SECTION IX.

An answer to the charges of robbing the trinity, and encouraging Deism, which charges Mr. T. brings against the doctrine of the anti-Cal

vinists.

MR. T. thinks his cause so good, that he supposes himself able, not only to stand on the defensive, but also to attack the Gospel which we preach. From his Babel, therefore, (his strong tower of confusion,) he makes a bold sally, and charges us thus :

ARG. LXII. Page 91. "Arminianism robs the Father of his sovereignty." This is a mistake: Arminianism dares not attribute to him the grim sovereignty of a Nero; but if it does not humbly allow him all the sovereignty which Scripture and reason ascribe to him, so far it is wrong, and so far we oppose Pelagian Arminianism as well as Manichean Calvinism. It "robs the Father of his decrees." This is a mistake it reverences all his righteous, Scriptural decrees; though it shudders at the thought of imputing to him unscriptural, Calvinian decrees, more wicked and absurd than the decrees of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius. It "robs the Father of his providence." Another mistake! Our doctrine only refuses to make God the author of sin, and to lead men to the Pagan error of fatalism, or to the Manichean error of a two-principled God, who absolutely works all things in all men, as a showman works all things in his puppets; fixing his necessary virtue on the good, and necessary wickedness on the wicked, to the subversion of all the Divine perfections, and to the entire overthrow of the second Gospel axiom, of Christ's tribunal, and of the wisdom and justice which the Scriptures ascribe to God, as "Judge of the whole earth."

ARG. LXIV. (Ibid.) "It [Arminianism] robs the Son of his efficacy as a Saviour." Another mistake! It only dares not pour upon him the shame of being the absolute reprobater of myriads of unborn creatures, whose nature he assumed with a gracious design to be absolutely their temporary Saviour; promising to prove their eternal Saviour upon Gospel terms: and, accordingly, he saves all mankind with a temporary salvation; and those who obey him with an eternal salvation. The EFFICACY of his blood is then complete, so far as he absolutely designed it should be.

ARG. LXV. (Ibid.) "It [Arminianism] robs the Spirit of his efficacy as a Sanctifier." By no means; for it maintains that the Spirit, which is the grace and light of Christ, "enlightens every man that comes into the world," and leads the worst of men to some temporary good, or at least restrains them from the commission of a thousand crimes. So far the Spirit's grace is efficacious in all; and, if it is not completely and eternally efficacious in those who "harden their hearts, and by their wilful hardness treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath," it is because "the day of wrath," for which the wicked were*

* All angels and men were PRIMARILY made to enjoy an "accepted time," and a temporary "day of salvation." Those angels and men, who know and improve their day of salvation, were SECONDARILY made for the day of remunerative love, and for a kingdom" prepared for them from the beginning of the world." But those angels and men, who do not know and improve their day of salvation, were SECONDARILY made for "the day of retributive wrath," and for the "fire prepared. for the devil and his angels."

secondarily made, is to be "the day of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds," Rom. ii, 5, 6; and not the day of the unrighteous judgment of Calvin, who (doctrinally) renders to every man according to a finished salvation in Christ, productive of necessary goodness; and according to a finished damnation in Adam, productive of remediless wickedness, and all its dreadful

consequences.

ARG. LXVI. Page 92. Mr. Toplady produces a long quotation from Mr. Sloss, which, being divested of the verbose dress in which error generally appears, amounts, to this plain abridged argument: "If the doctrine of Calvinian election be false, because all mankind are not the objects of that election, and because all men have an equal right to the Divine favour, it follows that infidels are right when they say that the Jewish and the Christian revelations are false: for all mankind are not elected to the favour of having the Old and New Testament; and therefore Arminianism encourages infidelity."

This argument is good to convince Pelagian levellers that God is partial in the distribution of his talents, and that he indulges Jews and Christians with a holy, peculiar election and calling, of which those who never heard of the Bible are utterly deprived. I have myself made this remark in the Essay on the gratuitous election, and partial reproba tion which St. Paul frequently preaches: but the argument does not affect our anti-Calvinian Gospel. For, 1. We do not say that the Calvinian election is false, because it supposes that God is peculiarly gracious to some men; (for this we strongly assert, as well as the Calvinists;) but because it supposes that God is so PECULIARLY gracious to some men, as to be ABSOLUTELY MERCILESS and unjust to all the rest of mankind.

