, may be regarded as a cause of unbelief, im- penitence or disobedience. I grant it. But, [ humbly conceive, that no darkness, blindness, or ignorance, is at all criminal, any farther than as it is voluntary, or connected with the inclination, or disposition of the heart. This I consider to be not only a dictate of com- mon sense, but also of divine revelation. This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and that men Jove darkness rather than light. It is not men’s darkness, blindness, or ignorance, that is here represented as the ground of their condemnation, but -their Jove of that darkness. Unregenerate men love darkness, and hate the light. It is because men receive not the love of the truth—not the truth, but the /ove 262 of the truth—-that God gives them over to strong delu- sion, to believe lies, that all may be damned who believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness.— Thus it appears, that the inability of fallen man is.a. moral inability, consisting, not in the want of natural powers, but rather in the want of will and inclination. Such inability is perfectly consistent with natural free. dom, and is no excuse for disobedience, unbelief, or impenitence. . Every person who thinks at all, must at once see, that disinclination to what is right can never be an apology for what is wrong. Disinclination to obedience can never be an apology for disobedience.— If disinclination to virtue were an apology for vice, the greater the aversion or. disinclination, the better the apology ; which is evidently absurd... That inability, which consists in a man’s want of Will and inclination to do his duty, is so far from being an excuse, that it is the very thing in which his criminality consists.- The greater a man’s natural inability to do his duty, he is the more excusable ; the greater his moral inability, he is the more zmexcusable—the more guilty. ‘The greater a man’s propensity to vice, the greater is his inability to practice virtue. If such inability were an excuse, then the greater the inability the deter the excuse. On this principle, it would be wise to confirm the habits of vice and. immorality.—On this principle, the more wicked any person is, he is the more innocent! ‘The more wicked he is, he is the less able to do his duty ; and the less able to do his duty, he is the less guilty for negleet- ing it: of course, when he is so desperately wicked, so completely depraved, that he is totally unable to do his duty, then he has no guélé at all ; but is complete- 263 ly znnocent ! Such is the monstrous conclusion, to which we must necessarily come, if we deny that moral slavery is consistent with natural freedom—or if we deny that there is any distinction between natural and moral ina- bility—or if we deny that moral inability is inconsis- tent with guilt or blame. Inattention to the distine- tion between natural and moral inability, natural and moral necessity, natural and moral impossibi- lity, &c. has: been the cause of interminable disputes, and inextricable confusion. ‘The distinction has in ge- neral been but ill understood. It has been a thou- sand times confounded both by Calvinists and Armi- nians. Whenever a Calvinist confounds the distinction, he betrays his cause; and often has the cause been so betrayed. Arminians constantly confound the distinc- tion. Ihave never yet met with any plausible Armi- nian reasoning, but what proceeded on the principle, that there is 10 distinction between natural and moral inability, necessity, &c. Were the principle on which Arminians proceed correct—were there no distinction - between natural and moral inability, &c.—I would have no hesitation in saying, that their reasonings are com- pletely conclusive, and that I myself would become an Arminian immediately. But I am not more convinced of my own existence, than I am that the distinction is well founded ; and, of course, that the Arminian rea- sonings are altogether inconclusive and sophistical.— They may be resolved imto that species of sophism which logicians denominate ignorantia. elenchi, or a mistake of the question. Even Dr. Reid himself (one of the most emment moral philosophers) falls into this sophism. He supposes a sailor to maim himself, in or- 204 der to be exempted from duty—and that his captain commands him, thus maimed, to climb the shrouds, and punishes him for disobedience. ‘The Doctor con- ceives that this would be great cruelty ; and so it would. But between this case and that of fallen man there isno analogy. ‘The one is natural, the other is moral. The sailor could not obey, were he ever so willing: not so with fallen man. His inability consists in the want of will and inclination. Let us suppose another sailor, who has the use of all his limbs, but is, at the same time, of such a malignant disposition and stubborn tem- per, and has conceived such an implacable hatred to- wards his captain, and unconquerable aversion to his — duty, that he cannot obey. This sailor, as well as the former, may be unable to climb the shrouds. But, surely, their cases are very different. The former might be justly blamed for maiming himself, but, after he was maimed, he could not be blamed for not using those limbs which he did not possess. To command, invite, and exhort him to do his duty, and punish him for not doing it, would be the greatest imjustice and cruelty. But there would be no injustice, nor yet cruelty, in commanding, inviting, and exhorting the latter sailor, whose saubaliby to obey arose, not from the want of physical strength, but from stubbornness and obstinacy—not from any deficiency in his limbs, but from enmity and aversion» The case of this latter sailor, and not of the former, represents the situation of fallen man. His inability is moral and not physical. Were his inability physical, it would be altogether un- just and cruel to command, invite, or intreat him, and then to punish him for unbelief or disobedignce. Dut 205 his inability is moral, and, therefore, there is no imjus- tice or cruelty at all. Were man’s inability natural, God would be obliged to remove that inability before | he could justly issue any commands. On this supposi- tion, Arminian ideas would be perfectly correct.—But the inability is moral, and God is not obliged to re- move this species of inabilits Ly before he issues his com- mands. That God is obliged to remove man’s magral in- ability, and to give him grace, which if he improve he shall be saved, seems to me to be the GREAT FUNDA- MENTAL ERROR of the Arminian system. It is this ra- dical mistake, I humbly conceive, which leads Armi- nians into all their other errors. That I am fully justi- fied in thinking so, will appear from the following re- marks of the learned Divinity Professor, Dr. Graves: (P. xiv.) ‘* But it seems to me, that to prove God *¢ vouchsafes divine grace to all to whom is promulgated ‘<¢ his revealed will, it is sufficient to shew,. _that in such ‘ Revelation he commands an obedience requiring such ‘<¢ divine assistance, for it is inconsistent with all he ‘* teaches us of his attributes, to suppose that he would _ ‘command what could not be performed, or rather ‘‘ withhold the means of performing what he commands. ‘¢ Nor can I agree to the doctrine that would impute to “‘ that Deity. a punished Pharaoh for demanding the ‘¢ same tale of bricks while he withheld the. straw, a ‘© system of moral government which would be equally ‘¢ inconsistent with his mercy and justice. Whenever ‘* this revealed will then is promulgated, I would assert, that this power is communicated, in different degrees és Pe as God sees fit to deal ont the measure of his OA 266 ‘‘orace; but to all, what if used would lead to further ‘+ orace and ultimate salvation,* and if neglected shall “ rise up in witness, and condemn the despisers of God’s ‘holy will.’’—(See also P. 211.) In this quotation, the Doctor concludes, that because God gives com- mands which cannot be obeyed without grace and assis- tance, he therefore gives grace and assistance to all to whom those commands are addressed. Now, here lies the grand error. If our inability to obey were natural, the Doctor would be right; but it is moral, and there- fore he is mistaken. God commands us to believe, to repent, and to love the Lord our God with all our heart,. soul, strength, and mind, and our neighbour as ourselves. These commands, without divine assistance, we can no more obey than we can remove mountains.— But our inability is no excuse: it is the very thing in which our criminality consists. Our inability is great. No power less than omnipotent can remove it. But all — this proves the greatness of our criminality—the enor- mity of our guilt. Our inability is great, because our pride is great, our hatred is implacable, our enmity ar- * If, as Arminians contend, there is so much grace given to all, that if they improve it they shall be saved, I ask, how much improvement is necessary to secure salvation? What endeavours are necessary? If a man use half the endeavours in his power, will this be sufficient—will one-third do?—or must he use dwo- thirds? Where must the line be drawn ? it must be somewhere.— Suppose at one half. The man, therefore, who uses half the en- deavours in his power, obtains grace and is saved; but he who does not come up to this line, though within a hair-breadth of it, is condemned, One man goes to eternal happiness, and the other to eternal misery, and yet there was only a hair-breadth’s difference in point of exertion or improvement! Let Dr. Graves solve this difficulty. See Edwards's Remarks. 267 reconciluble. Would any rational being venture to apo- logize for his unbelief, disobedience, and impenitence, thus: J hate my God: my mind is filled with enmity ~ against him ; and therefore I cannot be justly command- ed to love him !—J hale my Redeemer : 1 see no form nor comeliness ia him—no beauty why I should admire him; and therefore I cannot be justly commanded to believe in him !—I would rather die in my sins than ac- cept of salvation through his blood! I must therefore be excused, though, by my unbelief, I make God a liar, trample under foot the blood of my Redeemer, and do despite to the spirit of grace, who stands knock- ing at the door of my heart! My enmity is so great, I cannot help it !—J hate the pure and holy law of my God: my mind is full of enmity against it: I cannot, therefore, be justly commanded to obey it !—I must be excused though I trample it under my feet !—J love my sins : Lroll them as a sweet morsel under my tongue; and therefore I cannot repent of them nor turn from chat’ I would rather die in them, and be eternally punished for them! Inshort; my pride and my hatred are so great, that I can neither love God, nor his law, nor his Son !—My enmity ts so. great, that I can neither believe, repent, nor obey ; and therefore faith, repen- tance, and obedience, cannot be justly required, unless God grant his grace and assistance !— Would any of the sons of apostate Adam dare thus to apologize for their unbelief, impenitence, or disobedience? Have such monsters of wickedness any claims on divine grace or assistance? Is it not a miracle of mercy, that God does not pour on such miscreants the cataracts of his wrath, and consign them to eternal separation from a 2608 " presence—‘ unrespited, unpitied, unreprieved ?”? — Is it not a miracle of mercy, that instead of making bare his red right arm, and hurling against such rebels the thunderbolts of his vengeance, he has sent his Son to save them—to die for them? . Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he first loved us. While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. . The Arminians are guilty of two grand mistakes : 1, In supposing, that God was in justice obliged to provide a remedy, and to put salvation in the power of such rebels.—2, In supposing, that his perfections oblige him to remove our moral inability, and to make us willing to accept of that remedy. We maintain, that the Deity is under vo such obligations. What! when God’s own children, whom he has nourished and brought up—to whom he has given life, and breath, and° all things—when these unnatural children turn round on their heavenly F ather, and, with hearts filled with enmity, lift hostile arms, and wage impious war, against him who is the author of their existence, the length of their days, and the source of all their enjoy- ments—instead of crushing such rebels under his feet, or dashing them to pieces like a potter’s vessel, is the insulted governor of the universe obliged to put in their power the means of salvation ? Surely not.—When they had so basely forfeited his favour, he was under no obligation to make provision for their happiness. Or, if any will be so unreasonable as to affirm, that his per- fections obliged him to make such provision, they will be forced to admit, as we have already shewn, that 269 there is no grace in such provision—that it is purely a debt. A bah ee Again ; if God was not obliged to make provision — for the recovery of his rebel offspring—if he was not obliged to provide a cure, much less was he obliged to make them willing to accept of that cure—if he was not obliged to offer them a reprieve, much less was he obliged to make them willing to accept of that reprieve —if he was not obliged to loosen their chains, and open their prison doors, much less was he obliged to make them willing to walk forth to liberty and life. Can God not command us to accept of that remedy which he has provided at infinite expense 2—can he not command us to accept of a reprieve? and when our chains are loosened, and our prison doors thrown wide open, can he not command us to walk forth to liberty and life >— can he not issue these infinitely gracious commands till he has previously given us will and inclination to obey them ?—Surely nothing can be more absurd or unrea- sonable than such a supposition. Should Arminians reply, We do not say that God is obliged to give us will and inclination—I ask, What then do you mean by power to obey the commands of God? If you mean natural power, or natural faculties, we have no dispute with you on this subject : but if you mean moral power, that is nothing else than will and inclination. The supposition that God is obliged to vouchsafe his assisting grace to enable men to obey his commands, is, in every view of the subject, absurd. For, if God is obliged to vouchsafe his grace, that grace vouchsafed is no longer grace, it is a debt. That which God in justice is bound to give, is not grace. . Dr. Graves, and other 270 Arminian writers, talk absurdly, and are guilty of a gross abuse of language, when they call by the name o grace, that assistance which they allege God is bound to give in order to enable us to obey his precepts.— They should either give up their system, or, at least, they should call things by their proper names. From their vocabulary the word grace should be entirely ex- punged. It is a gross misnomer. Both Arminians and Calvinists agree in this, that man, in his natural state, without divine assistance, is utterly unable to believe, repent, and obey. This ina- bility, as we have already seen, arises from, or rather consists in, our moral depravity. This depravity is universal. There is none that doeth good; no, not one. It is total. All the faculties of the soul are de- praved—the understanding—the will—the affections— the imagination—the conscience—the heart. Men, in their natural state (Eph. iv. 18), have their “ under- « standing darkened, being alienated from the life of «God through the ignorance that is in them, because «of the blindness of their heart.’—Their well and affections are carnal, and filled with enmity. as viii. 7), ‘ The carnal mind is enmity agamst God: ‘© is not subject to his law, neither indeed can be.’— Men in their natural state are ‘haters of God,” and ‘¢ live hateful, and hating one another.” “ Madness ‘¢ is in their heart.’ It is ‘* deceitful above all things, ‘and desperately wicked.”? ‘“ Every imagination is on- «ly evil continually.”’ ‘The state of fallen man involves in it two things, guwé/t and depravily. Guilt 1s remov- ed by the atoning blood of Jesus, as we have already seen ; and depravity is removed by the renovating and re sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost. Dr. B. maintains, that baptism is regeneration.* To expect any subsequent regeneration, he stigmatizes as rank enthu- | siasm. He is not the first master in Israel who knew | not these things, and needed to be taught the first principles of the oracles of God. Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, was also ignorant of this great important doctrine. Our Saviour assures him, that he needed not only baptism by water, but regeneration by the power of the Holy Ghost. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Baptism with water was the sign; but regeneration, or the new birth, was the thing signified. Water is the great regenerating agent in the natural world; the holy spirit in the . moral world. ‘The one is a fit emblem of the other. The vegetable world during the winter is in a state of decay. By the vernal showers it is rege- nerated, and the decayed face of the earth renewed.— In like manner, by the blessed spirit of all grace the _ souls of men are renewed, ard the moral world rege- nerated. (Is. xliv. 5, 4) ‘* For I will pour water upon _ * him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground : I ‘‘ will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing ‘‘upon thine offspring: And they shall spring up as ‘among the grass, as willows by the water courses.” — * Dr. Mant, now Lord Bishop of Down and Conner, in his Bampton Lectures, and the Bishop of Lincoln, in his Refutation of Calvinism, advocate the same dangerous and uncharitable doc- trine. Fora refutation of it, the reader may consult the work of an eminent Divine of the Church of England— Scott's Remarks on the Refutation of Calvinism. ae - Old and New Testaments unite in teaching the same blessed doctrine. (Titus, ii, 5) ‘ Not by works of ‘¢ righteousness which we have done, but according to ‘‘ his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regenera- tion, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” We may as well expect the renovation of the vegetable world without water, as the regeneration of the moral without the all-powerful influence of the Divine Spirit. The same divine influence which created the world and raised the dead, is necessary to the restoration of our fallen nature, and regeneration of our perverted facul- ties. To illuminate our darkened understanding, re- quires the influence of that omnipotent agent, who said, ‘“‘ Let there be light, and there was light.”” It is the same Almighty Being that commanded the light to shine out of darkness, who shines in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of his son Jesus Christ. Some imagine, that as light expels darkness, so all that is necessary to expel the darkness of our minds is the light of the divine word. This, however, isa gross fallacy. Light, indeed, introduced into a dark room will banish the darkness ; but it will not give light toa man born blind. With re- gard to such a man, it is not only necessary that he should be introduced to the light, but, in order that he may profit by it, the cataract must be couched; his eyes must be opened. Just so with the natural man.— He requires not only an external revelation, but an in- ternal illumination. Hence the judicious prayer of David, ‘ Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold ‘¢ wonderful things out of thy law.’ Were Dr. B. to offer the same prayer, it might not be unprofitable.— a (273 By divine illumination he might be brought to see in the sacred volume many wonderful things which he has never yet seen ;, particularly the necessity of the new — birth—the necessity of a eel quite different from water baptism. | ‘The omnipotent power of the blessed spirit is not on- ly necessary to open the darkened understanding, but also to bend the stubborn will. We have already seen, that men are naturally unwilling to come to the Re- deemer that they may have life; and that the carnal mind is enmity against God : but God sends forth the rod of his strength out of Zion, and makes his people willing in the day of his power. (Psal. ex. 3.)\—By the powerful energy of the blessed spirit, he destroys the enmity of the carnal mind, and sheds abroad divine love in the heart.—In a word; man by nature is ‘spiri- tually dead—dead in trespasses and sins. To raise him from his spiritual death, and enable him to walk with Jesus in newness of life, requires an exertion of divine power equal to that which raises the dead. To enable an unregenerate man to believe, requires not only the power of God, but the exceeding greatness of his power. (Eph. i. 19) ‘* And what is the exceeding ‘© oreatness of his power to us-ward who believe, ac- “ cording to the working of his mighty power, which he ‘¢ wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead.” —The saine Apostle’ prays for the Thessalonians, «© That God would fulfil all the good pleasure of his ‘¢ will, and the work of faith with power.” It_is the powerful agency of that same spirit which entered into Ezekiel’s dried bones, that quickens dead sinners— _ that begins the good work of grace, and carries it on to 35 QA perfection till the day of Christ Jesus. It is the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus that makes us free from the law of sin and death. By his blessed agency, sin- ners are created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works —they are renewed in the spirit of their minds—old things pass away, and all things become new. My readers are now left to judge, what kind of a system that must be, which does not embrace, but rather ex- cludes, the regenerating and sanctifying influences of the Holy. Ghost. Should any person ask, Is it the the duty of fallen man to regenerate himself? I answer, J¢ is. Many, I know, will be astonished at this answer. They will be ready to exclaim; What! The duty of fallen man to regenerate himself! What monstrous absurdity ! Might he not, with as much reason, be required to create him- self 2 or to raise himself from the dead ?>—By no means : though the impossibility in the one case is as great as that in the other, it is of a quite different nature ; and therefore the greatness of the impossibility does not af- fect the obligation of the duty, nor render the require- ‘ment of it unreasonable. That it is the duty of fallen man to regenerate himself, cannot reasonably be doubt- ed by any whe believe the Bible to be the word of God. In the sacred volume, we are expressly enjoined to re- generate ourselves. (Lzekiel, xviii. 31) “ Make you a ‘© new heart, and a new spirit.” Now, if regenera- tion, or the making .of a new heart and a new spirit, were not a duty, it would not be enjoined. The righteous governor of the universe cannot possibly issue any command, which it is not our duty to obey. His commandments are not grievous: they are all holy, eae 275 just, and good. Would it be unjust or cruel in a hus- band to address his unfaithful spouse thus : Break off your - adulterous connexions, and become a zew woman. Be. a faithful, loving, and obedient wife. Be no longer <¢ for another man, and so will I also be for thee.” — Would such an address be unreasonable or cruel? Sure- ly not. Such an abandoned female might indeed find it as great an impossibility to become a new woman— to become a faithful, loving, and obedient wife—as to create herself out of nothing, or to raise herself from the dead. But surely every person must see, that such impossibility, arising from dissipation and depravity, could not possibly be any excuse—it could not possibly relax her obligations to duty and obedience. { ask again ; Would it be unjust or cruel in a father to address his prodigal son thus : Leave off your courses of dissipation and prodigality. Become a new man.— Behave as a dutiful and obedient son, and you shall be heir of all my possessions ?—Would such requisitions be unjust or cruel? Surely not. And yet the son might be such an abandoned dissipated character, that he could no more obey his father’s injunctions, than he could raise the dead or create aworld. Why then may not God, our heavenly Father, address us, his prodigal and rebellious offspring in similar language 2. Why may he not say unto us, ‘ Repent and turn yourselves from “‘ your transgressions; -so iniquity shall not be your “ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, ‘© whereby ye have. transgressed ; and make you a new ‘‘ heart, and a new spirit; for why will ye die ?”’— When enjoined to make a new heart and new spirit, all that is required is, to love the Lord our God with all 276 our heart, soul, strength and mind, and our neighbour as ourselves. Is it unreasonable, I ask, for God to require of us to love himself, and to love one another ? Surely nothing can be more reasonable. It is true, I acknowledge, that in our present depraved state we can no more comply with those reasonable requisitions, than we could create ourselves out of nothing, or raise the dead. But such inability proves what ?—It fully proves, that we are MONSTROUSLY DEPRAVED, DESPERATELY WICKED, AND QUITE INEXCUSABLE. With regard to the unfaithful wife and irodieaea son mentioned above, would any one say, that the husband, after making the gracious proposals. previously stated, was obliged moreover to change his wife’s depraved and dissipated mind ?—that he was obliged to change her hatred and disaffection into love ?—or that the ithe: was obliged to eradicate his son’s vitious habits and: cor- rupt propensities, and to infuse into his mind filial piety and virtuous affections? Surely this would be highly unreasonable. But perhaps it may be said, the cases are not parallel.° The husband was not able to change the dispositions of his wife, nor the father of his son, but God is able to change the dispositions of all his chil- dren. Ugrant it. But because he is aéd/e, is he there- fore bound to doit? Surely not. He is «b/ein a mo- ment to eradicate every vestige of wickedness out of the minds both of men and devils, but he is not therefore bound to do it. He is neither bound to prevent men from sinning, nor, _after they have sinned, is he under the smallest obligation to eradicate their depravity, and vestore them again to a state of holiness and bliss. If 277 he were bound to do these things, the operation, as I stated before, would not be grace, but debt. The learned Professor of Divinity in Trinity Col- | lege, and Arminians in general, maintain, that God : has conditionally bound himself to give a new heart, faith, repentance, and other graces. ‘They allege, that he has engaged to give these things to all who sin- cerely seek them. He has promised, they tell us, to give his hely spirit to them that ask him. In all this there is a complete fallacy. Arminians here are altogether mistaken.. In the whole sacred volume there is not a single promise made to the prayers or endeavours of unregenerate men. In the. prayers and endeavours of unregenerate men there is nothing of the nature of true virtue—nothing that is well pleasing in the sight of God. Their prayers and other endea- - vours cannot be acceptable, because they do not proceed from faith; for without faith it is impossible to please God—they cannot be acceptable, because they do not proceed from /ove. Nothing can be acceptable that proceeds from a mind filled with enmity. If we give all our goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, (love) it will profit us nothing.:. Finally, unregene- rate men have no regard to the dzvine. glory, and there- fore their prayers and other endeavours are altogether unacceptable. Whether we eat, or drink, or whatever we do, all should be done to the glory of God. —Arminians talk absurdly when they talk of the sincere prayers and endeavours of unregenerate men. —In an unrenewed heart—in a heart filled. with pride, enmity, and unbelief, there can be no true 278 sincerity—no godly sincerity. ‘There may be a sin- cere desire to avoid misery, or a sincere desire to be happy. The Devil himself has this sincerity. But there is no sincere love te God—no sincere love to his - law—no sincere love to holiness. In a word; an unre- generate man has no sincerity which is truly virtuous, and, on this account, well pleasing in the sight of God. God has not promised his spirit, as Arminians suppose, in answer to the prayers of unregenerate men. It is true he has promised his holy spirit to them that ask him : but how must they ask? Is it notin faith? And does not faith presuppose regeneration ?—and does not regeneration presuppose a previous influence of the Holy Ghost ? “When our Saviour says, Ask and ye shall receive, and assures us that every one that asks receives, &c. he only intends that species of asking, seeking, and knock- ing, which is accompanied with faith. (Mat. xxi. 22) «¢ All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ‘¢ ye shall receive.’””—The Apostle James teaches the same doctrine. (James, 1. 5, 6) * If any of you lack ‘«‘ wisdom, let him ask of God—but let him ask in faith nothing wavering.’”? That the promises of the Gos- pel are not made to every species of asking, seeking, and knocking, is evident, not only from the above-cited texts, but the spirit of God positively declares, with regard to certain characters who are not believers, epto i. 28) “ Then shall they call, but I will not <¢ answer: they shall seek me early, but shall not find + me.—It is only the prayer of faith that God has pro- 279 mised to hear: and faith, the Apostle assures us, is ‘not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.”’* Dr. Graves fully admits, (P. 273,) that we cannot pray acceptably till God previously pour upon us a spirit of grace and supplication: and thus we are furnished - with a striking example of that species of sophism, which logicians denominate “reasoning in a circle,”’ or “the ** circulating syllogism.”” Ask Dr. Graves how we are to obtain faith; he will say, By prayer. Ask him again, How can we pray acceptably ? he will reply, By faith. That is to say, acceptable prayer precedes faith, and yet faith precedes acceptable prayer! | Such is the contradiction in which the Arminian system in- volves one of its most learned advocates ! pte, | _ It is therefore abundantly evident, that when a man believes and repents, God is the first mover. It is God that has made that man to differ from his unbelieving and impenitent neighbours. The -Arminian says, No. The man himself was the first mover. By his earnest prayers he moved God to grant him faith and repentance. But, let me ask the Arminian, who poured upon him this * Arminians endeavour to evade the force of this text by a grammatical criticism. ‘They say, it cannot be faith that is the gift of God; for the relative rovro, being in the neuter gender, cannot agree with zic71¢, which is feminine. Now, if this criti- cism be admitted to be just, upon the very same principle, Armi- nians might contend, tnat-in Phil. i. 28, salvation is not said to be of God ; for rouro, in the neuter gender can no more agree with the antecedent cwrngias in the one case, than with wigréwo in the other. The truth is, that in these cases, and others that might be adduced, the neuter relatives do not refer immediately to the fe- minine nouns that precede them, but to the word A ELY [oly understood. ae a 280 spirit of grace and supplication ? who eiltitell him to pray so fervently ? Surely it was God. The Deity then was still the first mover, and still it was God that made him to differ. Dr. Graves maintains, that all the divine promises and dispensations are conditional. I grant, in- deed, that certain privileges are promised on certain conditions ; but then I maintain, that, in all those who are saved, God himself works those very conditions.— Salvation is promised on the condition of faith ; but, in all who are saved, God himself works this condition.— Faith is the gift of God. Jesus Christ is both the author and finisher of faith. Unto you it is given, says the Apostle, not only to believe, but to suffer for his name. The conditions ‘which are mentioned in Scripture, are conditions of connexion. There is a real and inviolable _ connexion between faith and salvation. It is the duty of all to believe, and all who believe shall be saved.— These propositions are both true—but it is equally true, that none will believe, but those whom God by his omnipotent grace persuades and enables’ to embrace — Jesus Christ, freely offered to them in the Gospel. To all others the Redeemer may say, as he said to the un- believing Jews, “ Ye will not come unto me that ye “‘ may have life.’ No less unwilling are those who believe, till in the day of his power God makes them willing. The careful student of the sacred volume will easily perceive, that what God enjoins as a condi- tion, and commands as a duty, he has elsewhere pro- mised as a privilege. Wash ye, make ye clean, is a duty commanded ;, but. what is thus commanded is else- where promised. (Ez. xxxvi. 25) ‘ Then will -I « sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ; 231 “from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.” The conditional promises to all the heirs of glory are converted into absolute prothises. For in- stance, ‘“‘If ye are willing and obedient, ye shall eat ‘‘the good of the land,” is a conditional promise, but it is turned into an absolute promise thus; ‘* Thy people <<‘ shall be willing in the day of thy power.” Arminians look only at one side of the subject, at the conditions of the promises; but they seem to forget that those very conditions God has promised effectually to work in the souls of all who shall be finally saved. Supposing, for a moment, the Arminian doctrine to be true, that all the promises are conditional, and that the ‘conditions of the _ promises depend on the self-determining power of the will; then it is possible that no promise should ever be fulfilled. For example, “He that believes shall be. saved,’”? is a conditional promise.—Now, if it depend on the free will of every man whether he believe or not —if every individual may reject the Gospel, then all may reject it, and none may be saved ! According to this Arminian tenet, it is in the power of free will to frustrate the whole work of redemption. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son that who- soever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life ; but the free will of man may render all this love useless. Notwithstanding this love, all may perish and not one be saved. Jesus Christ loved his church and gave himself for her. “© He was betrayed, forsook, denied, «© Wept, languished, prayed, bled, thirsted, groaned and died ; - & Hung, pierced and bare, insulted by the foe, “All heaven in tears above, man unconcerned below !” 282 —But it is in the power of free will to render all that Jesus Christ has done and suffered quite vain and ‘without effect. His love.may have been exercised in vain—his blood may have been shed in vain, and the ransom, the price of our redemption, paid in vain! Dr. Graves tells us, that the Holy Spirit may be resisted, quenched, and grieved; upon his own principles, he might have added—that his mission, and all his graci- ous operations, may, by the free will of the creature, be rendered altogether vain and ineffectual... “ Time flies, death urges, knells call, heaven invites, « Hell threatens: all exerts ; in effort, all ; “ More than creation labours.” —But all the exertions of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—of prophets and apostles, pastors and teachers— of God, angels and men—all these mighty and com- bined exertions to save sinners, may ultimately prove utterly abortive: the perverse will of man may com- pletely counteract and frustrate them all !—the old ser- pent may prevail over the seed of the woman—Michael and his angels may be completly foiled; whilst the devil and his angels enjoy an eternal triumph! All this may be done by Arminian free will! Free will must turn the balance ; free will must decide, whether the dragon or the lamb shall be ultimately victorious! According to the Arminian sytem, and the plain lan- guage of an Arminian poet, — . — “ God wills—Almighty man decrees, “© Man is the maker of the almighty fates.” By the omnipotent power of free will, the almighty power of God may be counteracted, and all the pro- mises he has made relative to the success of his Son’s . undertaking, may fail of accomplishment! God, who 283 cannot lie, promised eternal life before the world began ; but Arminian free will can frustrate this promise !—* God, who cannot lie, promised that Jesus Christ shall) see his seed, and prolong his days, and that the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand ; but Arminian free will may determine, in opposition to all these pre- mises—that the Redeemer shall never see one of his seed—one of the travel of his soul—that he shall never be satisfied, but for ever discontent—that the plea- sure of the Lord shall never prosper in his hand—that he shall never obtain the heathen for his inheritance, nor the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession ! These promises, with regard to us, are all, I humbly conceive, absolute ; but free will can frustrate them all! It depends on free will, according te the Arminian, whether any one of them shall ever be accomplished !