2. That very revelation, which Mr. Sloss thinks we betray to the Deists, informs us, that though all men are not indulged with the peculiar blessings of Judaism and Christianity, yet they are all chosen and called to be righteous, at least, according to the covenants made with fallen Adam and spared Noah. Hence St. Peter says, that, "in every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness [according to his light, though it should be only the lowest degree of that light, which enlightens every man that cometh into the world] is accepted of him :" and St. Paul speaks of some "Gentiles, who, though they have not the law of Moses or the law of Christ, do by nature [in its state of initial restoration through the seed of life given to fallen Adam in the promise] the things contained in the law, and are a law unto themselves; showing the work of the law, written in their hearts." Therefore, though there is a gratuitous election, which draws after it a gratuitous reprobation from the blessings peculiar to Judaism and Christianity; there is no Calvinian election, which draws after it a gratuitous reprobation from all saving grace, and necessarily involves the greatest part of mankind in unavoidable damnation. Hence, if I mistake not, it appears that when Mr. Sloss charges us with "having contributed to the prevailing Deism of the present time, by furnishing the adversaries of Divine revelation with arguments against Christianity," he (as well as Mr. Toplady) gratuitously imputes to our doctrine, what really belongs to Calvinism. For there is a perfect agreement between the absolute necessity of events,

which is asserted by Calvinian bound willers; and that which is maintained by Deistical fatalists: and it is well known that the horrors of the absolute reprobation which the Calvinists fancy they see in Romans ix, have tempted many moralists, who read that chapter with the reprobating glosses of Calvin and his followers, to bid adieu to revelation; it being impossible that a scheme of doctrine, which represents God as the absolute reprobater of myriads of unborn infants, should have the Parent of good, and the God of love for its author.

SECTION X.

An answer to the arguments by which Mr. Toplady attempts to retort the charge of Antinomianism, and to show that Calvinism is more conducive to holiness than the opposite doctrine.

MR. HILL asserts that Mr. T. "retorts all our objections upon us in a most masterly manner." Let us see how he retorts the objection which we make to absolute predestination-a doctrine this, by which necessary holiness is imposed upon the elect, and necessary wickedness upon the reprobates. How the fixing unavoidable holiness upon a minority, and unavoidable wickedness upon a majority of mankind, is reconcilable with the glory of Divine holiness, Mr. Toplady informs us in the following argument :

ARG. LXVII. Pages 93, 94. Calvinian "election insures holiness to a very great part of mankind: whereas precarious grace, deriving all its efficacy from the caprice of free will, could not insure holiness to any one individual of the whole species." Had Mr. T. stated the case properly, he would have said, Calvinian election, which insures necessary holiness to a minority of mankind; and Calvinian reprobation, which insures necessary wickedness to a majority of mankind, promote human sanctity more than the partial election of grace, which formerly afforded the Jews, and now affords the Christians abundant helps to be peculiarly holy under their dispensations of peculiar grace: yea, more than the impartial election of justice, which, under all the dispensations of Divine grace, "chooses the man that is godly" to rewards of grace and glory: and more than the reprobation of justice, which is extended to none but such as bury their talent of grace by wilful unbelief and voluntary disobedience.

If Mr. T. had thus stated the case, according to his real sentiments and ours, every candid reader would have seen that our doctrines of

The author of A Letter to an Arminian Teacher, (a letter this which I have quoted in a preceding note,) advances the same argument in these words, p. 5: The doctrine of eternal [he means Calvinian] election," for we believe the right, godly, eternal election maintained in the Scriptures, "concludes God more mer. ciful than the Arminian doctrine of supposed universal redemption, because that doctrine which absolutely ascertains the regeneration, effectually calling, the sanctification, &c, as well as the eternal salvation of an innumerable company, &c, Rev. vii, 9, must represent God more merciful than the Arminian scheme, which cannot ascertain the eternal salvation of one man now living," &c. As it is possible to kill two birds with one stone, I hope that my answer to Mr. Top. lady will satisfy Mr. M'Gowan.

grace are far more conducive to human sanctity than those of Calvin: (1.) Because Calvinism insures human sanctity to none of the elect: for a sanctity which is as necessary to a creature, as motion is to a moved puppet, is not the sanctity of a free agent; and, of consequence, it is not human sanctity. (2.) Because Calvinism insures remediless wickedness to all the reprobate, and remediless wickedness, can never be "human sanctity."

With respect to what Mr. T. says, that our doctrines of grace do "not insure holiness to any one individual of the whole species;" if by insured holiness, he means a certain salvation without any work of faith and labour of love, he is greatly mistaken: for our Gospel absolutely insures such a salvation, and of consequence infant holiness, to that numerous part of mankind who die in their infancy. Nay, it absolutely insures a seed of redeeming, sanctifying grace to all mankind, so long as the day of grace or initial salvation lasts; for we maintain, as well as St. Paul, that "the free gift is come upon all men to justification of life," Rom. v, 18; and we assert, as well as our Lord, that "of such [of infants] is the kingdom of heaven," and therefore some capacity to enjoy it, which capacity we believe to be inseparably connected with a seed of holiness. Add to this, that our Gospel, as well as Calvinism, insures eter. nal salvation to all the adult who are "faithful unto death." According to our doctrine, "these sheep shall never perish:" to these elect of justice, who "make their election of grace sure" by obedience, Christ "gives eternal life" in the fullest sense of the word: and "none shall pluck them out of his hand." If Mr. T. had placed our Gospel in this true light, his objection would have appeared as just as the rhodomontade of Goliah, when he was going to despatch David.