— In vain do Arminians attempt to evade the force of the preceding reasoning, by saying, that God foreknew that free will would determine otherwise. The evasion will not do. It makesbad worse. The foreknowledge of contingent events involves a contradiction, as we shall afterwards see : and we all know that contradictions can solve no difficulties. - But were we to suffer such contradictions to pass ; and were we to admit that God foresees that some will believe, though at the same time they may ever be- lieve—sfill the evasion would not do. Were every iota to come to pass exactly as God had promised, stiil it was not God that fulfilled those promises. Were I to pro- mise that Dr. Graves shall preach first Christmas-day in the Castle-chapel—and that the Lord Lieutenant shall be a hearer; and were all this to come to pass as Thad promised ; surely nobody would say that I ful- filled the promise.. The Doctor’s preaching does not depend upon my will but upon his own will—the Lord Lieutenant’s hearing does not depend upon my will but upon Ais own. ‘Supposing, therefore, that the one should preach, and the other should hear, as I had promised, surely it requires no logic to prove, that it was not J who fulfilled the promise. Just so with re- gard to the promises made to the Redeemer—the ful- filment of them, according to Arminian principles, does not depend on the will of God, but on the free will of the creature. Supposing, therefore, that every iota that God promised to his Son should actually come to pass, still no person could say, that God had fulfilled those promises. On the Arminian hypothesis, it would be ss ai for the Deity to fulfil one of them ! From the preceding reasoning, I hope it is evident— that when any believe, repent, and are saved, it is God who makes them to differ from those who continue in unbelief and impenitence—and if this be so, the doc- trine of election and reprobation is established. If God makes a difference, he must have determined to make that difference. ‘The Deity can do nothing with- out determining todo it. And as there cannot possibly be any new determinations in the divine mind, he must have determined to make that difference from all/ elerni- ty. In other words; from all eternity he must. have chosen to salvation all those who shall be finally saved. This is election—On the other hand, God does not work faith, repentance, &e. in the minds of all. He Jeaves some in their unbelief, impenitence, and wicked- 285 ness, on account of which he finally condemns them. Of course, he must have determined so to do—deter- mined, not in time, for there are in the divine mind > no new determinations, but from all eternity.—This is reprobation.——If it is just in God now in time to make such distinctions between one class of his rebel subjects and another, where was the injustice in decreeing from eternity to make those distinctions : ? On such princi. ples, as well as on a multitude of express declarations of Scripture, some of which shall be afterwards gi ape u rest the doctrine of predestination. | | Section III. Election and Reprobation more formally defended ; and the atiacks of the most emineni Antal ists repelled. Fea The decrees of election and reprobation are stigma- tized by Arminians, Socinians and Arians,. with ‘the most opprobrious epithets. Dr. Bruce, Dr. Millar, Dr. Graves, and Bishop Mant, scarcely ever mention them without prefixing such epithets as the following arbitrary and irrespective, cruel and unrelenting, severe and terrific, gloomy and horrible! These epi- thets are generally prefixed in couples, as if one of them would be too little to excite in the minds of men a suit- able degree of horror and disgust. As an abusive epithet, the adjective arbitrc ary Is ade manly adapted for exciting an odium. It conveys the 286 idea of something capricious and tyrannical. If, how- ever, there is nothing capricious or tyrannical in divine providence, neither can there be any thing of a capri- cious or tyrannical nature in the divine decrees ; for the latter are an exact copy or counterpart of the former. The decrees of God, being the dictates of infinite wis- dom, and being infinitely opposed to every thing capri- cious or tyrannical, are we an in sith ATI THE ‘© COUNSEL OF HIS WILL.’ | aia a The epithet irrespective is also well calculated to ex- cite an odium against the doctrine of divine decrees.— In a qualified sense it may indeed be admitted, as ap- plied to election. We have no objection to the term, if it is only meant to convey the idea, that election was not founded on foreseen faith, or good works, or any other virtuous qualification or disposition of its object. In this sense we fully admit that election is irrespective. The Arminian doctrine, that election was founded on fore- seen faith and good works, has its foundation neither in Scripture, nor in reason, nor yet in the standards of the Church of England. It has no foundation in Scripture. Election, in Scripture, is described as au ‘election of grace, and if it be of grace, it is no more of works. In Scripture we read, not that those who were foreseen to believe were ordained to eternal life, but that as many were ordained to eternal life believed: ‘Dr. B. boasts of the simplicity of his system, and wishes his hearers to believe, that, in the support of it, there is no necessity for a deviation from the received version. The reverse, however, is the fact. New translations and verbal criticisms are constantly neces- sary. Acts, xiii, 48, affords a striking example. Our 287 translation, ‘* As many as were ordained to eternal. life ‘¢ believed,’’ is so clear a proof of predestination, that, in order to subvert it, all the powers of verbal criticism have been roused to action. - Socinians, Arminians, and Arians, all attack our version, As the case is despe- rate, the opposition is determined. When the assail- ants fail in argument, they increase in confidence, and, by pouring contempt on their Calvinistic opponents, they vainly hope to drive them off the field. Dr. Adam Clarke represents the text as pitifully misunderstood by the Calvinists, and the Bishop of Down and Connor quotes with approbation Pyle and Grotius, who pro- nounce those blind who cannot see the propriety of their new version, Dr. A. Clarke very properly ob- serves, that we should be careful to examine what a word means, before we attempt to fix its meaning. He then proceeds thus: ‘ Whatever zerayyero: may mean, ‘‘ which is the word we translate ordained, it is neither “© mporeraymuevo: NOY zwpoopiuevor, which the Apostle uses, ‘‘ but zezaymeor, which includes no idea of preordina- ‘* tion or predestination of any kind.’? What! Has the Doctor forgotten his favourite maxim, that with the _ Deity past knowledge and present knowledge are the same ?—Or does he need to be told, that with God to destine and to predestinate, to ordain and to preor- dain, are all one? The Doctor’s criticism, made with so much pomp, depends upon the absurd hypothesis, that: there are in the divine mind new thoughts, purposes, and determinations! Grant that any were ordained to eternal life, and—unless there be in the divine mind variableness and shadow of turning—the conclusion in- _evitably follows, that they were pre-ordained. The 288 word translated ordained our opponents render disposed, well disposed, or possessed of good dispositions. On this translation I would make the following remarks: 1. It substitutes a far-fetched meaning (if any mean- ing at all) for an ordinary one. Whether is that sys- tem more likely to be true, which takes words in their common acceptation, or that which constantly needs the aid of far-fetched meanings ? . 2. I do not conceive that it has ever been satisfacto- rily proved, that the word has any such meaning as that assigned to it by our opponents. The instances adduced by Whitby, to prove that the word signifies persons in- ternally disposed, and not outwardly ordained—though relied on with great confidence by the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, and other Anti-Calvinistic writers —appear.to me’ altogether unsatisfactory. If Tam not much mistaken, they completely fail in establishing the point. In affixing to a word a meaning which has not been generally received, and which is disputed, it is necessary to quote instances which cannot be explained on the principle of any of its ordinary significations. Ilay down this as a canon, which I flatter myself no candid critic will controvert. On the principle of this canon, I proceed to examine Whitby’s instances. — His first is, * Acts, xx. 13, St. Paul went on foot to Assos ‘ure yap wv diarerayyercc, for so he was’ disposed to do.’’ Now, I appeal to every candid critic, if the Doctor’s translation be not quite gratuitous, and if the words would not be more naturally translated thus—for so he was appointed according to mutual arrangement. The preposition dia shows that an arrangement ‘had been made between Paul and the ship’s company. 289 ~The Doctor’s second instance is Ecclus, x. 1, ny¢worie wuveroy reTayuern cera, °° The government of the wise “man will be well ordered or disposed.”?. But this re- — fers not to the znternal dispositions of the mind, but to the external administration of eeoeeer It 1s; therefore, totally inapplicable. il His third instance is Philo’s address to Cain, $6 Thon “needest not fear being killed by them who are « oy ** rerayucvor Supayia, ° ranked on thy side,’ z. e. of the ** same dispositions and affections.’” Now, to say: that this Greek phrase is designed to express the internal dispositions, and not the external hostilities of ‘the ene- mies of the church, is nothing but a mere begging of the question. | His fourth instance is the words of Philo respecting *« those children, who, having had vicious parents, have *¢ themselves proved virtuous.”” He says that they are ce mElven TET ay pevol rake, € placed in a better rank,”’ And, speaking of Esau and Jacob, he represents Esau as fierce, subject to anger and other passions, and govern- ed by his brutish part ; but Jacob as a lover of virtue and truth, and so « 7 Bearion: rerayucvor raSer, placed i in ‘a better rank of men, or one of a better temper and ‘* disposition.”’. Jacob was placed in a better rank ; but who placed him ? was it God or himself? The children mentioned above were placed in a better rank, but who placed them ? was it God or themselves? To say that either Jacob or those children wrought in themselves good dispositions, and by this means placed themselves in a better rank, 1s a barefaced begging of the question, and contrary to the whole tenor of Revelation. (Rom. ix. 11-13) “ (For the children being not yet oe neither 37 290 «having done’ any good or evil, that the purpose ‘of God according to election might stand, not of «© works, but of him that calleth ;) It was said unto her, ‘‘ The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, «© Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” His fifth instance is still less to the purpose. - Samuel was rerayuevoe Oe, one well disposed towards God.” This I regard as a complete mistranslation—f» is the dative of the agent. The clause’ should. be translated, « Samuel was ordained, appointed, or placed Bx God” (according asthe context may require). The rule of syntax which warrants this translation is the following: Agens aliquando ‘effertur in dativo 5) sic, 7 7empaxra: TOG EANOIS Quid ab aliis factum est ? — peney Whitby’s last instance would induce one $6: think, that he had abandoned the meaning for which he was contending, | and had completely come over to the Cai- vinistic ‘camp. It is the words of Epictetus, «70 Gesu TETaYUEVOS €iS - TAUTNY | THY Taki, being: by God placed: m that rank. | The person here is represented as placed, in a rank, not by his own inclinations or dispositions, but by God, ‘or in other words, by divine. ordination and appointment—God exciting him, as Simplicius: inter- prets.—Now, ‘surely this mstance, so far from overturn- ing, completely establishes, the received version. On the whole, we deny that the word zerayuevorhas—iany 3 one of those instances—the meaning which our. oppo- nents attempt to impose upon it. The most, learned lexicographers and philologists acknowledge mo such S meaning. Schleusner does not recognize it—his trans- - lation of the text is, ‘ Quot quot destinati erant a Deo «« felicitati Christiamorum eterne.”—And the learned 291 Morus, though a decided Anticalvinist, translates it thus: “* Atque eam (doctrinam) amplexi sunt fide qui- “‘cunque felicitati xterne destinati erant.”” Whether Dr. A. Clarke’s charge of prejudice do not recoil upon hitaself, and on Anti-Calvinists in general, the learned reader is now left to judge. Should criticism fail, the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor imagines he can make his escape, by alleging that God ordained to eter. snal life the persons mentioned, on the foresight of their good dispositions—but the evasion will not do.— From the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revela- tion—from the creation of the world down to the pre- sent day, his Lordship will not find one single person possessed of good dispositions till implanted by the Almighty. In Scripture we read, not that those who were foreseen to be holy, or possessed of good disposi- tions, were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, but that ‘¢ we were chosen in him before the ‘¢ foundation of the world, that we might be holy.”— Holiness and good dispositions ‘are represented, not as ~ the causes or foundation, but as the fruits and effects of election. What our Saviour said to his Disciples in the days of his flesh, is equally applicable to believers in every age, “ Ye have not chosen me, but I have “chosen you, and ordained you, that you should bring «¢ forth much fruit.”? As we love God because he first loved us, so we choose: him because he first chose us.— (Psal. Ixv- 4) “ Blessed is the man whom thou <¢ choosest, and causest to approach unto thee.” -@, That election is founded on foreseen faith and good works, is contrary, not only to Scripture, but also to reason. On Arminian principles, it mvolves a con- 292 ‘tradiction. Arminians allege, that it depends on the free will of the creature whether any believe or do good works. According to them, it is possible that all may remain unbelievers and wicked. Now, if the Deity foresee that some will believe and do good works, and yet these persons may never believe nor do good works —it follows, that what God forsees as future may ne- vertheless not be future—and what he foresees. will come to pass may nevertheless not come to pass—it fol- lows, that God may be mistaken and disappointed !— that he foresees and does zot foresee at the same time ! I conclude therefore—and I think I do it on the incon- trovertible principles of mathematical demonstration— I conclude, that election could. not possibly be founded on foreseen faith and good works, because faith and good works, on Ar minian principles, could not possibly, be foreseen. 8. As the doctrine of f alcstion founded on foreseen faith and good works is both unscriptural and unreason- able, so it has no foundation in the Articles and Homi- lies of the Church of England. Bishop Mant, and Doc- tors Millar and Graves, wish us to believe, that the Thirty-nine Articles are Arminian—and that the clergy of the Church of England were Arminian at the time the Articles were framed: but they labour in vain.— The following extracts from the letters of Dr. Millar, of New York; abuudantly prove the vanity of the at- tempt. ‘* Calvin was not only respectfully consulted by ‘‘the English Reformers; but he had also much influ- “ence among them. ‘That great deference was paid to ‘‘his judgment, will appear from this fact, that on the ‘* first appearance uf the English Liturgy, it prescribed £93) «< praying for the dead, chrism, extreme unction, and «< other Popish superstitions. These Calvin, in a letter “‘ to the Protector, very frankly and decidedly blamed. — ** The consequence of which was, that all these offensive _ «« things were left out, agreeably. to his. advice. Dr. ‘* Heylin himself declares, that these alterations were «made in compliance with Calvin’s wishes.—‘ The “first Liturgy,” says he, ‘* was discontinued, and the ‘«« second superinduced upon it, to give satisfaction un- “to Calvin’s cavils, the curiosities of some, and the “¢ mistakes of others, his friends and followers.’’ And Dr. “« Nichols gives us the same information.“ Four years ‘¢ afterwards,” says he, ‘‘ the book of Common Prayer ‘* underwent,another review ; wherein some ceremonies << and usages were laid aside, and some new prayers ‘‘ added, at the instance of Mr. Calvin of Geneva, «‘and Bucer, a foreign Divine who was invited to be a «¢ Professor at Cambridge.”? Nor was the authority of ‘* Calvin without its influence, in drawing up the Ar- ‘‘ ticles of the Church of England. It is commonly “¢ said by our Episcopal brethren, that those Articles are ‘¢ anti-Calvinistic, and that especially on the doctrine of ‘«* Predestination, as exhibited in the seventeenth Ar- ‘* ticle, the Reformers hold, and meant to express, a. «different opinion from those of Calvin, Now, it hap- ‘pens, that this Article . itself bears: the most un- ‘* questionable internal evidence of the contrary.— ‘The qualifying clause toward the end of it, which. ** has been quoted as decisive proof that the framers re- ** jected Calvinism, is nearly quoted from Calvin’s In- ** stitutes ; and the latter part of it is a literal transla- ** tion of that Reformer’s caution against the abuse of 294 this doctrine. For evidence of the former, see his © Institutes. (iii. 2, 4, 5) compared with the article.— ‘* For proof of the latter, read the following—‘ Proinde “in rebus agendis, ea est nobis perspicienda Dei volun- ‘* tas quam verbo suo declarat.’? Instit. 1. 17, 5.— ‘*'Furthermore, in our doings, that will of God is to ** be followed, which we have expressly declared to us ‘¢in the word of God.’’ Art. 17th.—The Thirty-nine ‘«« Articles of the Church of England are wagoubted!y ‘* Calvinistic. ‘This is proved, not only by the bare in- ‘¢ spection of the articles themselves, but also by the | ‘‘ known sentiments of those who formed them; and *‘ by the decisive interpretation of some of the ablest ‘‘ Bishops and other Divines that ever adorned. that ‘Church: ‘The same’ convocation: which drew up the ‘< Thirty-nine’ Articles, reviewed, corrected; formally ‘© approved, and’ ordered to be published, as it now ‘¢ gtands, the celebrated Catechism of Dr. Newel.— | ‘¢ This Catechism is acknowledged, by the worst ene- ‘mies of Calvin, to be decidedly Calvinistic. It -is ‘acknowledged to be so by Bishop Cleaver, who, a ‘< few years ago, gave a new edition of it. And yet the ‘* Convocation, which embraced all the principal Digni- <“-taries of the Church, publicly recommended it, ‘as «a standig summary of the doctrines professed in ‘© that Church ;”? and, many years after, it was held in ‘“¢ such high esteem by Archbishops Whitgift and Park- ‘er, and other contemporary Prelates, that even Mi- ‘“nisters were enjoined to study it, that they might “learn true divinity from it.* The illustrious re- “ Strype’s Annals, $313—316.—Life of Parker, 122, 301. 295 - former, and martyr, Bradford, a short time before he «« suffered, wrote and published a. decidedly. Calvinistic ‘« work on election and predestination, .which he sent to ~ ‘¢ Archbishop Cranmer, and to, Bishops, Ridley and ‘< Latimer, who all gave it their approbation; after ‘< which it received the approbation of the- rest of the «¢ eminent Ministers in and: about London.’’* : -& The famous Lambeth Articles, formed in fea HH *< of Queen Elizabeth, are acknowledged by all who ever ‘¢read them, to be among the most strongly Calvinisti- ‘cal compositions that ‘ever were penned. ‘Yet these ‘* Articles were drawn up and; signed by Archbishop ‘¢ Whitgift, that very Prelate of whose character and ‘¢ principles Dr.’ Hobart frequently speaks in the most “‘ exalted terms, and whom he holds up to view as one ‘‘ of the most illustrious Divines and fathers of the ‘* Church of England. ‘The Archbishop was assisted ‘< in this service by the Bishops of London and Bangor, ‘© and by some others. After receiving the public ap- ‘‘ probation of these Dignitaries, the Articles:-were sent ‘© to the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Roches- ‘¢ter, who also subscribed them. © Thus ratified, Arch- “ bishop Whitgift sent them to the University of Cam- Bs bridge, with a letter, in which he declared, ‘‘ That . these articles were not to be considered as laws and ‘< decrees, but as propositions, which he and his bre- ‘‘ thren were persuaded were true, and corresponding ‘‘ with the doctrine professed in the Church of England, * Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, P. 350. The editors of the Christian Observer attest that.they have seen Bradford’s Treatise, and that it is unquestionably Calvinistic. 296 _ “and established by the laws of the land.* Nor is this all : «© It having been suggested by some, that the Archbishop “agreed to these Articles, rather for the sake of peace, ‘than because he believed them ; Strype, his episcopal ‘biographer, repels the charge with indignation; declar- “ing that such an insinuation is as false as it is mean and “¢ disparaging to the Primate.+ We have seen also in a *« foregoing part of this letter, by the confession of Heylin ‘himself, aa implacable enemy of Calvin, that the great “body of the Bishops and other clergy of the Church ‘“ of England, were doctrinal Calvinists, for more than “half a century after the articles were formed. And ‘“‘ we have found a modern Episcopal clergyman assert- ‘‘ ing, on undeniable evidence, that ‘* Calvin’s Institu- ‘* tions were read and studied in both the Universities ‘by every student in divinity, for a considerable portion “of a century; nay, that by a Convocation held at ‘* Oxford, that book was recommended to the general ‘study of the nation.’ All the Delegates from the ** Church of England to the Synod of Dort, among ¢¢ whom were Bishop Carleton, Bishop Hall, and Bishop ‘«‘ Devenant, formally subscribed to the five Calvinistic «« Articles drawn up and adopted by that venerable « Synod. On their return home, they were attacked “‘ by a certain writer, and charged with having depart- ‘© éd from the public standard of their own Church.— ‘* Against this attack they thought proper to defend «‘ themselves, and accordingly wrote a Joint Attesta- * Strype’s Life of Whitgift, P, 461—-863. 4 Ibid, P. 462. said é€ soever tRéie was dsdenitad unto and siibachibeal Me is; *“ concerning the Five Articles, either in. the joint sy- ‘‘ nodical judgment, or im our. particular: collegiate “ suffrage, is not only warrantable by the Holy Scrip- “* tures, but. also’ conformable to the received doctrine « of our said vetierable mother ; which we are ready to “© maintain and justify against all gainsayers. * Again, Bishop Hall, ina work of his own, addressing some. “ who had charged him, and other Bishops of his day, “ with entertaining Arminian sentiments, as’ to the doc- “trine of election, thus indignantly | replies. to” the’ “ charge—* You'add, Election upon’ faith foreseen,” “What! nothing but gross untruths? Is this the : “doctrine of the Bishops’ of England? Have’ they ‘* not strongly confuted it, in Papists and’ Arminians 2 eo Have they not cried it down to the lowest pit of Se RIBIND IFS. 144 Such are the arguments by which Dr. Millar, of New-York, has’ proved, that the Thirty-nine’ Articles of the Church: of England‘ are Calvinistic, and that the’ great body of the clergy were Calvinists at the time those articles were framed. That the evidence is deci- sive, I humbly presume, no candid'reader will venture to deny. Divines of the Establishment may preach, if they ‘please, tlie doctrine of election founded on fore- seen’ faith, love, and good works; but let them not charge with that doctrine, either the Thirty-nine AY ticles, or their reforming forefathers. That very doc- ¥ Seis ie Teihe AReEtation” <4 38 293 _ trine which these modern Divines are now crying up to the starry heavens, the English Divines, the fathers of the Reformation—if we believe Bishop Hall—« ete i ‘down to the lowest pit of hell ?? _ Having endeavoured to prove, and I pti with a pi cess, that the doctrine of election, . founded. on foreseen faith and good works, has its foundation, neither ‘in Scripture, - reason, nor the Thirty-nine Articles, I would now proceed to observe—that when our oppo- nents characterise election as irrespective, if all they mean. is, that election was not founded on any Joreseen virtuous quali ification of its olject, we have no objection to the application of the epithet. We believe, how- . ever, that in the decree. of election men were chosen, not only to eternal life, but also to faith, holiness, and all those means which lead to that end. If, in any sense inconsistent with this, our opponents denominate election irrespective, we spurn the epithet as inappli- eable and unjust. The great popular outcry against predestination i 1s— that it supersedes the use of means, and is quite inimi-. cal to holiness and good works. I regret to find learn- ed Divines reiterating this stale eg after it has been answered a thousand times. Nas Re 8) writes thus : | ot (predestination) contradicts every exhortation to : holiness and faith, every dissuasive from sin and infi- ee ‘ delity, every conditional promise of everlasting life, " and every warning | against endless BY that ‘we find in his (Christ’s) discourses. In fact, if it ‘‘ were true, the mediation, mission, death, and inter- ‘* cession of Christ, would be absolutely nugatory and 299 “ineffectual ; since they could neither improve the “¢ condition or prospects of the elect few, nor redeem the reprobate from that fate to which they are destined “by the eternal and irreversible decree of the Almighty.” Powerful reasoning indeed ! The purport of it is this: “« God decreed to bring the elect to the enjoy- “ment of eternal hfe, by means of exhortations, warn- ” ings, and promises ; and therefore these exhortations, <‘ warnings, and promises, are absolutely nugatory and «ineffectual! God determined to save the elect by “ the mediation, mission, death, and resurrection of “6 Christ ; and therefore the mediation, mission, death, **and resurrection of Christ, are absolutely’ nugatory | and ineffectual! God determined to punish the re- sd probate for their sin and infidelity 5 and therefore cor every dissuasive from sin and infidelity, and every warning against endless perdition, are absolutely nu- « gatory and ineffectual ’ Admirable logic !—Bishop Mant, in his Bampton Lectures (P. 146), urges the same objection—quoting erat Se bs writes Thess ee) : «Tf I be elected, no sins can possibly bereave me “of the kingdom of heaven : nie -reprobated, no good aaa deeds can advance me to it.? Such was the lan- “ee guage of a German potentate im former times, when “his friends admonished him of his vicious conversa- “i tion and dangerous | state," An objection,” remarks — Heylin, ‘not more old than common: but such, I & must confess, to which I never found a “satisfactory “ answer from the pen of Supralapsarian, or Spr bea- “rian, within the small compass of my reading.” ~ So, it appears, that this old and common @ifection 400 - is, m,the estimation of these learned writers, unanswer- able. At least, they have never met with any satisfac- tory answer. Now, I do not promise to give.a salisfac- tory answer ; for some minds are not. easily satisfied ; but, with great ease, ‘ can give an answer which ought to satisfy. It is this. The oljection separates what God has joined. Election and holiness are inseparably | connected i in the same decree. We are ‘* chosen to sal- 4 ‘ vation through | sanctification of the Spirit and belief. “ < of the truth.” But the Arminian objection runs thus : “If ba be chosen to salvation through sanctification of f¢ ieahe Spirit, I shall be saved whether I be sanctified or “ not-—if I be chosen to ‘salvation through | belief of oi the truth, I shall be saved whether I believe or not — cyan God from all eternity decreed to save me from be “gay sins, . shall be saved whether I continue im my which they ‘hope to ‘overturn - the Calvinistic dagtrie of election ! , Dr. Br ‘uce, and the learned Peheps Sherlock Feesoned Ris cs Tf Cad: detertained: to s save sete Apostle “« Paul by means of a ship, there was no need of a ship! “ Af God determined to save the Apostle by the instru- f mentality of sailors, there was no need of sailors ! ix. When the Apostle Paul declared, 6e Except these abide “in the ship ye cannot be saved, y had Dr. B. and the learned Bishops been present, they would haye i imme- diately exclaimed, «6 « What ! | not sayed ! If God has s determined to : save you, ye | shall be saved whether the se « sailors abide i in the ship « or not! God has determined “ to save you by the medium of a Re and by the i in- as ES 301 “the sailors are quite nugatory and ineffectual ify So much for that old and common objection, which Dr. | B. relies on with so much confidence, and which the ~ learned and talented Bishops, Sherlock and Mant, con- sider as altogether unanswerable. : In the divine decrees, means and ends, like Aitied in a chain, are inseparably connected. Now, is it not evident, that the closer the connexion between means and ends, the greater the encouragement to use means, The links of a chain being inseparably connected, when we pull one link, we are quite confident the whole chain will follow. Were the links detached, we would not have the same confidence or encouragement. Such a connexion between means and ends encourages Calvinists to activity and diligence—to avoid all sin; and to prac- tise every virtue. They are encouraged to “abound in ** the work of the Lord, for as much as they know, ** that their labour shall not be in vain in the Lord.??— The Apostle Paul, in spiritual as well as in temporal matters, acted on those consistent principles. He had made his calling and election sure. He was assured that God would preserve him to his heavenly kingdom. But this assurance did not supersede the use of means. He kept under his body, and brought it into subjection, lest, whilst he preached the Gospel to others, he him- self should be a castaway. From this and similar texts, Dr. Graves and other Arminians infer, that believers - may possibly fall from a state of grace. The inference, however, is completely illegitimate. With equal pro- priety they might infer from the declaration of the Apostle, << Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot “be: peed, ”? that it was possible for Paul never to reach 302 Rome, notwithstanding the divine assurance to the con- trary. Such propositions shew the connexion between means and ends, but do not at all prove the possibility, that either the means should not be employed, or the ends not accomplished. Our Saviour says, speaking of the Father, “* I know him ; and if I should say I know “him not, I would be a liar like unto you.” | Would any Arminian, from this hypothetical proposition, infer, that it was possible for Jesus Christ, either to deny the Father, or to be a liar ? Why then do they infer, from similar propositions, that it is possible for believers to fall away from a state of grace, or the divine decrees to fail of accomplishment ? Having endeavoured to shew in what sense election is irrespective ; and having endeavoured to prove, that it is not unfavourable to good works, nor inconsistent with the means of grace and salvation ; I now proceed to animadvert on the epithets, arbitrary and irrespec- tive, as applied io reprobation. In what sense our oppo- nents apply those epithets, will be best understood by a quotation or two. Dr. Graves, | Predestination, = 116), writes thus: ‘So unboundedly merciful, so. “ unspeakably encouraging, is the genuine doctrine of «the Gospel of Peace: how totally repugnant to a ‘¢ scheme which represents, that all who are not in the 6 number of the elect are passed over, rejected, or re- ‘© probated by God, who has by an eternal unalterable «decree, preordained them, before they were born, to « certain and everlasting death ; for which God himself “ prepares them, to which they are devoted, not be- «cause he foresees their unworthiness, but solely be- «cause he wills it, and which from the very hour of ‘their birth he hath foreordained them not to aca “ and hath precluded them from the means of escaping.’ Bad as this quotation is, it is not so bad as that portion of - the Bampton Lectures from which it is extracted. The Bishop’s representation of Calvinism was too terrific for the learned Professor. Shuddering at the picture, he broke off the quotation before he came to the end of the description. It runs thus: (Bampton Lectures, P. 129) “It is the Calvinistic doctrine, that all those, ‘‘ who are not in the number of the elect, are passed ** over, rejected, or reprobated by God; who has by an * eternal unalterable decree preordained, predestinated “« and doomed them, before they were ‘born, to certain ‘¢ and everlasting death, ruin, perdition and damnation ; “‘ for which he himself fits and prepares them, to which _ “ they are devoted, not because he foresees their un- e worthiness, but solely because he wills it ; and which « from the very hour of their birth, he hath made it “impossible for them to escape, and hath previanes ‘‘ and repels them from the means of escaping.” An- other sample of his Lordship’s mode of representing Calvinism we find in P. 252: “ The Calvinist teaches, “that God elected a few individuals to salvation, and ‘that Christ died to make atonement for their sins “‘ alone, to the exclusion of the great mass of mankind ; “‘ that the salvation of these elect depends solely upon ‘“ ‘ certain absolute and irrespective decrees of God, and ‘is effected solely by the grace of God, so that no “ ‘ conditions are required to be fulfilled, no co- -operation « to be given on their parts, but that, however great “and. numerous may be their sins, they are eternally “sure of salvation : and that the great bulk of mankind 304 “are eternally doomed to perdition, no referénce’ what- * ever being made to any faults of theirs ; no possibility ‘* whatever being allowed them of escaping their déom ; ‘« the sole cause of which is the pleasure, and the sole ‘¢ object of it the glory, of God.” As an appendix to such a description, why did not his Lordship add, ‘* From such Calvinism—such hor- “ rible Calvinism—such monstrous Calvinism—Good * Lord deliver us.”” Had the good Bishop. added this prayer, I am perfectly convinced, that not only all the Socmians, Arminians, and Arians in the world, but that all the Calvinists on the face of the globe, would have echoed in one universal response—AMEN ! Amen ! | : I can assure the learned Bishop, that Calvinists re- gard with unutterable contempt, and unqualified detestation, the doctrine contained in the preceding quotations.—They believe no such doctrines; they teach no such doctrines; they abhor all such doc- trines. I regret much, that talents so respectable -as those of his Lordship, should be exhausted in beat- ing the air—in refuting doctrines which nobody holds —-in charging upon Calvinists doctrines the very reverse of those which they believe—doctrines which they hold in the utmost contempt and abhorrence. What then do Calvinists believe? I answer negatively, They do not hold themselves bound to believe every thing that Calvin taught, that’ Austin taught, that Zanchy taught, or that any one of our reformers taught. Much less do they hold themselves bound to believe every foolish thing said by Calvinists for three hundred years past! To collect those foolish sayings—to add 505 some things which they never said—to combine all these into a system—and to call that system Calvinism —is neither candid, generous, nor gust. It is an an- sult offered to the Calvinistic system. or such dis- ingenuous conduct there is no apology. Even the mitre of a Bishop should not screen him from censure. Every person knows, or at least might know, what Cal- vinism is. It is the docrines contained in the West- minster Confession of Faith and- Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England—doctrines as different from: Bishop Mant’s Calvinism, as light is from darkness.— Were any writer to profess to give an account of the doctrines of the Church of England, and instead of exhibiting those doctrines as they are stated in the Thirty-nine Articles, should rake together the most foolish things written by the members of that Church for 300 years past—adding some things which they never wrote—and then denominate such a compound of folly — and nonsense, ‘* The doctrines of the Church of Eng- land”’—in what. point of light would such a writer be viewed by Bishop Mant’ and_ his learned coadjutors ? What terms could be found in the English language suf: ficiently strong to characterise such a work ?—To the learned Bishop, and his Arminian colleagues, I would only say, ‘¢ Whatsoever ye would that Calvinists should -** do unto you, do ye even the same unto them 5 for this - ‘© ig the law and the prophets.” What Calvinist ever taught, that ney elected to ad. vation only a “few individuals?”’. No Calvinist ever taught so. All Calvinists believe, that the elect are so far from being only a few individuals, that they are ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of + 39 | 306° -thousands—that they are “a number which no maz can number.’ It is no tenet of Calvinism—though Bishop Mant, Dr. Graves, Dr. Millar, and Dr. Bruce, are constantly representing it as a Calvinistic tenet— Tt is no tenet of Calvinism, that the number of the elect is smaller than that of the reprobate. Many Calvinists believe the very reverse. Our Westminster Divines . wisely abstain from giving any opinion on the subject. With regard to the number, or proportion, of those who will be finally saved, we have no controversy with any, except with those who maintain a universal restoration. From the very nature of the case, all rational contro- versy is excluded. ‘‘ Secret things belong to the Lord *‘ our God.’”’ Socinians, Arminians, Arians, and Cal- vinists are all equally ignorant, and must remain so, till the judgment of the great day. Our opponents may therefore save themselves the trouble of any reference to the number of the elect ; for on this subject we profess ourselves totally ignorant. Should any ask me, ‘“ Are ‘‘ there few that be saved 2”’ I can only answer in the words of our Saviour, ‘‘ Strive to enter in at the strait ‘¢ gate ; for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, “‘ but shall not be able.’ ~ Is the Bishop’s statement true, that, on Calvinistic principles, the eleet do not co-operate with God in the work of their own salvation? J¢ zs not. Calvinists believe, that the elect, though passive in regener ation, * * Calvinists maintain, that, even before regeneration, it is the duty of all to attend all the ordinances of divine institution, and to use all the means of grace which God has appointed—and that it is to those who attend such ordinances, and use such means, that he usually communicates his saving grace. 307 are active in sanctification: they are ‘‘ worke.:s toge- ‘* ther with God,’’ ** and work out their salvation with ‘fear and trembling.’ They ask, they seek, they — knock—they run, they strive, they fight—they give all diligence to make their calling and election sure— ‘“‘ they ‘ press into the biieabhn of God,” and take ‘the kingdom of heaven by force.” Is the Bishop’s representation true—that the elect, on Calvinistic principles, however great and numerous their sins, are eternally sure of their salvation 2—Jt zs not.—The elect can have no assurance of their salvation till after their conversion.— And after conversion, many of them have no assurance during life. And even in those who enjoy that privilege, it is often by sin inter- _ rupted and lost. Such is the docrine of the Westmin- ster Confession (Chap. 18, sect. 3, 4))—such is the doc- trine of the Larger Catechism (Quest. 