ARG. LXVIII. Page 94. Mr. T. tries to make up the Antinomian gap, by doing that which borders upon giving up Calvinism. "No man (says he) according to our system, has a right to look upon himself as elected, till sanctifying grace has converted him to faith and good works."

This flimsy salvo has quieted the fears of many godly Calvinists, when the Antinomianism of their system stared them in the face. To show the absurdity of this evasion, I need only ask, Has not every man a right to believe truth? If I am absolutely elected to eternal life, while I commit adultery and murder, while I defile my father's wife, and deny my Saviour with oaths and curses; why may not I believe it? Is there one sentence of Scripture which commands me to believe a lie, or forbids me to believe the truth? "O, but you have no right to believe yourself elected, till sanctifying grace has converted you to faith and good works." Then it follows, that, as an adult sinner, I am not elected to the reward of the inheritance, or to eternal life in glory, till I believe and do good works: or it follows that I have no right to believe the truth. If Mr. T. affirm that I have no right to believe the truth, he makes himself ridiculous before all the world: and if he say that I am not absolutely elected till I am converted to faith and good works, it follows that every time I am perverted from faith and good works, I forfeit my election of justice. Thus, under the guidance of Mr. T. himself, I escape the fatal rock of Calvinian election, and find myself in the safe harbour of old, practical Christianity: "Ye know that no whoremonger, nor unclean

person, nor covetous man, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God: let no man deceive you with vain words." For if I have no right to believe myself an heir of God, and a joint heir with Christ, while I turn whoremonger; it is evident that whoredom deprives me of my right; much more adultery and murder. Hence it appears that Mr. T. cannot prop up the Calvinian ark, but by flatly contradicting St. Paul, which is a piece of impiety; and by asserting that elect whoremongers have no right to believe the truth while they commit whoredom, which is a glaring absurdity.

ARG. LXIX. Page 95. After having made up the Antinomian gap, by giving up either Calvinian election, or the incontestable right which every man has to believe the truth, Mr. Toplady tries to retort the charge of Antinomianism upon our doctrines of grace; and he does it by producing one "Thomson, who, when he was in a fit of intemper. ance, if any one reminded him of the wrath of God, threatened against such courses, would answer, I am a child of the devil to-day; but I have free will; and to-morrow I will make myself a child of God."

To this I answer: (1.) The man spoke like a person "in a fit of intemperance," and there is no reasoning with such, any more than with mad men. But Dr. Crisp, when he was sober, and in the pulpit too, could say, "A believer may be assured of pardon as soon as he commits any sin, even adultery and murder. Sins are but scarescrows and bugbears to frighten ignorant children, but men of understanding see they are counterfeit things:" and indeed it must be so, if, as Mr. Toplady tells us, Whatever is, is right, and necessarily flows from the predestinating will of Him who does all things well.

2. This Thomson (as appears by his speech) was a rigid free willer; one who discarded the first Gospel axiom, and the doctrine of free grace; and therefore his error does not affect our Gospel. Nay, we oppose such free willers as much as we do the rigid bound willers who discard the second Gospel axiom, and the necessity of sincere obedience in order to our judicial justification, and eternal salvation.

3. If Thomson had been sober and reasonable, Mr. Wesley might easily have made up the pretended Antinomian gap of Arminianism five different ways: (1.) By showing him, that although free will may reject a good motion, yet it cannot raise one without free grace; and therefore, to say, "To-morrow I will make myself a child of God," is as absurd in a man, as it would be in a woman, to say, "To-morrow I will conceive alone." It is as impious as to say, "To-morrow I will absolutely command God, and he shall obey me.' (2.) By showing him his imminent danger, and the horror of his present state, which he himself acknowledged when he said, "I am a child of the devil to-day." (3.) By arguing the uncertain length of the day of salvation. Grace gives us no room to depend upon to-morrow; its constant language being, "Now is the accepted time." (4.) By pressing the hardening nature of presumptuous sin. And, (5.) By displaying the terrors of just wrath, which frequently says, "Take the talent from him. Because ye refused, I will be avenged. I give thee up to thy own heart's lusts, to a reprobate mind. Thou fool! this night shall thy soul be required of thee." These are five rational and Scriptural ways of making up the supposed Antinomian gap of our Gospel. But if Mr. Thomson had been a Calvinist,