81)—such is the doctrine of eval at in general—a doctrine very different, indeed, from that with which they are un- justly accused by his Lordship. Is the statement of Bishop Mant true—that, - upon Calvinistic principles, God has preordained, predesti- nated and doomed the reprobate to everlasting death, yuin, perdition, and damnation, without any reference to their fault 2—J¢ is not—It is as far ‘emote from truth as light is from darkness. This will appear by comparing it, or rather contrasting it, ‘with the genuine Calvinistic doctrine, as it is distinctly stated by ene Westminster Divines.. In their Confession (Chap. i sec. 7) they affirm—that God has ordained the repro- brate to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious susvice,—In their Larger Catechism 508 (Quest. 13) they assert-—that God has passed by the reprobate, and ‘ foreordained them to dishonour and ‘wrath, to be for their sin inflicted to the praise of “‘ the glory of his susticz.’’ ‘The blasphemous doc- trine charged upon the Calvinists by Bishop Mant, is— that the will and pleasure of God, and not men’s sins, are the cause of their damnation. ‘Their owz doctrine is the very reverse—that no decrees of God, but men’s own sins, are the so/e cause of their condemnation.— God’s treatment of the reprobate is entirely judicial—it proceeds upon principles of strict justice. Upon what ground will he pronounce the doom of the wicked at the judgment of the great day? Upon the very same ground did he determine from all. eternity so to doom them. If there will be no injustice or cruelty in doom- ing the wicked to eternal misery for their sins, there could not possibly be any injustice or cruelty in decree- ing soto doom them. Dr. Graves argues against pre- destination from the justice and mercy of God ; but if God is not unjust or unmerciful in consigning men to eternal separation from his presence, he was not unjust nor unmerciful in decreeing thus to consign them. If there is no cruelty nor injustice in doing a thing, there can be no cruelty nor injustice im decreeing to do it.— Whatever God does, he decrees or determines to do: and, as there are no new determinations in the divine mind, he decrees nothing in time, which he did not decree from all eternity. These are the dictates of common sense, as well as of divine revelation. Let ‘ not, therefore, Dr. Millar, nor Dr. Graves, nor Dr. Bruce, nor the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor— let no Arminian, Socinian, nor Arian, stigmatize the — 309 decree of reprobation as irrespective. It was no more irrespective, than the condemnation of the wicked will be at the judgment of the great day. The one is the exact counterpart of the other. Bishop Mant represents Calvinists as maintaining that no possibility whatever is allowed the reprobate of escaping their doom. . Is this representation true ?— It is not.—No natural impossibility stands in the way of the salvation of the reprobate. No impossibility stands in their way, but that which aggravates their. guilt ; I mean that moral impossibility, which arises from their own hatred and enmity. None will ever be able to say, ‘* I was willing to, accept of Jesus asa Sa- ‘‘ viour, and to walk in his commandments and ordi- ‘* nances bineoeless but the decree of reprobation pre- «vented me.”’ _ The heaviest part of the charge of Dr. Graves and Bishop Mant is—that, according to the Calvinistic sys- tem, God prepares the reprobate for damnation. Is this charge just ?—J¢ is not.—Calvinists maintain, that God _ prepares the elect for happiness ; but, that the repro- bate, by their sins, prepare themselves for misery. (Rom. ix. 22, 23,) * What if God, willing to shew ‘‘ his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with ‘¢ much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to de- ‘© struction: And that he might make known the riches ‘¢ of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had ‘* afore prepared unto glory.’” In this remarkable pass- age it is asserted, that God prepares the vessels of mer- cy for glory ; but it is not said, that God fits or pre- pares the vessels of wrath for destruction. It is said, indeed, that they are fitted ; but it 1s not said that Ged 310 fits them. They are fitted not by God ; but by their own sins.* | Lag It may be objected, however, that these very sins were foreordained, and could not be avoided.— Answer. The origin of evil is the most abstruse and difficult subject to which the human mind has ever been direct-. ed. That God is not the author of sin, Calvinists as well as Arminians and others strenuously maintain.— The contrary imputation they repel with abhorrence.—. They maintain that all good comes from God, and that all evil comes from the creature. This, however, they do not consider inconsistent with the doctrine— That “* God has foreordained whatever comes to pass’””—sin- ful actions not excepted. ‘The decree that sin should, by divine permission, have a place among the works of God, does not make God the author of sin; for sin’s introduction is not to be ascribed to any positive in- - *In a Jong continued strain of invective the Lord Bishop of. Down and Connor pours contempt on the Calvinistic system, by | representing it as inconsistent with mildness and clemency. For this purpose he plunges inte politics, and charges the Scotch Co- venanters, with selling their king, and the English Calvinists with beheading him. Now, were his Lordship able to prove that the Scotch Covenanters sold king Charles I—which I am convinced he will never be able to do—and that he was afterwards beheaded - by the English Calvinists—which we do not deny—what fol- lows? Does it follow, that the Calvinists of that age were more Jerocious, than Arminians under the subsequent reigns of Charles II and James VII? Does his Lordship mean to tell us now, in the nineteenth century, that there was more cruelty in beheading an arbitrary tyrannical despot, who, in violation of the British consti- tution, was trampling under his feet the liberties of his subjects, than in deluging with the best blood of her citizens a whole nation for twenty-eight years? Surely his Lordship’s prudence had com- pletely forsaken him, when he adverted at all to the transactions of those times. 3il fluence of the Deity. That God permits sin, all must _ acknowledge ; for if he did not permit it, it could not. _ exist. Now, if he permits it, he must w7// to permit it ; he must decree to permit it. God can do nothing: without a previous act of his own will, or, in other words, without a previous decree. ‘That God decreed to permit sin, is a position which admits of no rational contradiction. It is also demonstrably evident, that if God’s permitting sin does not make him the author of sin, neither is he made the author of sin by decreeing. to permit it. If there be no harm in doing a thing, . there can be no harm in decreeing to do it. That God from all eternity decreed, that sim, by di- vine permission, should have a place among his works, I prove by the following ar guments : a 1. My first argument is drawn from the appoint- ment of Jesus as a Saviour. That God determin- ed to send his Son into the world to save sin- ners, none will deny: and, as there are no mew de- terminations in the divine mind, he must have so de- termined from all eternity. Now, if God from all eter- nity determined or decreed to send his Son into the world to save his people from their sins, he must have decreed from all eternity, that those sins, by divine per- mission, should have a place among his works—it must have been from all eternity certain that they would have such a place : for if it were possible that those sins _ might never be committed, then it was possible that God might decree to send his Son in vain ! 2. My second argument is drawn from the appoint- ment of a general judgment, (Acts, xvii. 31.) Be- “* cause he hath appointed a day in the which he will 312 ~ “ judge the world in righteousness by that man whom “he hath ordained.’ Now if God on this. day ‘will condemn the wicked, he must wé// or determine to con- ‘demn them; for he can do nothing without previously willing or determining to do it : and as there can be no _-neW purposes or determinations in the divine mind, God must have determined or decreed from all eternity to condemn the wicked. And, still farther; if God decreed from all eternity to condemn the wicked for their sins, it must have been certain from all eternity that those sins would be committed. If it were possi- ble* that the persons whom God from all eternity de- creed to condemn and punish might never sin; then it was possible that God might condemn and punish the innocent. It is therefore demonstrably evident, from the divine procedure at the general judg- ment, that God from all eternity decreed that sin, through divine permission, should have a place among his works. Should any allege, that neither the decree that Jesus Christ should come into the world to save sinners, nor the decree that at the judgment of the great ‘day he should condemn and punish sinners—should any allege that neither of these decrees proves that the futu- rition of sin was decreed, but only that the futurition of sin was certain, I shall answer their objection in 3. My THIRD ARGUMENT, which is drawn from the foreknowledge of God.—The foreknowledge of God proves his decrees. It proves, that God foreordained _* The reader will still bear in mind, that I do not speak of an absolute or natural possibility or impossibility.—I mention this to . prevent all misunderstanding or cavilling. ¢ 313 whatever comes to pass, sinful actions not excepted.—_ If God from all eternity foresaw all events, it was from all eternity certain that those events would occur. For example ; if God from all eternity foreknew that Dr. - B. would write a book against the plenary inspiration of his word, the Divinity and Atonement of his Son, the Supreme Deity of his Spirit, &c. then it was cer- tain from all eternity that Dr. B: would write that book. If it was possible that Dr. B. might never write that book, though God foreknew that he would write it, then it was possible for the Deity to be mistaken and disappointed! Every person must see, that it is impos- sible for the Deity to know that a thing exists, if it does not really and certainly exist. Equally impossible is it to foreknow that a thing w// exist, if its future exist- ence is not certain. As knowledge presupposes: the certain present existence of things known, so foreknow- ledge presupposes the certain future existence of things foreknown. If God, therefore, from all eternity fore- - saw whatever comes to pass, the future existence of every thing that comes to pass was from all eternity cer- tain. To say that God foresaw any thing as futate which yet never comes to pass, is an avidend contradiction. It is to say that God foresaw it, and yet did not foresee it : for that which never comes to pass could never be the object either of sight, or foresight—of knowledge, or — foreknowledge. Arminians sometimes labour hard to prove, that foreknowledge could have no influence on future actions ; but they labour in vain: they labour to prove what we do not deny. We do not say, that fore- knowledge renders future events certain; but we cons + 40 314 tend, that it pre-supposes their certainty. Foreknow- ledge does not contitute, but it proves the certainty of future events. This is what we assert.* ‘ Now, if all things that come to pass were from all eternity certain, what rendered them certain? .To ghring things out of a state of mere possibility of exist- ence into a state of certain futurition, is an effect ; and every effect must have a cause. In this case, what was the cause? The cause must have either been the things themselves, or the decree of the Deity. It could not be the things themselves that rendered their own future existence certain ; for nothing can produce an effect, be- fore it exists: it follows then, by necessary conse- quence, that it was the will or decree of the Deity,— Thus, the doctrine of divine decrees, notwithstanding the contempt with which it is loaded, appears to me ca- pable of the strictest demonstration. The steps are extremely simple. God from all eternity foreknew all things that come to pass; therefore, all those things were from all eternity certain, Again; What rendered the future existence of those things certain? Was it the will of God ?—or-was it the things themselves ?— It must have been either the one or the other of th Ege * Dr. Dwight (Theol.+P. 199) says, ° Foreknowledge renders “ the future existence of that which is foreknown certain; theres ‘* fore the actions of the agent supposed are all. rendered certain s¢ and will of course exist.’ And again (P. 200), ‘‘ God’s fore- « knowledge of voluntary actions does in no respect lessen or af- fect their freedom, although it renders their future existence « absolutely certain.” ‘¢ Aliquando dormitat bonus Homerus.”— The Doctor here. has expressed himself quite inadvertently and in- consistently with what he has elsewhere maintained. He else where maintains, that foreknowledge can have no influence what- _ ever on the nature of actions. - pee T: ag 315 ‘causes. It could not be the things themselves: for no eause can produce af effect before it exists. It must therefore have been the will of the Deity—or, in other words—the Divine decree.—(Sce Edwards’ Remarks.) Doctor Adam Clarke, maintains that there is, strictly speaking, no foreknowledge nor afterknowledge with th» Deity—that his knowledge is all present kriowledge — that, past, present, and future, are with the Deity one eternal now. ‘To this opinion Archbishop Tillotson, one of the ablest defenders. of the Arminian system, was quite opposed. He poured upon it the utmost cor- tempt. To me, the opinion appears quite rational.— I agree with the Doctor, rather than with the Arch- bishop. I am is one of the names of the Deity ; ‘and our Saviour says, not before Abraham was J was, but, Before Abraham was, I am. It appears to mé, that past, present, and future, are all equally present with ‘the Deity. With him, past — knowledge, and present knowledge, and future knowledge, are all the same. I therefore perfectly agree with Dr. Clarke, Mr. Drew and others, in this view of the knowledge of God.— - It isin my mind both more seriptural and more phi- Josophical than that of the learned Prelate. At the same time, {I perfectly agree with the Archbishop, in wondering that men should ‘call this explaining * things.” It gives no explanation at all of the Armi- nian difficulty. On the contrary, it exhibits the diffi- culty in a more striking point of light. It renders the contradiction of foreseeing contingencies more apparent. ‘Does not God’s knowledge of past events prove the - certainty of those events ?—does not his knowledge of ie events prove the certamty of those events Pam On 816. the same principle, does not his knowledge of future events prove the certainty of those events? If, with the Deity, foreknowledge, present knowledge, and af- ter knowledge, are all the same, then they all equally presuppose and prove the certainty of their object.— »As nothing can be otherwise than God sees it to be; so nothing can be otherwise than he foresees it. If, with the Deity, foreknowledge and present knowledge are the same, then what is true of present knowledge is also true of foreknowledge ; but present knowledge presupposes and proves the certainty of the thing known ; and, therefore foreknowledge must also presup- pose and prove the certainty of the thing foreknown. No Arminian in the werld can possibly refute this rea- soning, nor evade the force of it, without trampling under his feet the very first principles of argumenta- tion. : , bhi _ Divines of the first rate learning and talents are sen- sible of this : they decline the controversy, and resolve the whole into faith.—Socinians, finding that they must either give up the contingency of future events or the foreknowledge of God, adopted the desperate al- ternative of making a sacrifice of this divine attribute. — Dr. A. Clarke, following their steps, has chosen to give — up the omniscience of Deity rather than his Armi- nian tenets. Doctor Millar and Doctor Graves, with a modesty more becoming Christian Divines, confess the weakness of their own faculties, and, finding de- monstration against them, endeavour to make their es- cape by taking refuge in faith. Arminian writers of an inferior class, with less reason but more effrontery, per- tinaciously adhere to their principles, not only in the 317 face of demonstration, but in contempt and defiance of — those self-evident truths—those avioms on which de- _ | monstration is founded.* *« From mv Defence of Creeds and Confessions, Mr. M‘Afee ~ quotes the following words: _ ‘Every person must see, that “it is impossible for the Deity to Anow that a thing exists, ‘if it does not really and certainly exist. Equally impossible “is it to foreknow that a thing wld exist, if its future existence. ‘¢ig not certain.’ On this quotation he makes the following remark: ‘ The first proposition in this quotation is evident- ‘“‘ ly true ; but the latter appears to me, not only to be erroneous, « but contrary to that timidity and modesty which should accom- ‘¢ pany all our disquisitions concerning the unsearchable God.” — Now, if the knowledge and foreknowledge of the Deity are the same, is it not a self-evident truth—is it not an axiom—that what is true of the knowledge of God, must be also true of his foreknowledge ? -Yet the timid and modest Mr. M‘Afee, in defiance of this axiom, modestly affirms of the divine knowledge, what he denies of the JSoreknowledge of Deity !—Such is that champion of Arminianism whom Mr. Drew, editor of the Imperial Magazine, dignifies with. the epithet of an ‘able antagonist.” If continuing to reason af- ter one is defeated—if continuing to argue in the face, not only of demonstration, but of axioms—if this/constitutes an able antago- nist, Mr. M‘Afee has certainly strong claims to that title. “ In reasoning, too, the parson owned his skill ; ‘¢ For, even though vanquished, he could argue still.” But will the reader believe that this same ‘ able antagonist,” who, even in the face of self-evident truths, reasons against the certainty of future events, has, in the very same pamphlet, fully admitted that certainty ? . ** The espousers of liberty are well aware «< of an objection urged against their scheme by the advocates for. ‘“ necessity and Calvinism, Why (it is trizmphantly asked) is there “‘so much stress laid upon the freedom of the will? Are not the ‘¢ gocd and evil actions the same, in point of certainty, as if they «¢ had been all decreed ? and will not the number of the saved and “‘ lost be as definite at the last, according to the doctrine of liberty, “as according to that of necessity ? Granting the certainty of the “ actions and the definiteness of the numbers spoken of, we only “‘ say that things are just as they really are.—Again—The number “is definite by that certainty which always accompanies contingent * actions.” He afterwards admits, that the number of the saved would be actually as great, and finally certain, as if Deity had passed Calvinistic decrees concerning them. Thus, it appears, 318 4, With regard to whatever comes to pass, God must either be willing that it should come to pass, or wnvwil- that this able antagonist gives up the whole controversy, and sur- _ renders to the Calvinists at discretion. If the certainty of an event ~ does nut destroy liberty, how could that liberty be destroyed by the decree of God, which rendered the event certain? If appren- ticeship does not forfeit the freedom of a corporation town, no man can forfeit that freedom by being bound an apprentice. If the apprenticeship itself cannot deprive him of his freedom, the binding him an apprentice—or that act by which he was bound— cannot deprive him of it: so, in like manner, if certainty cannot destroy liberty, the decree of God constituting that certainty can- not destroy it. By admitting certainty of event, Mr. M‘Afee has given up the Arminian cause. All the necessity we plead for is a necessity consisting in certainty of event. A natural neceesity, % universal necessity, a necessity of compulsion, coaction, or constraint, is unjustly and injuriously charged on the Calvinistic system by its. ignorant or prejudiced opponents. Mr. M‘Afee quotes President Edwards, strongly disclaiming, and decidedly condemning the doctrine of a universal necessity: and yet this “ able antagonist,” with his characteristic timidity and regard for truth, modestly charges Edwards, and Calvinists in general, with holding that same uhiversal necessity! Absurdly confounding the laws of mind with those of matter, he even attempts by a diagram to de- monstrate the absurdity of the Calvinistic system! Had I consi- dered Mr. M‘Afee’s pamphlet worthy of an answer, my motto would have been, ‘‘ Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy ** neighbour.” Mr, M‘Afee admits that the number of the saved and the lost “ is. ‘definite by that certainty which always accompanies contin- ‘* gent events” —that is to say—the certainty which accompanies uncertain events! Who can doubt that such a writer is an “ able “‘ antagonist 2”. Again—Mr. M‘Afee declares (P. 24) that, as a compensation for that death incurred by the fall, a decree is passed, which determines the resurrection of every man; and that God immu- tably purposed to raise all men from the dead. He also admits, that the number of the saved and the lost is as definite as if fixed by a Calvinistic decree. Take these doctrines in connexion, and the amount of them is, That God has passed a decree, and immu- tably purposed, to raise to the resurrection of damnation a defi- nite number of the human family—and all this as a compensation for that death which they incurred by the fall! By such mild and sensible doctrine, our “ able antagonist” proposes to mend Calvin- 319 ling. If he is unwilling that, it should come to pass, and yet it does come to pass, then his will is crossed, istic decrees! How appropriate the modest title of his pamphlet, “© A Rational and Scriptural Investigation!” pan Mr. M‘Afee, in his preface, informs us—not that his design was to answer the arguments of his opponent; no, this might be troublesome; but he informs us—that his plan was ‘to advance a ‘© system as forcibly and argumentatively as possible, which, if “ true, necessarily proves that of the Rev. Gentleman he opposes ‘* to be false.” ——Now, one would suppose that this ‘ able antago- nist” would grant his opponent the same privilege. One would think, that, according to the law laid down by Mr. M‘Afee, the Calvinist, by proving his own system true, at the same time proves Mr. Afee’s to be false. But—no such thing. ‘This “able antago- nist” explains the laws of war quite differently. Page 30, he states them thus: ‘ Before it can be proved, Sir, that we sinned in ‘© Adam as a federal head, from the words now in question, “the absurdity of the above conclusions must be clearly ‘‘ shown, and the various arguments advanced throughout these * epistles fairly and rationally answered.” So then, Arminians are not bound to answer the arguments of Calvinists ; but Calvinists are indispensably obliged to answer allthe arguments of Arminians ! The Arminian has only to prove his own system true, in order to rove Calvinism false ; but the Calvinist must prove Arminianism Jalse before he can prove his own system true ! ‘ Such is the logic of Mr. M‘Afee ; and the editor of the Imperial Magazine assures us, that Mr, M‘Afee is ‘an able antagonist.” In this miscellaneous note, I should have taken some notice of the efforts of Mr. Drew, editor of the Imperial Magazine, to reconcile contingency with foreknowledge. Of metaphysics, when used on the Arminian side of the controversy, he appears very fond—and is himself no contemptible metaphysician—but when used by Calvinists, he does not seem to like-them at all. He disco- vers a particular dislike to the metaphysical ‘* fastnesses,” from ‘which President Edwards and some of his successors cannot easily be dislodged. Could Mr. Drew raise as many Arminian troops as would storm those fastnesses, I am convinced he would do an es- sential service to the Arminian cause. For his own part, he uses every effort in his power; but, in my humble opinion, without suc- cess. In attempting to reconcile the contingency of human ac- tions with divine foreknowledge, he soars so high in the regions of metaphysics, that, to my feeble sight, he becomes quite invisible. I find it impossible, and, I am happy to say, unnecessary to follow 320 and he is unhappy. No man can rationally maintain that God is unwilling that sin should have a place in his works. If he maintains this, he must run into the gross absurdity of maintaining, that sin has forced its way into the works of God in opposition to the divine will—in defiance of the Divine Being! He must maintain, that the will of the Deity is crossed in mil- | lions of millions of instances, and that the ever-blessed God, instead of being the most happy, 1s, in reality, the most miserable, being in the universe. Now, if God be not unwilling that sin should have a place among his works, he must be willing ; and if he is will- ing, then he decrees it; for with God, to will and to decree are the same thing. Ht: Dr. Bruce, in common with all Socinians, Arminians, and Arians, ridicules the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or his will of decree and his will of command. He writes thus: (P. 174) ‘* Nor do ‘¢the most learned advocates for this doctrine shrink ‘from these absurd and blasphemous consequences : ' him in his flight—I see him) when he rises, and recognize him when he descends. He represents the Deity—I write from recol- ‘lection—as penetrating parations and looking back, as it were, at contingent events, looking at them as if they were past.—He seems, however, strangely to forget, that his seezng those events proves their certainty—no rales whether he looks backward at them, or forward at them : If he sees them at all, their existence must be certain, and Arminian contingency must be overthrown ! An Arminian wiiter in the Imperial Magazine—a writer of very respectable talents, Mr. Tucker, of Belfast, has abandoned the absurd doctrine of contingency. I am decidedly of the opinion, that Dr. Clarke, Mr. Drew, and all Arminians whatever, would ke b] ” discover their wisdom by imitating his example. 321 * for thus they write: ‘* The Lord sometimes orders a ‘* thing to be done by aman; and yet by his secret'will ‘* does not wish that it should be done by him :’’ for » ‘“‘ God has a secret and revealed will. ‘It does not ‘¢ follow because he commands all men to believe in — ** Christ, that he wills them to do so. But though we ‘¢ cannot understand how God can be unwilling that ‘- his commands should be executed, yet we ought not “to deny it. Though God calls the wicked to repen- ‘tance, he does not wish them to be saved. Though ‘* he declares, that he wishes the wicked or reprobate to * believe, he does not actually wish it. God does not ‘* always mean what he says that he means ; and yet is “ not guilty of hypocrisy.”” So that, according to these ‘‘ Divines, God practises mental reservation, when he ‘¢ wills that ‘* all men should be saved, and come to ‘‘ the knowledge of the truth.” It is to be feared, that <* some mercenary or fanatical declaimers even labour ‘< to aggravate these horrible representations.” Thus Dr. B., in his usual manner, endeavours to bring Calvinism into contempt, by charging upon it the most foolish things said by its adovocates. 1 must therefore again remind my readers, that the foolish and absurd things said by Calvinists are not Calvinism.— The nonsensical, contradictory, and blasphemous ex- — pressions of Piseator—if ever he uttered them, which I very much doubt—Calvinists hold in sovereign contempt. Nor do I believe the most mercenary or fanatical declaimer living would approve, much less aggravate, such horrible representations. A little more of that charity which thinketh no evil would have a great ten. dency to allay the Doctor’s fears on such subjects,— 41 ’ 322 Dr. B., and other writers, may pour contémpt. on the _ distinction between God’s will of decree and his will of command; but they will never be able to. prove it groundless. They cannot deny, as I have already shewn that it is the will of God, that sin should have a place among his works. The existence of sin is nos contrary to his decretive or providential will, otherwise there could be no sin at all; and yet all will grant, that it is contrary to his preceptive will—his. will of com- mand. The distinction, therefore, between the secret and revealed will of God—or rather between his will of " decree and. his will of command, is capable not only of proof, but of demonstration. The distinction is not only founded in reason, but is taught with the clearest evidence in the sacred volume. ‘‘ Though we, cannot ‘« understand’’—says Trigland as cited by the Doctor— ‘* Though we cannot understand, how God can be un- ‘* willing that his eerainands should be executed; yet ‘“ we ought not to deny it.”’. Dr. B. denies it ; but if he does, he must also deny the word of God. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and yet he was unwilling his command should be executed.— Will the Doctor deny this? God decreed that Isaac should not be sacrificed ; and yet he commanded that he should be sacrificed. Will the Dr. deny this ?— Let Dr. B. say—let all the opponents of Calvinism say —Is not this a decisive instance of the distinction be- tween God’s will of decree and will of command ? his providential and preceptive will? Again—God com- manded Pharaoh to let’ Israel go, and yet hardened his heart so that he should not let them go. Here, again, 323 the distinction between God’s will of command and his will of decree is as clear as noon day. Another striking instance of this important distine- tion is recorded in 2 Sam. xii. 11, 12, ‘* Thus sayeth ‘‘ the Lord, behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of ‘thine own house, and 1 will take thy wives: before “‘ thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he «¢ shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For «thou didst it secretly : but I will do this before all ‘‘ Israel, and before the sun.’’ © Will any person deny, that it was the decretive or providential will of God, that David’s adultery and murder should be punished by the subsequent incest of his unnatural son Absalom ? _ And will any person deny, that Absalom’s incest was contrary to God’s preceptive will? Surely not. Once more: The selling of Joseph into Egypt was sinful. It was contrary to the precepiive will of God ; and yet it was quite agreeable to his providential will, or his will of decree. ‘“ It was not you that sent me «« hither,”’ says Joseph, ‘* but God. Ye thought evil ‘against me ; but God meant it unto good.”’—In like manner, the crucifixion of the Redeemer, though con- trary to the revealed will of God, and highly criminal, was nevertheless agreeable to his will of decree. It was by the “determinate counsel and foreknowledge of “‘ God that he was taken, and by wicked hands cruci- “ fied and slain.’ All the indignities and cruelties of the Jews were nothing more than God’s “ hand and * counsel determined bejore to be done.’ ** Those ‘things, which God before had showed by the mouth “‘ of his prophets that gic should suffer, he so ful. % sca a 324 The last instance I shall quote—for the instances are almost innumerable—is Rev. xvii. 17, ‘‘ For God hath ‘* put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree and ‘< give their kingdom unto the beast, until the word of ‘© God shall be fulfilled.”” Will Dr. B. deny—will any opponent of Calvinism deny, that for the ten Kings to’ give their kingdom to the beast was contrary to the re- vealed will of God? or, will any deny that it was agree- able to his will of decree 2. They fulfilled his wel/— What will 2 not his preceptive will surely. It must have been his will of decree or purpose. If my learn- ed antagonists, or any other opponents of the Calvinistic system, think they can explain the above-cited passages, without admitting a distinction between God’s will of decree and his will of command ; let them try it... Let them show, if they can, that the arguments drawn, first from reason and then from Scripiure, are inconclusive : but let them not think to run down the distinction by the quotation of a few nonsensical sayines—sayings which all Calvinists, as well as Socinians, Armiuians, and Ari- ans condemn. | w at aE : Our opponents allege, that this dissititiods adiitien we make between God’s will of command and will of de- cree, represents the Deity as possessed of two contra- dictory wills. In answer to this objection, I would ob- serve, that if the distinction is a matter of fact—as I have proved it to be—my opponents are as much bound to reconcile any apparent contradiction as Jam. My object, however, being, not so much to silence an ad. versary, as to investigate truth, L would observe— That God’s will of command and will of decree are not tobe _ regarded as two different and opposite wills ; but as the S25 same will operating differently on different objects.— An apothecary permits poison to enter his shop—notas poison—not for the purpose of destroying his fellow- men—but he permits its entrance, that, being com- pounded with other ingredients, it may eventually be- come a powerful medicine. If an apothecary, without any contradiction, may prohibit poison as poison, and yet prescribe it as a medicine ; may not the Deity, without any contradiction, prohibit sin as sin, and yet permit it, and. decree that through his permission it shall have a place in his works, for the greater mani- festation of his own glory, and the greater happiness of » the universe at large ?) ‘‘ There is no inconsistency or ‘‘ contrariety,’’ says President Edwards, ‘‘ between the ‘¢ preceptive and decretive will of God. It is very * consistent to suppose that God may hate the thing it- ‘‘ self, and yet will that it should come to pass. Yea, “1 do not fear to assert that the thing itself may be *< contrary to God’s will, and yet that it may be agree- ‘* able to his will that it should come to pass; because ** his willin the one case has not the same object with his ‘¢ will in the other case. ‘To suppose God to have con- ‘* trary wills towards the same object-is a contradiction ; ‘‘ but it is not so to suppose him to have contrary wills ‘‘about different objects. The thing itself—and that ‘the thing should. come to pass—are different, as is ‘evident; because it is possible the one. may be good ‘and the other may be evil. The thing itself may be “evil, and yet it may be a good thing that it should ‘¢come to pass. It may bea good thing that an evil “« thing should come to pass : and oftentimes it most cer- 326 ~ tainly and undeniably is so, and proves so.” Agree- ably to these remarks, we may observe, that the cruci- fixion of Christ was in itself an evl thing—one of the worst things that ever occurred ; and yet the occurrence of that event was the greatest blessing ever conferred on our apostate family. That ‘ every sin has im it ‘* something of the good work of God,’ is one of those foolish sayings brought forward by our author to blacken Calvinism—a ‘saying which all Calvinists abhor.—I would nevertheless say, without the fear of rational con- tradiction, That not one sin was ever permitted to en- ter the works of God, but will ultimately be over- ruled to the promotion of universal good. (Psal. Ixxvi. 10) “ Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee ; “the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.”>—( Rom. vill. 28) ** And we know that all things work together for ‘‘ good to them that love God.” »Had’sin never enter- ed, God’s love in sending his son—the love of Jesus in dy- ing for sinners—or the love of the Holy Ghost in apply- ing the work of redemption, could never have been dis- played. The grace of God in pardoning the guilty, and his mercy in saving the miserable, could never have been manifested.—Meekness, patience, forgiveness of injuries, and other Christian virtues, could never have been exercised. Men would never have been exalted to so high a state of dignity and glory, nor angels to such < a state of felicity. Though sin, therefore, as_sin, be © contrary to the will of God, it is not contrary to the will of his decree, to permit so much sin to enter his works, as under his infinitely wise providence shall ultimately terminate in the more illustrious display of all his per- 327 fections, and. greater felicity of the universe at large.” _ Nor do we make God the author of sin by maintaining that he decreed to permit sin, and that by such permis- sion sin should have a place among his works. The — influence of the Deity with regard to sin, is very dif- ferent from that which he employs in the production of holiness.. The production of holiness. requires the po- sitive influence of the Deity, and. therefore he is. pro- perly the author of holiness ; but the introduction of sin requires no such influence, and therefore the Deity is not the author of sin. To produce light requires a positive influence ; but no such influence is necessary to the production of darkness, The sun, by the pouring forth of his rays, has a positive influence in the produc- tion of light ; but all that is necessary to the production of darkness (if I may use the expression), is the with- drawing of those rays. When the sun withdraws his rays, darkness ensues; but shall we therefore say, that the sun is the author of darkness ? Surely not. Equal- ly absurd would it be to charge God with being the au- thor of sin, because, on withholding that divine influence which would have prevented it, sin enters the works of God. Again: The sun thaws snow and ice by the in- * «Tf any man,” says Bishop Davenant, “ shail go about to set ‘© men’s will at liberty, and to tie up short the decreeing and de- “termining will of God, as if this had not the determining stroke « amongst all possible evil actions and events which shall infallibly ‘be, and which shall infallibly not be, he may avoid the suspicion “of Stoicism or Manicheism ; but he can hardly avoid the suspi- ‘“cion of Atheism. For the greater number of men’s actions «being wicked and evil, if these come into act without Gou’s de- «¢ terminate counsel and decree, human affairs are more over-roled ‘‘ by man’s will than by God’s.” . 328. fluence. of his.heat; but the production. of snow or ice. requires no such. positive influence. . When the.sun withdraws. his. rays, snow and ice ensue ;. but ..would any one say, that the sun is the author of snow or ice? Surely not. . In like manner, when God is said to har-. den mens’ hearts, no positive influence is intended.—. _ All.that is’ necessary to produce the effect is—to give men.up to.the hardness. of their own hearts, by with. | holding that grace which would otherwise mollify them... (Psal. Ixxxi. 12)..‘* So:I gave them up unto their own. ‘« -hearts lusts, and they walked in their own counsels.’? . The most formidable objection. brought against Cal-. vinistic decrees is, that they are inconsistent with liber-. ty or free agency. In reply to this objection I would observe, that there is no greater difficulty in reconciling. the decrees of God with the free agency of man, than. there is in reconciling. the foreknowledge of God with. the: same free agency. Whenever the .Arminian: or the Arian solves the datter difficulty, we will solve the. former. Archbishop Tillotson, Dr.. Millar, Dr. Graves, and all the ablest opponents of Calvinism, confess them-. selves. unable to reconcile the foreknowledge of God with the freedom. of human actions, and plead, as an apology, the weakness of their faculties. Now, if our opponents, Arminians, Socinians, and Arians, are unable to reconcile the foreknowledge of God with the free agency of man—Why do they call upon us to.reconcile the decrees of God with the.same free agency? If the doctrine of the divine decrees is clearly taught in the sacred volume, and can be demon- strated even by reason—and if the free agency of man is also taught. both by experience and. Scripture—may t 329) we not safely conclude, that those doctrines are not im consistent, though, from the limited nature of our fa- culties, we should be unable to reconcile them? This is surely as-good a solution of the difficulty in owr case; as the Arminians have given in theirs. Nay, I main- tain, that the solution is infinitely better, For no so- lution can ever reconcile a contradiction. We can de monstrate, and we have demonstrated, that it implies a contradiction to maintain, that God can foresee future contingent actions or events. In vain, ‘therefore, ‘do Arminian and Arian divines plead the weakness of their faculties. The faculties of an angel could not reconcile a contradiction. If Arminian and Arian Doctors be permitted, in the face of reason and demonstration, to resolve into faith the doctrine of the Divine foreknow- ledee of contingent events, why may not the Doetors of the church of Rome be also permitted to resolve into faith the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation 2? No doctrine can possibly be true which contradicts either our senses, or our reason. I grant, indeed, that doce- trines may be above our reason, and then we may resolve them into faith; but if they are really self contydic- tory ; and if the contradiction can be demonstrated ; they cannot be the doctrines of Divine Revelation.— Our opponents, indeed, consider Calvinistic decrees as unreasonable—as inconsistent with the free agency of man; but have they ever been able to demousirate a contradiction2 They have not. ‘The great question hetween Calvinists and their opponents is this—Can God create free agents, and govern free agents, and have all his ends, designs, and purposes respecting the final desii- nution of these agents accomplished, without imfringing . 42 330 their liberty or free agency ? We say he can, and our opponents say he can not. I believe that my Maker cre- ated me a free and accountable agent—I believe that he had a particular design to accomplish by me—and I firm- ly believe, that he can and will accomplish that design, without doing me the slightest injustice, or infringing ‘in the least my liberty or free agency. Let the oppo- nents of Calvinism demonstrate, if they can, that. this creed involves a contradiction. This is a task they have never yet been able to accomplish, and I am con- vinced they never will. 1 now say again, that if we can demonstrate by reason, and prove from. Scripture, the : doctrine of divine decrees, and also the doctrine ofthe free agency of man, we may safely conclude, that those doctrines are perfectly consistent, though, from the . weakness of our faculties, we may feel unable to recon- cile them. On this ground we might safely take our stand; but if we could proceed a little farther in this — difficult subject ; and if we could actually reconcile those _ doctrines ; an object of great magnitude would be-ob- tained. To accomplish this object has long been a pro- blem in divinity. If Iam not much mistaken, Doctor — Dwight of America has ultimately succeeded. . I shall give the solution in his own words: (P. 199.) _« J will suppose once more a voluntary agent, either self- * existent or existing casually, . possessing powers of un- - derstanding similar in their extent to those of angels “or of men; and, at the same time, free, in the high- ‘est sense deuedéa to that term. Let him be also " “ supposed to be known and comprehended by God in *¢ the same perfect manner in which any angel or man “js known by him; so that God can foresee with an 331 ‘omniscient survey and absolute. certainty all his future ‘actions. At the same time let it be supposed, that «© God exercises over him no government or influence «< whatever. This being will undoubtedly be acknow- “Jedged to be free, even by those who make this ob- ‘jection ; because he was neither brought into existence ‘¢ by the will of God, nor is controlled nor. influenced «© in any manner whatever by any will beside his own. «© Let me farther suppose, what, as it must be granted, “ cannot lesgen nor affect his freedom, that all his ac- *¢ tions, thus foreseen, are agreeable to the divine plea- «© gyre. Now, let me ask, whether the divine omnis- “ cience could not contrive, and the divine power “create, a being exactly resembling this which I have »« here supposed in “every respect ; except that he was «pot self-existent nor casually existent ; and so perfect “© a copy, that he would differ from this supposed being «© numerically only ; ‘would possess the same attributes 5 -«¢ be in the same circumstances ; and perform both in -< substance and mode exactly the same actions. Were - © this supposed being, for example, to be’ placed. by «© God in his kingdom, in certain circumstances, and a= © acting a certain part in the system, which was exact- “ly agreeable to the divine pleasure ; would not. the - « eyeated being who was his perfect counterpart, if sub- -°«¢ stituted in his place, perform precisely the same ac- » © tions, with the same faculties, and the same freedom ? -« The only difference between them would be, that-he o/te who was casually existent, would perform these. ac- © & tions in consequence of possessing such and such at- -«€ tributes, without having been ereated for. this _pur- ~-« pose; while the other would perform them in conse- 332 “quence of having been thus created. with the very “same attributes.”’ Such is Dr. Dwight’s solution of the difficulty—a solution which, to me at least; Sadi completely satisfactory. | | Our opponents cannot deny. that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of election, but they either main- tain, that it is founded on foreseen faith and. good works, or they contend that it is not particular or per- sonal. They maintain that the Scriptural election is only a national election, or an election to the enjoyment of the external privileges of the Christian church. Against a personal or particular election, they not only put into a state of requisition all the forces of logic and criticism ; but they display an evident and deep-rooted srehudice. Out of many instances I shall mention only one or two—Jacob, by the Calvinists, is regarded as one of the elect, and Esau as one of the reprobate. For this reason Anti-Calvinists discover a strong partiality in favour of Esau, and. a deep-rooted prejudice against Jacob. Dr. B. writes thus : “In the lives of the pa- che « ‘ triarchs he finds an inexhaustible source of instruction,. ‘‘ religious, moral, and prudential, whether he reflects “on the faith or resignation of Abraham, the piety ‘and mildness of Isaac, the art and duplicity of Jacob,. ‘“or the “beral, mien tionageis and Forgiving: character of | 46 Esan.”’ Dr. Adam Clarke einuane. that Esau with hee ae : ‘ Ww hundred men had no hostile intention against Jacob; but only meant to honour him! When he runs to. meet. Jacob, the learned Doctor rapturously exclaims, ee How | | “sincere and genuine jis this conduct, of Esau, and.at.. “ the: same time how magnanimous! He. had. buried» 333 _ ‘all his resentment, forgiven all his injuries, and re- »* ceives his brother with the strongest demonstrations, | rita only of forgiveness, but of fraternal affection.”— Again, he asks, ‘* If the blessings had referred to their ‘eternal states, had not Esau as fair a prospect for ‘endless glory as his deceitful and unfeeling brother ? «* Justice and mercy both say—Yes.”? That it is not justice nor mercy, but deep-rooted prejudice against Calvinism, that says—Yes—I appeal to the Doctor’s own words: they run thus: “It appears that Jacob “‘ was on the whole a man of more religion, and believ- ‘* ed the divine promises more, than Esau,’”? Now, I ask, has a man of Jess religion as fair a prospect for end- less glory as one of more religion ?—Justice, mercy, scripture, and common sense, say—No. The truth is, that no man whose mind was not deeply imbued with | prejudice, would ever think of comparing the characters of Jacob and Ksau with respect to religion. Religion ! Where was the religion of Esau? The Scriptures do not, represent him as a man of religion at all, but as a profane, irreligious character. They set him up asa beacon on a mountain, that others, being shocked py” the grossness of his profanity, may avoid the rock on which he made shipwreck. ‘‘ Looking ¢ diligently,” says the Apostle, “lest there be any fannibatss or profane. “‘ person as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his “birthright.” On the contrary, in the whole word of . God, there is not a character more celebrated nor more . honoured for his piety than Jacob. John, the beloved — Disciple, leaned on the bosom of the Redeemer : Moses conversed with him as a man with his. friend ; “but " Jacob wrestled with him. He said, ‘* J will not let 834 «© thee go except thou bless me.’ Like a prince,*he had power with God and man, and prevailed. In'a. variety of respects he was honoured above all the meh that ever lived. The Old Testament church was “call. _ed by his name ; and New Testament believers are also styled ‘* the Israel of God.’ One calls himself by the name of Jacob, and another subscribes with his hand unto the Lord, and sirnames himself by the name of Israel. Nay, the Deity himself appears to delight in such epithets as these : ** The God of Jacob” —* the “mighty God of Jacob’—* the God of Israel.”— In the 24th Psalm, he seems to assume the very -name Jacob. ‘ This is the generation of them that ‘“‘ seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob!” Heeven swears ‘ by the excellency of Jacob.” Ina word, the spirit of God does not compare, but contrasts, the cha- racters of Jacob and Esau. He declares again and again, that he loved Jacob and hated Esau. He holds up Jacob as a pattern of piety, and Esau as an example of profanity. He loads Jacob with whiesaatdrt ids br ioe Esau with disgrace. sa ser eile vias il iccuaie Between the manner in which God treats the ami racters of Jacob and Esau, and the manner in which Dr. B. and Dr. A. Clarke treaty those characters, there is a very striking contrast. God treats Jacob with the greatest respect; but these Doctors treat him with the greatest disrespect! God exhibits in a striking: point ‘of light all the virtues and perfections of Jacob ; but these learned: Divines throw those virtues and perfections in- to the shade! Dr. B. does not mention one of them.— His jaundiced eye sees nothing in that patriarch. but “ art and duplicity!” God brands bwith infamy the 335 character. of Esau ; whilst those learned Doctors are careful to emblazon it—to exhibit it in the most ami- able and interesting point of light! To his servant Jacob God does not say one reproachful word ; whilst — those Rev. Divines load him with the most opprobrious | epithets! On the contrary, God never applies one epithet of respect to the character of Esau ; whilst Dr. B. and Dr. A. Clarke endeavour to embalm it by such honourable appellations as liberal, affectionate, for- giving and magnanimous! In the name of every thing sacred, I ask, why do these Divines fly in the face of their Maker ? Why do they pour contempt on that character which God delights to honour, and load with ho- nours that character which God has branded with infa- my? The most charitable account that can possibly be given of conduct so extraordinary, I had almost said impi- ous is—a deep-rooted prejudice against the Calvinistic doctrine of election and reprobation.—On . the same principle we can account for Dr. Clarke’s extraordinary exertions to prove, that Judas will be saved. The Deity assures us, that it would have been guod for Judas had he never been born—that he was the son of perdi- tion—and went to his own place. Almost the whole of the one hundred and ninth Psalm is employed in de- nouncing vengeance on the head of the traitor. Weare there particularly assured (if we translate into the fu- ture tense instead of the imperative mood), that when judged he shall be condemned; and that. his very prayer should become sin.—But Dr. Clarke endeavours to prove that Judas was a true penitent, and shall fin- ally be acquitted and saved! We do not deny, that the Scriptures teach a national election, or an election to 336. . thé enjoyment of church privileges ; but we maintain that the Scriptures also teach a personal election, or an election of purticular persons, not only to external. privileges, but to elernal life. Their number is as défi- nite as ‘if their names were written in a book. OF Clement and others it is said, (Phil. iv. 3.) that their names are written in the book of life. In various other Scriptures the heirs of glory are so represented. The Apostle John addresses his second epistle to the elect lady and her children, and mentions also her elect’ sister. ‘ When the children of Jacob are styled God’s ‘© chosen ones,”’ Dr. B. assures us, that it is not meant ‘that every one of the Israelites was chosen, but that “‘ they were members of the chosen nation.” Supposing that this sentence did not contradict the axiom, that “The whole is equal to its parts.” Supposing the auseviion true—still it would not follow, that the elec- tion of which we are treating is not particular or per- sonal—for Clement is an individual—the elect lady is an individual—and her elect sister is an individual. Par- ticular persons are elected, and particutar persons have their names written in heaven. (Luke, x. 20. \—Ro- mans, eighth, from the twenty-eighth to the thirtieth verse inclusive, is an irrefragable proof of particular election. «« And we know that all things work together ‘< for good to them that love God, to them who are the ‘* called according to his purpose. For whom he did ** foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to thei image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn _ among many brethren. Moreover whom he did pre- «« destinate, them he also called: and whom he ‘called; 337 t¢ them he also justified: and whom he justified, them *‘ he also glorified.” 3 " Dr. B. alleges, that in this beautiful passage the Apostle ‘ Speaks of the Christian church at large.’— Let us try the application. Are all the members of the church at large conformed to the image of God’s Son ? Are all the members of the church at large justified ? Will they all be glorified ? Surely not. The Doctor understands the clause, ‘‘ whom he called,’’ as equiva- lent to—whom he “ invited into the Christian church.” Now, I ask, Did all things work together for’ good to such ? By no means. Many were called and invited into the Christian church, who made light of the invi- tation, who.said, ‘ We will not have this man to reign “‘ over us; this is the heir, come let us kill him.”— Did all things work together for their good ? Quite the reverse. ‘“ The King of Heaven sent forth his ‘armies and destroyed these murderers, and burned up their city.” Again, I would ask, Do all things work together for good to those who are not only invi- ted into the Christian church, but who accept of the in- vitation, and become church members? are all such justified 2 will all such be glorified? Surely not.— It is therefore abundantly evident, that the Apostle is not speaking of the « Christian church at large,” as the Doctor affirms, but only of a particular select num- ber, or, in other words, the elect. — | _ Dr. B. declares, that ‘if we cannot explain this _ passage conformably to our Saviour’s doctrine, we « should rather abandon it as unintelligible, than prefer _« the lower authority to the higher.’ Plain language | a. fo ~ 338 indeed! To apply the. epithets higher and lower au- thority to the Holy Scriptures, which were all given by inspiration of God ; and to express a readiness to aban- don any portion of those sacred oracles, savours more of Deism than of Christianity. To do the Doctor jus- tice, however, he must abandon the passage in ques- tion. He must either abandon it or abandon his own favourite hypothesis. He must either abandon at, or admit the doctrine of predestination. against which he preaches so long a sermon. The Calvinist is deter- mined neither to abandon this, nor any other passage of the sacred volume. To the Arian it may appear. unintelligible, and..must appear so, whilst he denies predestination ; not so to the Calvinist. To him it ap- pears ‘a glorious chain of special privileges. extending from eternity to eternity. His view of it is this, That those of the fallen human family, who were the objects of God’s foreknowledge, or of his eternal distinguish- ing love,* he predestinated or Soreordained to be con- formed to Jesus Christ. his Son, not only in suffering, but’ in holmess and happiness. Those same persons whom he thus predestinated, he in due time calls, not only externally by his word, but internally and effi- * Itits generally acknowledged by Divines—those who oppose as well as those who advocate the doctrine of predestination—that foreknowledge in the text implies love or favour. Knowledge is frequently put for love in Scripture. “ You only have I known of all the families of the earth.” Other families of the earth, as well as the Jews, were the objects of God’s simple Knowledge ; but the Jews alone were the objects of his distinguishing love, (Deut. vii. 6, 7, 8,) ‘ The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special ‘* people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the - 339 caciously, by his Spirit. He calls them from dark-' ness to light—from death to life—from Satan to God. ‘He persuades and enables them to embrace’ — “¢ Jesus Christ freely offered to them in the Gospel.’’—— The persons thus effectually called he also justifies. ‘He freely pardons all their sins, and acceptetl of «¢ them as righteous in his sight, only forthe righteous- «ness of Christ imputed to them, and received by ‘« faith alone.”? Those same persons whom -he ‘thus justifies, he finally glorifies. He makes them “ per- “fectly blessed in the full enjoyment of God to: all “* eternity.’ ». A fter ten thousand attempts to torture the passage, this appears to be its plain and. unsophisticated meaning. Nor is the doctrine of particular election, thus plainly taught by the Aposé/e, at all. inconsistent with the doctrine taught by our Saviour. Dr. B. may ‘boldly insinuate that they are inconsistent ; but the in- sinuation is as groundless as it is impious. It appears to me that the doctrine of election and reprobation 18 taught by our Saviour in language nearly, if not a/foge- iher, as explicit as that of the Apostle. ‘ I have other ** sheep,” says he, ‘* that are not of this fold, them “ also must I bring, &c.”’—** All that the Father hath ‘* given to me shall come unto me.—Thow hast given ‘earth. The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, ‘* because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were ‘the fewest of all people. But because the Lord loved you.”—It is to this distinguishing, unmerited love and gracious election that - God refers, when he says “ You only have I known of all the fami- lies of the earth.’ On the same principle, it is to the distinguishing and electing leve of God that the apostle refers, when he says, “Whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate.” 340 ‘© him. power over all flesh, that he may give eternal ‘¢ life to as many as thou hast given him.—I thank thee, ‘©O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast ** hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast ‘s revealed them unto babes; even so Father, for so it *‘seemed good in thy sight.—Rejoice, because your ‘* names are written in heaven.—But ye believe not be- *¢ cause ye are not of my sheep.’ As Dr. Bruce’s commentary on the eighth of the Ro- mans leads into this gross absurdity—that the whole vi- sible church will be saved : to avoid this consequenee, Dr. A. Clarke adopts an ingenious expedient. As Rehoboam substituted shields of brass, instead of the golden shields which Shishack, King of Egypt carried away, so Dr. C. takes away the golden link of eternal glory, and substitutes the brazen. one of temporal pri- vileges ! _ The clause, ‘‘ Them he also glorified,’’ he explains thus ; ‘‘ He has honoured and dignified the «* Gentiles with the highest privileges, _He has ren- ‘« dered them illustrious by innumerable gifts, graces, ‘* and privileges, in the same manner as he had. done ‘¢ to the Israelites of old.’’ ‘Thus, to get rid of Calvin- istic decrees, this learned commentator ‘‘ shrivles into ‘* meagreness’’ the most beautiful passage in the whole book of God. ‘That the word glori ified refers not to temporal. privileges, as the Doctor imagines, but to eternal felicity, -is evident from the antecedent context, (verses 17, 18) ‘ And if children, then heirs; heirs ‘‘ of God, and joint-heirs with Christ ; if so be that we ** suffer with him, that we may be also glorified toge- ‘ther. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present * eee pete See Sener a 341 « ¢ime are not worthy to be compared with the glory ‘«¢ which shall-be revealed in us.’’—The various unsuc- cessful; and contradictory, attempts made by the enemies — of Calvinism to explain the passage in question, are a strong presumptive argument, that the Miabtipiotics in- terpretation is the true one. | | Were the word election in Seana ippheahlas on- ly to nations, but not to individuals, what would our ” opponents gain? It will be said, no doubt, that this. election to external privileges was very different from a particular election to eternal life. ‘To show, however, that the difference is not so great as is generally ima- gined, I would ask were not thousands saved in conse- -quence of this national election, that would mot have been saved had’ they not been elected? This ques- tion, I presume, will be universally answered in the affirmative. No person will venture to maintain, that as small a number of Jews obtained eternal life, as of the surrounding heathen nations of equal extent.— Even Dr, A. Clarke, who affirms, that Esau had as fair a prospect for immortal glory as Jacob, will not be bold enough to assert, that the Edomites had as fair a pros- pect for glory as the Israelites. He will not venture to assert, that as many of the one nation were saved, as of the other. ‘* Happy art thou, O Israel, who 1s like ‘© unto thee, O people, saved by the Lord-?” Salva- tion was of the Jews. ~Now, if thousands of Jews were saved, that would not have been saved had their nation not been elected, all those thousands, what- ever be their number, owe their salvation, their efernal salvation, to election—to a gratuztous election—an election, not of works, but of grace. The same may be said) of those nations’ elected to the enjoyment of Christian privileges.» Are not thousands saved in Bri- tain and Ireland; that would not have been saved had. they been left in'a state of Heathenism ?—To what do all those owe their salvation ?. ‘Tro. THEIR ELECTION—to: the free sovereign and electing iove of God, who pur- posed from all eternity to separate them from the rest of the world, and elected them to the enjoyment of those external privileges, by. the means of which they’ are finally saved. Where now is all the noisy declamation against the doctrine of particular election? “Does it » not recoil on the opponents of the doctrine ? Where is now the loud ‘cry of favouritism and partiality 2? Was there no favouritism or partiality in electing a whole na- tion, whilst all the rest of! the world was “rejected ? whilst all other nations were permitted to walk in their own ways ? Has the Deity shown no favouritism or partiality in electing the various nations of Christen: dom to the enjoyment of the privileges of the Christian Church, whilst all the other nations’of the earth, enve- loped in darkness worse than’ Egyptian, are left ‘* with- «‘ out God and hope in the world 2”? Did the Al- mighty discover no favouritism or. partiality by so loving the world as to send his only begotten Son, that whoso- ever believeth on him should not perish but have ever- lasting life ; whilst a more noble order of beings, who kept not their first state, “‘ were cast down to hell, and © “‘ reserved in chains of darkness till the judgment of the ‘‘ great day ?”’? Let our opponents shew, that the Deity has discovered no favouritism or partiality in these things, and we will show, that he has discovered none in particular election. ‘ oe a i be b ‘ 4 ne ‘The charge of partiality so long and loudly vocifer- _ ated, goes upon the false principle, that. sinners of our family have claims on divine grace and) bounty.) But, even Dr. B. himself being witness, we have no suck claims. |“ Few,?? says ae ‘Doctor, ** very few indeed, ‘‘ are the legal claims which we have upon the divine “ justice, and we have : none upon his bounty ; and yet ‘* infinite are the gifts he has to b stows”? ‘Why then, Task, should any venture to charge the Deity with fa- vouritism and partiality, because he dispenses his own unmerited bounty as he pleases ? To every such objector the Almighty may justly reply, ** Is it not lawful for ‘me to do what I will with mine own? Is ee eye « evil because I am good 2”? The Arminian objection of. partiality leads into Deism. A_ principal objection against revelation. is drawn from its ‘partiality. Deists argue that the Scrip- tuxes cannot be the word of God, because they are not communicated to all; and this, they allege, would make God kL very same objection would lead to Atheism: For, in the works of creation and providence, God does not confer the same favours up- on all. His sovereignty shines i in all his works, and in all his dispensations. | Another objection—an objection on which our oppo- nents seem principally to rely, and which Dr. B. chiefly urges—is, that particular election supersedes the neces- sity of prayer and other means of grace. Why need we pray ? why need we strive ? say our opponents. If we are elected, we shall be saved; but if not, we shall be condemned. Had not the abuuudity of this ob- ‘jection been already pointed out, we ight. retort it thus: If nations me to the enjoyment of Gospel privileges, why need we pray that the Gospel may be sent to the heathen? Why need we form missionary _ societies, for the purpose of sending through the world the glad tidings ¢ of | hig? JOY? athe nations ofa on has elected to enjo ys therefore our pray: e aud missionary ; exertions are alto- gether useless! iB Ae oer * ¥ * ' Pe 1 j P (; e q CHa Oh ER dhl alae Bf neva 4 t s pene sede eg RB ROPE SOR CP eG ’ oe” Qa ar : t it Ke . s{: <= & x 4 a ¥ % Sd ‘a ; % pt ae re « vk ee CHAPTER VIII. * The Perseverance of the Saints. a u T4ar9 Ye Iw the general attack made by Dr. B. on almost all the fundamental truths of Christianity, we could not expect the doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance to escape. He has assailed i it, not only. incidentally, in his Sermons, to hold it _up to detestation and con- tempt i in ee pret iah With the abominable Anti- nomian gue which he has» given, we have no . B. himself does not hold those ‘hisuitions Ae Sreatet abhorrence than we do, How- ever foolishly, impiously, or blasphemously, Antino- mians may ‘talk or write on the subject; no doctrine in the sacred volume is capable of a more seiiaihaite vaste Out of an immense mass of evi- dence, I shall lay before my readers. a few of those reasons which induce me to believe the doctrine. 1. Tome it appears, that a multitude of texts of Serip- tice must be false, if the doctrine of perseverance is not true. I shall mention a few.—Our Saviour asserts, ‘¢ He that believeth shall be saved,”” but Dr. Bruce as- -serts, and all Anti-Calvinists assert, that believers may fall 44: 346 from a state of grace and be condemned !—Our Saviour asserts, that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish, and that his. ‘sheep shall never perish, nor be plucked out of his hand :* but Dr. B. and all Anti-Calvinists as- sert, that believers may perish, and that Christ’s sheep may be plucked out of his hand! Our Saviour assures us with a double verily, that the believer “ shall not “come into condemnation, but a8 passed from death “ unto life ;? but Dr. Bruce, and all Anti-Calvinists, assure us, that he may come into condemnation, and never see life! Our Saviour will say to the wicked at the great day, ‘‘ Depart from me, I never knew you.” Had any of those addressed fallen away from a state of | grace, the Kedeemer’s declaration would not be true ! / —ii would not be true that he had never known them ! From these: counter-declarations Task two questions : ; 1, Whether should we believe our blessed. Redeemer, or Dr. B. ‘and other opponents of the Saints’ perseverance ? —2, Does the Doctor’s volume of Sermons deserve that high character which he himself has given iti ? is it “ consistent with the Gospel : Pr Agreeable to the above- cited déclaitions! of the Re. deemer are those of the Apostles. The Apostle John declares, ‘‘ That he that doth evil hath not Ben God, y and that ‘“ Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, nei- “ther known him.”—Now, if the doctrine of perseve- rance is not érue, these texts are false. If any fall away ies a state of ¢ grace, commit sin, and do” evil, it On a A RL RS . F : rs ™ = * If they do not assert ix so many words, that Christ's sheep may be plucked out of his hands, hey. assert Wi is fully equi- valent. 347 is not true, that they have not seen God, neither known him. ‘Dr, B., and other opponents of the Saints’ per- severance, maintain, that a man may — have seen God and. also known him, and after all he may fall away, ‘commit sin,’ “do evil,” and finally perish. Be- tween. this doctrine and that of the Apostle, is there i a flat contradiction ? Surely there is. i _ 2, The doctrine of the Saints’ perseverance rests on pos add basis of the divine perfections. The foreknow- ledge of God proves the doctrine. ‘‘ God hath not ‘cast off his people whom he foreknew.”? ‘ Whom “he did foreknow he also did predestinate, and whom “he did predestinate them he also called, and whom «he called them he also justified, and whom he justi- “fied them he also glorified.’ ‘Unless. this golden © chain can be broken, the Saints’ perseverance, cannot be denied. The Apostle’ s chain is what logicians de- nominate a sorites. The conclusion is not expressed, it is this: therefore whom he did foreknow them he also glorified. If this conclusion be denied, then the Apostle’s s chain is not a sorites, but a sophism! If it be admitied, the doctrine of the Samts’ perseverance is fully established. Some Divines, with a boldness bordering on impiety, attempt to break the Apostle’s chain. Were: they to succeed, they would prove— What >that the SRosticy! is an inconclusive a Argh: tical reasoner ! The omnipotent power of. God secures the final per- iakaid of the Saints. They are ‘‘ kept by the power «of God through faith unto salvation.””—The lowe of God and the Redeemer secure the Saints’ perseverance. Whom the Redeemer loves ‘* he loves unto the end." 348 God loved believers with an everlasting love—draws them with loving kindness—declares that his loving kindness shall not depart from them—and, accordingly; the Apostle exclaims, (Rom. viii. 35) “ Who shall sepas ‘* rate us from the love of Christ? shall. tribulation, or “¢ distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or “‘ peril, or sword? As it is written, For ieics didn hoe “are killed all the day long ; we are accounted as sheep “‘for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are ‘more than conquerors through him that loved us:— ‘< For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor “angels, nor principalities, nor. powers, nor things: ‘* present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, “ nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us “‘ from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our 6¢. Lord. 93 . \ : * ae ce eae 3. I believe the doctrine of ‘uni perseverance of the Saints, because they are ‘* members of his body, of his _“ flesh, and of his bones.”* Could any of those mem- bers be torn off, the mystical body of the Redeemer would be amaimed and mutilated body! It would not be ot ior and glorious, but unsightly and deformed !. . L believe that none of the Saints shall ever fail of hacen the heavenly inheritance, because their char. ter to ‘that inheritance is the very same with that of the Redeemer himself... They are ‘‘heirs of God and «‘ joint heirs with Christ.’”’ If the Redeemer’s charter be good, so is theirs. If his charter cannot. be bro-— ken, neither can theirs. Their lives are hid with Christ in God. Because he lives, they shall live also. 5. I believe that the Saints cannot totally and finally fall away from a state of grace, or fail of obtaining the RS ee SS aie ees ee ara rt ot et Be ony eS Cnn I 5 ae aR NI a Se aS 349 heavenly inheritance ; because they have ¢he first fruits and earnest of that inheritance. If an earnest: gives — security among men, much more so with God. —Men may refuse to make good that bargain which they have — confirmed by giving earnest ; but God will not tanta- lize his creatures by first giving them the Holy Spirit as" the earnest of their inheritance, and afterwards exelu- ding them from the full possession. | ~ 6. I believe that the Saints cannot finally fall away. from a state of grace; because “they are sealed by ** the holy spirit of promise—sealed to the day of re- “© demption.’’ - ‘They cannot fall away and be lost, ex- cept the broad seal of heaven can be broken ! | 7. I believe in the perseverance of the Saints, be- cause I believe that ‘* he who begins the good work of ** grace, will carry it on to perfection.” Ibelieve that the Deity is not like the foolish man, who began to build and was not able to finish. When God threatened to destroy the Israelites for their rebellion, Moses inter- cedes thus: (Deut. ix. 26, 27, 28, 29) *O Lord “God, destroy not thy people and thine inheritance ‘‘ which thou hast redeemed through thy greatness, ‘‘ which thou. hast brought forth out of Egypt with a ‘‘ mighty hand. Remember thy servants, Abraham, — ‘¢ Isaac and Jacob; look not unto the stubbornness of ‘‘ this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin : «Lest the land whence thou broughtest us out say, ‘*. Because the Lord was not able to bring them into the «‘Jand which he promised them, and because he hated ‘them, he hath brought them out to slay them in the “‘ wilderness: Yet they are thy people and thine inhe- Cae A) Sa ty z oil i f 5 . % mT ‘ > . a 350. _“ritance, which thou broughtest out by thy mighty ‘¢ power and by thy stretched out’ arm.’’—On similar principles, Joshua intercedes : (Josh. vii. 7, 8, 9)‘ Alas, *“Q Lord God, wherefore hast thou at. all brought ** this people over Jordan, to deliver us into the hand ‘cof the Amorites, to destroy us? would to God:we ‘‘ had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jor- «dan! O Lord, what shall I say, when Israel turneth “ their backs before their enemies! For the Canaanites “and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of it, ‘sand shall environ us round, and cut off our name ‘from the earth: and what wilt thou do unto thy great “ name 2”?—If it would have reflected dishonour on the great name of God, to redeem the Israelites out of Egypt, and then to destroy them in the Wilderness ; still more inconsistent with the divine perfections would it be, to suffer those to fall and finally — whom God has redeemed from sin and Satan. ~. 8. Finally ;* if the Saints might totally and finally fall from grace, their state now under the covenant of grace would be worse than it was under the covenant of works. Under the covenant of works the happiness. of 1man was suspended on the free will of an znnocent: being; but, according to the doctrine of those who. deny the Saints’ perseverance, it is suspended ‘on the free will of a weak, corrupt, and depraved being !— Men may fall away from an external profession of re- ligion, but not from true faith. ‘* From: him that ‘hath not,” says our Saviour, ‘shall be taken away ed ¥P eae pee ee. « I might. have ebb the docyane’ from the death of Bir his surety ship—his intercession—and a variety of other topics. Pe SS =) ae eee - a Vie ne at ot) cia ees Se a <> 351 - ‘that which he hath;” or, as it is explained, ‘‘ that ‘“‘ which he seemeth to have.” ‘* They went out from — “us,” says the Apostle John, ‘“ but they were not of © ‘us; for ifthey had been of us, they would have no ‘© do doubt continued with us: but they went out, “© that they might be made manifest that they were not ‘all of us.” | ERRATA. Page 15, line 19, for metaphysicial read metaphysical. P. 21, foot note, line 3, for poinard read poniard. -P. 41, line 6 from bottom, after off insert from. P. 50, line 16, for Scriptures read Scripture. P. 145, line 4 from bottom, for above read alone. P. 155, line 14 from bottom, for cxxxi. read CXXXIX. P, 158, line 5, cancel either on the offender, or. P. 211, line 4 from bottom, cancel be. P. 329, line 11 from bot. for self-contrdictory read self contradictory. P. 334, line 9 from bot. for treats read treat. P 334, line 1 from ee for brand swith read brands with. nceton Theological Seminary-Speer Library DATE DUE P a vAtiie HIGHSMITH #45115 Set eae Serene Siete : Seat pak ze : pee Sees tcoay se eoars mer eres papewnag